Is there any defensible value to "eugenics" in this day and age?

[The_Man_In_Black]

Khaaaaaan!

[Tristan]

I could see, at some point, it becoming “fashionable” to modify ones offspring to get a pre-determined phenotype. Hell, we do it to ourselves all the time, just not at a genetic level.

I can see the salon of the future, with it’s clean room where a person can come in, get a massage while their genes are sequenced, then they get the IV drip for a few hours while they relax and get a mani-pedi.

Within weeks of the spa treatment and genetic infusion, their hair has begun growing in blond and curly, instead of brown and straight. The eyes have started shifting from green to blue. Their skin tone darkens naturally to a golden brown (or pales to the same).

If we can control things to that level, there will be some court battles, I am sure, to try to figure out where the line is. What if Joe Average guy saves up and wants to get his genes altered to make him taller, or more muscular? Is that ok? How about if someone wants bony spurs projecting out of their body? Ears that resemble cat ears? A tail? Vision that ranges into the Infrared, or UV (which would allow someone in certain circumstances to see through clothing, sort of)?

[Spit]

@Tristan

I could see, at some point, it becoming “fashionable” to modify ones offspring to get a pre-determined phenotype. Hell, we do it to ourselves all the time, just not at a genetic level.

I was part of an airport bar discussion about this last week- It will be one thing when we can changes the genetics of our offspring, but at first (Such as now) we will only be able to tell what problems the offspring will have, not how to fix it.

So if you found out your child was going to have a terrible genetic abnormality, would you go ahead an abort the fetus? What if being a pedophile is determined to be a genetic quirk? Being gay? Should there be laws stating that is okay to terminate one fetus, but not the other? How the hell do you write those?

[Ashley_Pomeroy]

@BrainGlutton

… improved public education, health, sanitation and nutrition. Those are more sensible things to focus on, aren’t they?

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there.

My inarguable counter-argument to eugenics is this: horses have been selectively bred since the beginning of human history, thousands of years, and yet they’re still stupid. How many symphonies have horses written? None. Not even bad symphonies - no symphonies at all. Was Carl Sagan a horse? No, he was not. And neither was Mozart. Can horses drive cars? They cannot.

Yeah, I know what you’re going to say. Horses don’t need to drive cars, they can just run wherever they want because they’re fast. You think you’re smart, smarty-pants, so answer this; what if they want to drive underwater? Eh? Submarines, that’s what I’m talking about. You ever seen a horse on a submarine? Eh? Have you? Eh?

CASE CLOSED.

[BrainGlutton]

@Ashley_Pomeroy

My inarguable counter-argument to eugenics is this: horses have been selectively bred since the beginning of human history, thousands of years, and yet they’re still stupid.

Is this a whoosh? Horses have not been bred for intelligence, after all.

[BrainGlutton]

@Tristan

I could see, at some point, it becoming “fashionable” to modify ones offspring to get a pre-determined phenotype. Hell, we do it to ourselves all the time, just not at a genetic level.

I can see the salon of the future, with it’s clean room where a person can come in, get a massage while their genes are sequenced, then they get the IV drip for a few hours while they relax and get a mani-pedi.

Within weeks of the spa treatment and genetic infusion, their hair has begun growing in blond and curly, instead of brown and straight. The eyes have started shifting from green to blue. Their skin tone darkens naturally to a golden brown (or pales to the same).

If we can control things to that level, there will be some court battles, I am sure, to try to figure out where the line is. What if Joe Average guy saves up and wants to get his genes altered to make him taller, or more muscular? Is that ok? How about if someone wants bony spurs projecting out of their body? Ears that resemble cat ears? A tail? Vision that ranges into the Infrared, or UV (which would allow someone in certain circumstances to see through clothing, sort of)?

What? Oh, there’s no debate there at all. It would be ontologically uberkewl.

If it were possible. I don’t think anybody even has a theoretical approach in mind (yet) for genetically/phenotypically retrofitting an adult organism. If we have gene-engineering and you want blonde hair for yourself, not your kid, there’s still no technology for that but hydrogen peroxide.

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

Eugenics’ goal is to improve the genetic composition of a population. It is indefensible because its aims do not reflect what we actually know about the maintenance of genetic variation in a population. It therefore restricts freedom of individuals to associate and make decisions about their bodies while being doomed to fail at the intended goal.

All discussions of optimizing specific decisions to reproduce are not eugenics. It’s simple assortative mating. It’s what we’ve been doing since sexual reproduction first evolved. The only difference now is that the couples doing the reproduction now have some tools to exert more control of the product of these matings. One couple’s baby is not a population. One couple’s decision to reproduce or not is not a social policy. Individual decisions on reproduction are not eugenics.

[BrainGlutton]

Uh, my name is, uh, Eugene . . .

[Freudian_Slit]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Of course most religious conservatives don’t support genetic engineering so I don’t think you need to worry. And would you object to people making their children compulsively socialist or generating nyphomaniacs?

Considering we don’t even recognize nymphomania as a disorder anymore, it would be pretty hard to breed for it.

[drewtwo99]

As a public school teacher I’ve joked about the idea of a “parenting license” which brushes on some of the issues you’re bringing up. I think that while there are probably genetic components to intelligence and overall mental capabilities, a far more important factor is parental upbringing. If we could somehow ensure that all parents were fit to be good parents and license them appropriately, I think it’d eliminate or reduce drastically the problems we’re talking about.

Of course, how to implement such a system fairly seems impossible. And also, we have driver’s licenses but we still have hundreds of thousands of accidents per year and billions of dollars of damage and health claims, so, a licensing system might not work all that well in the long run.

[BrainGlutton]

@Freudian_Slit

Considering we don’t even recognize nymphomania as a disorder anymore, it would be pretty hard to breed for it.

Oh, don’t be such a downer! There’s always hope! For Science!

[embleerrah]

@BrainGlutton

And then there’s the argument that it is simply hubristic to presume we know what heredity is best for our descendants anyway. Maybe, in terms of long-term survival and thriving of the human race, high IQ isn’t quite all it’s cracked up to be. There’s even controversy over what IQ measures, or whether it measures anything important or relevant.

…and to repeat my post on another thread. It is also hubris to assume that we know what breeding will produce the desired outcomes. Genetics is still pretty much a closed shop to us in spite of our discoveries. Breeding intelligent people may also risk an increase in numbers of autistic children.

http://www.nature.com/news/specials/autism/index.html

So we then not only have to consider selective breeding, but also embryo selection/culling.

It all gets a bit morally tortured, in my opinion.

[jackdavinci]

@BrainGlutton

How is eugenics being practiced even in a minor way now?

There’s currently genetic testing available for both IVF and conventional pregnancies (and for the parents), and no ban on the use of this information. And of course general physical attraction. So people have the choice to practice eugenics consciously or subconsciously at the level of the individual, which is where it makes the most sense ethically.

[Kobal2]

@BrainGlutton

How is eugenics being practiced even in a minor way now?

You have sex with hot people/people who appeal to you (and, whether you know it or not, appeal to your genes).

[QUOTE=Qin Shi Huangdi]
Simple natural selection-hence why I shall share the same fate as Sir Isaac Newton
[/QUOTE]

You’re gonna get smacked in the head by falling apples ? That’s not genetic, I don’t think. It might end up being natural selection if the apple is really big I suppose.

[florez]

@Kobal2

You have sex with hot people/people who appeal to you (and, whether you know it or not, appeal to your genes).

My late husband was tall, native, dark, intelligent and we had a beautiful daughter together who is tall, native, dark, intelligent.

I must have been practicing eugenics in a way, because I decided not to marry my first love who was short, and decided in favor of the tall guy.

I think at some level I really did want to put some height into our family tree, but I was also very much attracted to and in love with my husband

[YogSothoth]

I don’t favor eugenics because I don’t want a lot of perfect looking people running around. More competition for me. I really see no reason why humanity, all 6+ billion of us, need to be healthy, hot, supermen and women. With ugly and weak people around, a lot of us look better by comparison.

Oh, and too Nazi-ish in my opinion. No way to prevent horrible abuses. But my priority is less competition.

[FriarTed]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Simple natural selection-hence why I shall share the same fate as Sir Isaac Newton and Samuel Tilden.

Note to Qin: Stay in decent shape, strive to look & dress your best, and watch for the unspectacular, smart “nerdy” girls. Those were my three big mistakes when I was your age. I was fat & slovenly then & things have not improved except for the slovenly part, and I was after the high status hotties. But the teen movies are right in one thing- behind the armloads of books, the bangs or braids, & the big glasses, there are plenty of hotties incognito.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@New_Deal_Democrat

I can think of two reasons: over population, computer technology reduces the value of work that can be done by those of below average intelligence.

At the very least we should replace Aid to Families with Dependent Children with free abortion on demand.

Why do we need to replace welfare with free abortions? Why can’t we do both? After all, according to your theories, a free abortion is tantamount to saving a lifetime of welfare payments.

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

I thought you were pro-life.

AFAICT, aside from his theories on race, he is generally a big government socialist.

@FriarTed

Note to Qin: Stay in decent shape, strive to look & dress your best, and watch for the unspectacular, smart “nerdy” girls. Those were my three big mistakes when I was your age. I was fat & slovenly then & things have not improved except for the slovenly part, and I was after the high status hotties. But the teen movies are right in one thing- behind the armloads of books, the bangs or braids, & the big glasses, there are plenty of hotties incognito.

The problem with high chasing hotties in high school is that they frequently don’t turn out to be so hot later on in life. Date in high school to have fun not find your life partner but do date. I’ve seen too many guys become socially stunted by not dating enough (or at all) in high school.

[BrainGlutton]

RationalWiki on eugenics:

The absurdity of eugenics

Eugenics is not a valid science (just in case the pseudoscience sidebar didn’t tip you off). The most obvious flaw with eugenics is that it conflates phenotypical traits with genotypical traits. Even seemingly “fit” humans (or any species) may carry recessive traits that don’t exhibit themselves but will be passed on.

While eugenics targeted more than just the “inferior” races (e.g., lower classes, the “feeble-minded,” and other assorted and alleged riff-raff), racial purity was very often an element in eugenecist works. Eugenics drew heavily from various racist and racialist tracts of the period. This concept of “purity” is also flawed in that it creates many of the same problems as inbreeding — a loss of biodiversity can in fact lead to increased susceptibility to disease.

The extreme reductionism of eugenics often crossed into what is now comical territory. Nearly every social behavior, including things such as “pauperism” and the vaguely defined “feeble-mindedness,” could be traced back to a single gene according to eugenecists. Many works of eugenics recall the similar trend evident in phrenology (indeed, there was some overlap between eugenics and phrenology).[17]

The development of the field of epigenetics, i.e. heritable environmental factors in genetic expression that occur without change to underlying DNA structures, poses further problems for eugenics.

While eugenics gained widespread support in the early 20th century even within the scientific community of a number of nations, there was also strong opposition during this period.[18] The biologist Raymond Pearl, for example, once a supporter of the movement, turned against it in the late 1920s.[19] The geneticist Lancelot Hogben argued that eugenics relied on a false dichotomy of “nature vs. nurture” and that it infected science with political value judgments.[20] Clarence Darrow famously denounced it as a “cult.”[21] The Carnegie Institute, which initially funded the Eugenics Record Office, withdrew its funding after a review of its research, leading to its closing in 1939.[22]

Stephen J. Gould was strongly opposed to eugenics. He wrote extensively on the topic, including his treatment on intelligence in The Mismeasure of Man.

<snip>

17.↑ VL Hilts. Obeying the laws of hereditary descent: phrenological views on inheritance and eugenics. J Hist Behav Sci. 1982 Jan;18(1):62-77.
18.↑ GE Allen. Eugenics and modern biology: critiques of eugenics, 1910-1945. Ann Hum Genet. 2011 May;75(3):314-25.
19.↑ Raymond Pearl’s “Mingled Mess”, Johns Hopkins Magazine
20.↑ Sahotra Sarkar. Lancelot Hogben, 1895-1975. Genetics, 142, 655-660 (March, 1996)
21.↑ “The Eugenics Cult,” in Closing Arguments: Clarence Darrow on Religion, Law, and Society, ed. S.T. Joshi. [3] Reprint in Thoughts in a Haystack.
22.↑ Eugenics in New York, University of Vermont

[Chen019]

@BrainGlutton

Eugenics. On the one hand, it always and fairly calls the Nazis to mind nowadays. On the other hand, we’ve all seen Idiocracy. On the gripping hand, it always seems just about impossible, even now, to disentangle the whole thing from racism.

IQ-related eugenics might be a solution to a nonproblem anyway, see the Flynn Effect. And genetic engineering might render the whole thing moot within our lifetimes – no need to “cull” the “inferior” if we can tweak their offspring’s DNA just a bit. They’ll still be the same color and everything else, just smarter and healthier than they might have been otherwise.

And then there’s the argument that it is simply hubristic to presume we know what heredity is best for our descendants anyway. Maybe, in terms of long-term survival and thriving of the human race, high IQ isn’t quite all it’s cracked up to be. There’s even controversy over what IQ measures, or whether it measures anything important or relevant.

As well as whether environment plays a greater role than heredity. I read in The Bell Curve Wars that a lot of Third-World countries have raised their average IQ a full standard deviation since WWII, without any changes in their gene-pools – it’s all down to improved public education, health, sanitation and nutrition. Those are more sensible things to focus on, aren’t they?

Still, heredity is a real thing, and it is simply a Bad Thing for kids to be born with hereditary mental retardation and/or physical/health defects if that is preventable.

For my part, I’ve been going back and forth on this question for decades. You can tell. On balance, I come down on the anti- side.

You might find this e-book of interest. It discusses the history of eugenics in the US and elsewhere and possible future developments.

Evolutionary selection has been radically relaxed in the human species as a result of the development of civilization, science in general, and medicine in particular. While these advances have hugely benefited current populations, they have to a significant degree released the species from the biological process which created it and maintains its viability. Formerly, natural selection took place largely as a result of differential mortality, but now that most people survive well beyond their child bearing years, selection is determined largely by differential fertility. Aside from genetic illnesses, this new selection is also characterized by a negative correlation between fertility and intelligence–the core of eugenic concern for over a century.

Eugenics views itself as the fourth leg of the chair of civilization, the other three being a) a thrifty expenditure of natural resources, b) mitigation of environmental pollution, and c) maintenance of a human population not exceeding the planet’s carrying capacity. Eugenics, which can be thought of as human ecology, is thus part and parcel of the environmental movement. Humanity is defined, not as the totality of the currently living population, but as the number of people who will potentially ever live. This is a book about the struggle for human rights and parental responsibility.

John Glad is a retired professor of Russian studies, having taught at Rutgers University, the University of Chicago, the University of Iowa, and the University of Maryland. He is also the former Director of the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies in the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, in Washington, D.C. A Guggenheim grant recipient, he is the author, editor, or translator of twenty books, some of which have been honored in the American Book Awards. Future Human Evolution is part of his long-standing work on behalf of human rights, in this case of future generations.