That’s not as logical as you apparently think. Just because I can’t avoid every problem doesn’t mean I shouldn’t avoid one I can.
It’s not that your views are unpopular-- they’re not defendable. Mainly because you’re assuming some vague suite of personality traits are heritable. But we also run into the problem of who gets to decide what the undesirable traits are, and whether it’s a good thing for a society to punish people for things you think their future children might do.
It’s no wonder you choose to run away rather than defend the indefensible.
My phrenologist begs to differ.
^ This is largely my viewpoint.
Give parents the tools to test for major problems prior to birth and let them make the choice of whether or not to have the child. If people are carriers of a recessive trait let them choose whether or not to reproduce with their chosen mate.
A lot of people favoring eugenics seem to assume people must be coerced to have healthy children, or coerced not to reproduce where odds of serious problems are high. An organization like Dor Yeshorim shows that it is possible to get voluntary compliance from affected populations without draconian measures. As a result of such efforts, a disease like Tay-Sachs is now most common outside to populations that used to be considered highest risk for the disease. Not that the organization is without criticism, and such organizations do need outside scrutiny to prevent abuses, but the point is there are more ways to reduce genetic disease than simple force.
Consider that informed parents usually will opt to maximize the health and well-being of their children. Thanks to modern science, there are various ways to do this, from identifying carriers, figuring which diseases are actually genetic vs disorders more dependent on environment or other factors which require different solutions, pre-implantation diagnosis, and so on. After all, if two humans can produce children without genetic disease despite being carriers isn’t that the basic goal? Because we all carry at least a few “bad genes”.
Keep in mind, too, that some “bad genes” are bad only in context - being a sickle cell carrier, after all, confers some resistance to malaria which is still a widespread and serious disease. Eliminating the sickle gene would mean a significant increase in malaria deaths - is that really the trade-off we want to make? Or would it better, at least until malaria is extinct, to maintain the gene but prevent the conception and/or birth of people with a double-helping of the gene and the resulting anemia? (And we should still be merciful towards those who slip through the screening and wind up born with the disease, because that will inevitably happen).
And, of course, you have the trouble of defining “best” - which is probably a multi-trait question. High intelligence? Great! But what if it’s combined with a tendency towards heart disease, diabetes, or cancer? Does that compensate or not? How about someone with a very low risk of heart disease, cancer, or diabetes but only middling intelligence? Do we want to favor great athletic ability, or great thinking? Or is disease resistance most important?
Being a criminal is not hereditary.
Two of those three items are not genetic, outside of gross levels of damage. We aren’t sure how much intelligence is in heritable or not.
If you want to improve those three categories a better environment for infants and young children, better nutrition, and better education might be a more worthwhile approach.
This is a continual problem with many who favor eugenics - they don’t really know what is and isn’t based in genetics. But maybe it’s easier to block the reproduction of other people rather than work on really improving the world by doing things like providing good food and water (unlike what happened recently in Flint, Michigan - lead poisoning early in life can lead to permanent cognitive impairment, as just one example of an environmental problem), a real education for all, and so forth.
Without appeal to the divine by what mechanism does a brain behave outside the laws of physics and biology?
You quoted my entire post. I don’t suppose you wish to point out where you think I claimed that somehow brains are immune to “laws of physics and biology”, because I don’t see where I did that.
People are not solely the products of genetics - if they were, identical twins wouldn’t have separate personalities and differing traits. It’s ludicrous to pretend that environment - including nutrition and education - have no effect.
So, please, actually point to what you object to.
Wow. Stepping in from a standpoint of someone with a degree in genetics…
There are a couple trends that have increased the frequency of “deleterious”* traits in the population. Modern medicine has provided treatments for patients with certain genetic conditions that previously led to infertility (e.g Cystic Fibrosis). And screening programs have led to non-random mating resulting in a lower incidence of the recessive trait, but potentially increasing the rate of carriers (Tay-Sachs screening by Dor Yeshorim).
It is hard to argue that relieving human suffering is morally wrong or should be against public policy. By treating the underlying disease we have extended the lifespans of cystic fibrosis patients. And a better understanding of the condition has allowed such patients a greater degree of fertility.
But that comes with a genetic price. All of the children of a CF patient will at least be carriers of the condition. Where previously the infertile CF patient led to the elimination of recessive alleles from the collective gene pool, it is now possible with modern medical treatment that the frequency of such alleles may increase above the mutation rate. Over time this may lead to more CF patients being born, collective higher medical costs, and more suffering.
Tay-sachs screening programs in high risk Ashkenazi Jewish communities has led to a notable decrease in Tay-Sachs births. But it has done so by discouraging couplings between carriers of the same genetic condition. This leads to an increase in the carrier rate, which over generations leads to more frequent mis-matches.
TLDR version
Genetics is a bitch. We need negative effects of recessive traits to have a deleterious effect on reproduction to keep those alleles in check.
- What counts as “deleterious” is definitely up for debate. And who gets to decide what is deleterious is of great concern. The examples I chose were for the sake of simplicity.
Yes, I know the heterozygous state for the CF trait may provide a protective effect against cholera and thus might not be “deleterious” in the views of some.
Thanks, Iggy.
Well, a lot of that depends on the cholera rate in the general population - when it’s a relatively common disease having some form of genetic resistance may, over the long term, be advantageous to a family line. When cholera is a rare disease (yay, modern plumbing) then the gene in question is of less benefit. Which is a beautiful example of how environment interacts with genetics.
But that’s only if you are purely logical. Having a child, and loving it despite it’s flaws, isn’t about pure logic, and if you think it is, that’s another reason you might not want to have one.
After all, you can avoid any problem with your child by getting rid of it at any time. Child hit his head and has permanent brain damage? Simply put him up for adoption. Problem solved.
There is actually a way of mathematically modeling such changes in gene frequency.
Basically the change of gene frequency of a recessive allele depends on several factors:
[ol]
[li]Starting rate of allele frequency[/li][li]Mutation rate from wild type to recessive[/li][li]reverse mutation rate from recessive to wild type[/li][li]selection factor against/for relevant homozygous/heterozygous states[/li][li]any divergence from random mating[/li][/ol]
The positive selection factor of a heterozygous state tends to increase the frequency of that allele. The negative selection factor against a homozygous recessive state tends to lower the allele frequency.
In reality the mutation rate from wild type to recessive is often several orders of magnitude greater than the reverse, so much so that the latter tends to be ignored in calculations.
Changes from random mating could raise or lower allele frequency, depending on direction of bias for or against the trait.
And it takes one hell of a positive selection for a heterozygous state to make up for a genetically lethal recessive (trait that results in no offspring, whether the individual dies or not). Doesn’t happen.
If you can go back in history and show that our current criminals are descended from a long line of criminal ancestors going back dozens of generations, then I might consider your argument valid. But I doubt you can do that. Instead you’ll find criminals have parents, grandparents, and other ancestors who were law-abiding citizens. Which pretty much negates any claim that criminality is a genetic issue. Committing crimes is not the equivalent of having brown eyes.
We aren’t ‘sure’ of a great many things, but we have much better understanding of heritability than in the past, and as our methodology has improved estimates of heritability have generally gone up as well. The estimates of heritability of intelligence in modern western societies are around 50% (some estimate even higher, but the 50% would be consistent with a lot of other cognitive and behavioural traits).
Crime also has a significant heritable component: for rape of an adult, for example, a Swedish study out in the last year or two finds that genetics explains about 20% of variation, which is low compared to a lot of other behavioural traits but still fairly meaningful. (Shared environment explains almost none, IIRC 2%, which should put paid to the idea that this is a case of fathers teaching their sons to disrespect women, or something. Like with most things, parenting doesn’t seem to much matter).
Just look at Australia!
So… if 50% of intelligence variability is hereditary that’s an argument for improving the environment, not for limiting human breeding. Good genes in a bad environment will still give sub-optimal results, but a good environment will compensate for quite a few inborn problems and should raise the results for everyone. See the Flynn effect for possible benefits of an overall improved environment.
As for your Swedish study - again, if the trait (rape) is only 20% based on heredity then looking to genes to prevent crime is foolish. Clearly, it’s something external to the body that’s the major influence there. And the environment encompasses more than just the immediate family, so look for wider societal influences. Environment is also more than just social relations. As an example, lead poisoning is associated with an increase in anti-social behavior, and exposure to other toxins isn’t good either.
Then there are concerns that highly intelligent people may be more likely to have children with autism - it could be that too many “intelligence genes” are as bad as too few and the ideal state is a heterozygous one.
Right now the only thing we’re sure about are a very few single-gene caused diseases. Extrapolating to the whole of the human individual is a refusal to acknowledge the limits of our current knowledge.
Everyone considers themselves to be part of the “best” category. That’s one of the problems with Eugenics.
What is “best” is typically those traits that best help to ensure the continued survival of the species. Traditionally that meant breeding, but more and more, it also means the invention of technologies that benefit humanity overall.
Imagine if Stephen Hawking was never born because of some Eugenics program.
Then again…if the CERN Large Hadron Collider destroys the Earth with an artificial black hole proving his theorems, then maybe the Eugenics folks have a point.
If history is any guide, what would most likely happen is that a Eugenics program would somehow determine that societies poor, weak, outcasts and other marginalized groups were somehow genetically “inferior”. It would likely pursue the same idealized notion of “perfection” that we currently see in Hollywood and advertising.
Ultimately, I don’t think a society of attractive, vapid imbeciles is the best way to ensure humanities survival.