I realize that this is going to be controversial, and I fully recognize that eugenics has been used for bad purposes in the past, and that prior eugenicists sometimes turned it into racial pseudoscience, but is the concept bad? If we find out that there are certain hereditable genetically-linked traits that can be agreed on as bad (Diabetes Melitus, certain cancers, Tay-Sachs, etc.), then wouldn’t it be a good idea if those genes could be bred out of the gene pool, somehow? Is it the concept that’s bad, or just the applications to which it can be put?
Well, as you noted, the applications, to date, have tended to weigh a bit heavily on the side of suppressed freedoms and such. If we forbid diabetics from procreating, why not forbid families with a history of obesity? Of course, as we screw up the ozone layer, melanin is going to be important, so we should probably forbid light-skinned people from marrying each other, requiring all couples for the next generation or two to marry outside their own “color” so that we can build a society better able to resist melanoma. (Now that is eugenics.)
One true problem with trying to build a genetically “improved” population is that we don’t know what genes we might be breeding out that we may need in the future. There are a few genetic conditions where double recessives can affect the immediate offspring (isn’t Tay-Sachs one of them?) and discouraging (not prohibiting) couples who will harm their immediate offspring is probably not a bad thing. Preventing any carrier of the Tay-Sachs gene from reproducing so as to eliminate that condition, however, is simply an intrusive abridgement of that person’s rights–and does not actually guarantee that we will “clean up” the gene pool.
We need to breed people for the apocalypse:)
Eugeneics aren’t a good idea because we don’t know everything yet. For example, my friends is the offspring of a diabetic woman, yet he has an unusual genetic quirk that ctually makes him LESS likely to develope diabetes. He gets flown to labs every once in a while so they can study him, but scientists still don’t know exactly what is going on. If they ever do figure it out, they might figure out how to prevent diabetes and perhaps other diseases as well.
That, and natural selection depends on diversity. Cheetas are almost all geneticly the same…as a result they can we wiped out by the smallest change in the envirnment. Perhaps one day the envcironment will change n such a way taht things we see as disadvantages will be advantages.
I think even sven has the right idea. I would like to add that the level of genetic knowledge that is necessary for “safe” eugenics would be so advanced that it would make eugenics unecessary.
For example, since we don’t know what genes might be needed in the future, we would have to archive human genetic lines that would be stopped from reproducing. Then we would have to have technology to infuse these genes back into the population (into already-born people) if we see that we need them again.
At this point, it sounds like a small step to simply remove the undesirable gene from the people who have it, instead of preventing them from breeding.
Not withstanding the track record, there is also the issue of complexity. Relatively few traits are based on a single identifiable gene (though they seem to get most of the publicity). And even if they are a single gene trait, that doesn’t mean they can be eliminated, nor that the elimination necessarily desirable.
An well known example IIRC is Sickle Cell syndrome. This is a debilitating condition based on a single recessive gene. However, people who heterozygous for this character i.e. carrying a single Sickle Cell gene have a marked resistance to malaria. The magority of the population carry the gene and benefit significantly from it.
In my Webster’s dictionary, 1995, the definition of eugenics is: the study of methods of protecting and improving the quality of the human race by selective breeding.
It does not specify “selective breeding”, i.e., is it achieved by prohibiting reproductiob, or by matching partners, etc. Can somebody define what’s the argument here is about?
Basically, you gas the jews, gypsies and homosexuals. At the same time, you need to sterilise all black people. Then all the blonde gods and godesses fuck like bunnies til the human race becomes extinct.
On a slightly more serious note, we’ve been selectively breeding race horses for 300+ years, but they don’t actually go any faster.
Either way, eugenics doesn’t work because genetics is very complicated and nazi ideology is very stupid.
I was actually just debating this in real life earlier today, that’s cool somebody brought it up.
We can’t know “everything.” Anyway we wouldn’t know it if we did. I think we have sufficient information to at least enter the experimentation stage, which in turn might learn us a few things. At least “mild” eugenics is possible, such as determination of baby’s eye or hair color, but the general population as of now has major issues with that kinda stuff. On that note—Captain Amazing said
I think the answer to that is fairly obvious. Ask most people their opinions on picking traits for kids, and they’ll say “Oh, no, that’s wrong.” Ask them why, and I bet you can count on one hand how many people say something other than “I don’t know, it just is.” Granted, I can see the ramifications of genetically engineering a “superhuman” race; therefore I understand not allowing strength or intelligence to be manipulated, and also there’s the fact that a manipulated child would have an unfair advantage over kids whose parents didn’t choose their traits. I just don’t understand why people get their panties in a wad over changing trivialities such as eye and hair color. What could possibly be wrong with that? Are you “depriving” the child of their experience as a brown- or blue-eyed child? Are they going to have an advantage over someone whose parents did not choose their traits? Being that this kind of engineering would probably have considerable costs associated with it, I doubt it would have much effect on the overall genetic diversity of the species. Even if it was economical, lots of people would still elect not to do it, and besides that, eye and hair color probably don’t play a big role in the diversity factor. I could of course be wrong; stranger things have happened.
To peace:
Selective breeding can be achieved by either method you mentioned, as well as by the (hypothetical, currently) manipulation of actual DNA. The point of it is to try & make offspring with certain desirable traits/without certain undesirable traits. There are lots of concerns associated with the concept, some bioethical (“superhuman” race=morally wrong) and some just biological (decreased genetic diversity=increased susceptibility to defects and/or illness).
On an interesting tangent–why isn’t anybody at all squeamish about the strict regulations for egg and sperm donation? They won’t allow smokers, drug users, people with history of illness, etc., to donate–doesn’t that qualify as “selective”?
Colin, I thought that the mods here do not allow rants and/or personal attacks. So, why do you say: “Basically, you gas the jews, gypsies and homosexuals.”, immediately after you quote me, out of context? I do not gas anybody. I asked the question. If you can’t answer them, stay home, do not show teeming millions your rabidness.
Incidentally, eugenics is about people, not horses. And horses did become faster. Any animal farmer can attest to the fact that all farm animals became tastier (the “trait” they are bred for). Otherwise, you have to admit that all efforts during the era of ancient and modern husbandry were wasted, and that cashmere from domestic ship = that from wild sheep. Eugenics principles applied to wolves produced 200+ breeds of dogs, in relatively short time. So, you said “on a slightly more serious note…”; let’s get totally serious if you pretend to be taken seriously.
<<< Either way, eugenics doesn’t work because genetics is very complicated and nazi ideology is very stupid.>>
It’s very emotional, but does not make sense.
- AFAIK, eugenics was never tried, at least, on the large scale. If it was, I do not kmow the results. So, how do you know whether it works on not?
- The fact that anything, genetics included, is complicated, does not preclude it to “work”. E.g., cybernetics is very complicated, but computers work very well. Your own head is the only exception , which, probably, confirms the rule.
- “Nazi ideology is stupid” to you (perhaps, because you are so clever ), is very repulsive to me. But let’s take a sober look at it. The Nazis rejected “Jewish physics”. As a result, they lost Jewish physicists and the atomic bomb. A very good result for the humankind, paid for by six millions perished Jews, “collateral” victims. Eugenics was welcomed by the Nazis. This fact, by itself, does not make it bad. It might be bad as it was applied by the Nazis. It might be bad as applied by PI, greedy, bigotted, etc., people today. Personally, I do not like an idea of producing the race of basketball players. I’ve heard of sperm donations by some Nobelprizemen. Are they planning on a thinktank for stupid us?
Would we like to have an orckestra of Ehudi Menuhins?
I’m just asking questions here. As soon as I know the answers, I’ll post them here.
peace already mentioned this, but do you have anything to back up this statement? I was under the impression that the development of the thoroughbred breed resulted in a breed faster than its arabian and english forebears. If any other breed besides throroughbred is used in traditional (i.e., not quarter-mile or endurance) racing, I have not heard of it. Are you disputing that selective breeding of animals can result in emphasising certain desired traits?
Selective breeding of horses has worked to produce horses ideal for different purposes.
If you doubt this, I suggest you enter a Clydesdale in the Kentucky Derby, pull a truck with a Quarterhorse, or enter a thoroughbred in a quarter mile race, and see how successful you are.
I almost forgot. Nevermore brought an interesting point. I’m sure that sooner or later we will hear that rejecting “smokers, drug users, people with history of illness” to donate is wrong (actually, to avoid controversy, they may allow everyone to donate and then just do not use the donated goods. This policy may calm some donors but scare away buisness, but that discussion belongs to a different thread).
Smokers will claim that “smoking it bad for our lungs and hearts, but is good for our sperm/eggs”, drug users will say that they are rejected because “drug users are predominantly socially liberal” and people with history of illness will says that “our illness is just a ptetext. Really it’s not our AIDS, it’s because AIDS is prevalent in homosexuals. Therefore, it’s homosexual profiling and is unconstitutional”.
Biologists know biology. They may be politically illiterate. Politicians (or politically correst crowd, PCC)
do not know biology. So, I guess, my question is: what is eugenics? Biology, like astronomy, cannot be good, or bad, or evil. People can. Is eugenics “genetic biology controversially applied”? Before arguing, we have to define the subject of our argument. To make the field even, so to speak.
Captain, you started this thread. Would you please explain yourself. Or now you got the answers and lost interest?
I’d just like to say, as a future human geneticist (halfway through an MD/PhD program):
Eugenics as a science is totally useless. As mentioned before, it depends on a subjective definition of “what is better”. This is something not easily defined in the best circumstances, and something which can change rapidly.
Next, again, it is hard to define genetic disease. Most genetic disease is not clear cut, like sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, or the mucopolysaccharidoses (Tay Sachs and relatives). Most diseases, like diabetes and cancer, are merely influenced by a genetic predisposition. This is very hard to select against, as it depends many times on dozens of genes.
Lastly, I think that chorionic villi testing with selective termination is not an entirely bad idea in some circumstances. A better idea is in vitro fertilization with selective implantation. The IVF technique is already being used to select for siblings with correct HLA typing so that they may be bone marrow donors for sick siblings. This is done by taking multiple zygotes and letting them divide in a petri dish. You take one cell from each, and test for the genetic markers.
I think that it would be wisely applied to devastating single-gene diseases or contiguous-gene syndromes. Tay-Sachs is a great example – OK until 6-9 months, then a slow loss of milestones and death by age 4. I cannot say where we can draw the line, even with the simplest diseases. Of course, it gets pretty hairy with the ethics – adrenoleukodystrophy kids invariably die by mid teens. Cystic fibrosis patients can live till their mid 30s, in some cases. Sickle cell patients have life expectancies into late 30s, albeit often with many severe pain syndromes. For all of these diseases, both parents are usually carriers and have a 1/4 chance of having offspring with the disease.
It is a large ethical issue – let nature take its course, or if you know both parents are carriers, do you intervene so that the “best” offspring are produced?
On two points of clarification:
Firstly cashmere comes from goats, not sheep … you can trust me on this one 
Secondly, selective breeding in livestock has not produced better tasting meat because that isn’t what the breeding programs aim to do. It’s about growth rates and the feed conversion efficiency. The consequences of breeding animals for these traits is you are selecting for those that have higher water levels in the body tissues. Water doesn’t do much for the taste.
Another producers aim to reduce fat because 1) it is energy inefficient and 2) humans are having a bit of a phobia about fat in their diet. Unfortunately fat is the component of food that provides most of the taste/flavour (presuming you exclude the herbs, spices and other additives).
Anybody who compares the taste of a modern broiler chick that has been reared to killing weight of say 1.4 kgs in under 40 days with a range reared bird that has taken 2-3 times that long to reach the same weight and consider the former has the better taste probably also thinks blotting paper tastes better than fillet steak.
Nothing wrong with a little eugenics. I mean, we seem to have given up on the whole “strong males get to breed and pass on their genes; weak ones don’t” concept. I think there needs to be more battle royales for the affection of a given woman (we can do this the other way around, too…).
In principle, there’s nothing wrong with eugenics. But pursuing the practice makes people do bad things. Forced sterilization, for instance (See Stephen Jay Gould’s “The Mismeasure of Man” and the story of the Kallikaks. Happened in this country, too.) Genocide is a separate issue altogether, although there is a relationship.
It’s true that people don’t agree on what constitutes the “best” traits for a human being, but it’s easy to imagine a group encouraging breeding for, say, a longer life span. That’s the premise behind Heinlein’s Long family stories.
The arguments given above against eugenics could as well be directed against recombinant DNA. “We just don’t know enough” could be said in either case, but to some people seems more acceptable when the changes are introduced by natural mating. But I’m not going to start arguing pro or con on that issue.
One could argue that we are performing a breeding experiment now – that modern civilization allows the unfit to survive, so those with genetic defects aren’t being killed off by natural selection. I suspect this is true (even though I think Cecil has argued against it). I also note that I am arguably a beneficiary of this – among many other things, I would in a non-technological society have died of bronchial pneumonia at an early age. So I’m not advocating doing anything drastic about the “less fit” – I am one. To se what can happen if you carry this through to a logical extreme, read William Nourse’s “The Bladerunner” (which has nothing at all to do with the movie.)
There’s no doubt that eugenics can be misused (and has been in the past, as some of the examples in this thread have shown), but that doesn’t mean that it’s bad in itself.
Edwino, you’ve stated that eugenics is “totally useless” as a science, because it depends on subjective definitions of “better”, but I don’t think I’m going too far out on a limb to say that not having Tay-Sachs is “better” than having it. Ditto, diabetes, cancers, cystic fibrosis, etc. Please note that I’m not saying that people who don’t have these conditions are “better” that people who don’t…just that these conditions are bad. Granted, we don’t know all the genes that contribute to a suceptability to cancer or certain other diseases, but in the fullness of time, we might find them out. But, lets start with what we know, like you said…If we can get rid of the genes for Tay-Sachs, for example, the world will be better off.
It’s only Monday. This week started good: we seem to have achieved a consensus here - eugenics by itself is neutral, its applications could be very bad, indeed. I guess, none would object to “genetic counceling”, i.e., explaining to potential parents the possible (statistical) sequenses of their offspring having certain traits. On the other extreme would be, let’s say, terminating all pregnancies if the progeny is expected to have “undesirable” traits/features. What diabetic parents (whose parents and siblings all have diabetes) have to do? Stay childless? Perform abortions?
Should the desire of parents to have any children, at any price always prevail? Or should we spend millions on these diabetic children and, on top of that, imprison the parents for giving them to us and preventing them (parents) from having more diabetic children?
Of course, it sounds crazy in the 21st century America, but history…
What I’m trying to say, instead of calling biology/eugenics nazist and other names, let’s try to discuss (not to decide yet) what to do. Let’s try to stay sober. It’s one thing, to make a painfull but fully informed decision to stay childless (with a relevant family history), another one - to give such advice to somebody else, and still another to abort a potentially sick or definitely diagnosed embryo/fetus.
I asked a born-again Christian friend (who’s opinions I highly regard) about how he reconciles science and technology (for which he had a great love) with his faith. He answered it simply: God says, “You will come to know me.”
I believe the quest for knowledge about what we are as a species is our most important endeavor. Eugenics points to that goal. Especially if you consider that our gene pool is so dirty because we have removed natural selection and “survival of the fittest,” and permit bad genetics to prosper (as simple as eye disesases like myopia). IMHO, eugenics offers the best possible way for us to evolve as a species.
Since we don’t routinely kill living humans because of their imperfections, we can do it at the genetic level before they are even born, and sometimes after, to the point where the Jerry Lewis telethon no longer serves a useful purpose, and the Special Olympics goes bankrupt due to lack of participants.
The possible benefits far outweigh the “doomsday” scenario of a freak who wants to breed the master race, IMHO. It’s certainly a worthwhile endeavor that shouldn’t be hindered because a few parents just might abuse the technology and, God forbid, engineer a blonde-haired, green-eyed girl.