• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Eugenics: what do you think?

Do you support eugenics?


  • Total voters
    38

lowtech redneck

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
3,711
MBTI Type
INTP
I would also like to see you try somebody with cystic fibrosis or Huntington's chorea that their disorder give them a selective advantage.

The conditions themselves are not a selective advantage, but its possible that the genetic possibility of such conditions is directly connected to other, far more common genetic traits that are selective advantages in various circumstances. The same is true for any disadvantageous genetic condition, and we will always have insufficient knowledge or understanding to determine that such is not the case for any specific condition. Not that that is the most important reason to oppose eugenics, but its good enough.
 

Kullervo

Permabanned
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
3,298
MBTI Type
N/A
The conditions themselves are not a selective advantage, but its possible that the genetic possibility of such conditions is directly connected to other, far more common genetic traits that are selective advantages in various circumstances. The same is true for any disadvantageous genetic condition, and we will always have insufficient knowledge or understanding to determine that such is not the case for any specific condition. Not that that is the most important reason to oppose eugenics, but its good enough.

What is the probability?

Just because your situation is theoretically possible doesn't mean that it is practically worth considering. Do we spend billions of dollars investing in a missile system to destroy meteorites just because there is a possibility one might hit Earth?

Another bad argument.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,986
To focus on the genetics of eugenics is disingenuous because eugenics is not a genetic problem, it is a moral problem.

Eugenics has been used to take us as close to absolute evil as we have come.

And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was encoded as a response to the evil of eugenics.

So those who speak of eugenics in neutral terms are eitheir morally blind or morally evil.

I agree with you that it is a moral issue. But moral arguments fail to reach those who favor eugenics.

Nobody is advocating inbreeding, and there is already adequate genetic diversity within any given population. At most we are looking at around 10% of the population being refused licenses. Do the maths. Genetic bottlenecks involve taking a few individuals from a large population and rebuilding from scratch, which is utterly different to what is being suggested here. I am getting tired of the strawman "arguments" been put forward here.

I would also like to see you try somebody with cystic fibrosis or Huntington's chorea that their disorder give them a selective advantage.

Speaking of doing the maths. Despite having 7 billion in our population, our effective genetic population numbers in the tens of thousands. The people with genetic disorders make up a lot of that effective population. If you are specifically picking out traits to rule out, you are trying hard to reduce the effective population.

Given that, you will need to be more specific about what you mean and do the math. Trust me, I'll be able to follow. Because you can easily eliminate 30000 by ridding 10% of 7 billion if you are explicitly targeting those who are different.
 

xisnotx

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
2,144
i think humans would mess everything up and ultimately be unsuccessful if they tried to select for the best genes.

like...if you made a bunch of people and let a bunch of people develop naturally, then something big were to happen (like an alien invasion, or a tsunami, or a genetic wiping via disease (which is going to happen)) the created people would be worse off.

it's the whole "pure bred" vs "mutt" thing. mutts have better genes.

also, given my own "mutt" heritage...and the nature of it too...i think nature has it well covered. i mean my parents are from two different parts of the globe...and that happened naturally. with the interconnectedness we've grown into, genetic diversity is becoming less of a problem. humans are naturally creating their best.

do i support eugenics? i really don't care. people do whatever they wish....the world is messed up. if it were up to me, nothing would be going the way it's currently going. my new attitude to the world is; "to hell with it". I'm in the camp of "human extinction is inevitable and will be an overall good thing".

So, selecting for genes when we're all going to die anyway...is a cute way to pass our time at best. At worst, there's a whole load of social problems it may bring about...
but what else is new?

I think humans are done as a species. We're on our way out, I'm pretty sure of it.
 

Kullervo

Permabanned
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
3,298
MBTI Type
N/A
Speaking of doing the maths. Despite having 7 billion in our population, our effective genetic population numbers in the tens of thousands. The people with genetic disorders make up a lot of that effective population. If you are specifically picking out traits to rule out, you are trying hard to reduce the effective population.

Same weakness as above. Low probability vs the benefits of eugenics.

I am not going to get into a discussion about genetics when I already discredited this argument.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
While SilentMusings is being characteristically uninteresting, I think there is a more interesting topic hidden here.

The problem is, regardless of how much you oppose eugenics, it would seem that the technology to do it becomes more and more feasible, and I have observed that any technology that can be utilized basically is. This means eugenics, or something to that effects, has a good chance of being in our future. What do we do about that?

The problem for me is like that of many others, I don't think there is an objective standard for genetic fitness, and if there were, I don't see how any particular person or group of people would be an ideal judge of that. So eugenics is going to be another instrument of power. Those who have power will wield the technology, and probably some groups of powerful people will be at odds with each other and you'll witness eugenics being used at cross purposes. It's rather horrifying to me, but again, it's starting to look inevitable.

How might we mitigate the damage this technology can potentially do when it arrives?
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
While SilentMusings is being characteristically uninteresting, I think there is a more interesting topic hidden here.

The problem is, regardless of how much you oppose eugenics, it would seem that the technology to do it becomes more and more feasible, and I have observed that any technology that can be utilized basically is. This means eugenics, or something to that effects, has a good chance of being in our future. What do we do about that?

The problem for me is like that of many others, I don't think there is an objective standard for genetic fitness, and if there were, I don't see how any particular person or group of people would be an ideal judge of that. So eugenics is going to be another instrument of power. Those who have power will wield the technology, and probably some groups of powerful people will be at odds with each other and you'll witness eugenics being used at cross purposes. It's rather horrifying to me, but again, it's starting to look inevitable.

How might we mitigate the damage this technology can potentially do when it arrives?

You pretty much nailed it. Eugenics (in some forms at least) will likely become easily viable in the not so distant future. The rate at which biochemistry and genetics is improving and advancing is actually accelerating, more so than was originally predicted. It's actually really exciting.

I don't think we'll ever come up with an objective standard for genetic fitness either. At least in a broad sense. Individual traits, yeah we would easily say for some, but not all. Even further, traits that are sought after and beneficial are actually bad in high numbers. It makes me think of "a brave new world" by Aldus Huxley. You will need a broad spectrum of people in order for society to function. The second we start imparting control over that, and picking "who is who" is the second you create a dystopian world.

Honestly, the ability to preform modern eugenics is a question of when, not if. I doubt the world will get on board with it though, much too controversial. If it does, it will be in some isolated locations and places. I think the only things that will really prevent it from running out of control will be to set laws on what is permitted. Which is unfortunately because that will severely slow technological advancement. It's likely to become the modern day nuclear bomb; just because we can, and have one it, doesn't mean we should.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
I agree with you that it is a moral issue. But moral arguments fail to reach those who favor eugenics.

Yes indeed, our moral arguments failed to reach the eugenicists in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, so we defeated them in WW II and encoded the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,986
Same weakness as above. Low probability vs the benefits of eugenics.

I am not going to get into a discussion about genetics when I already discredited this argument.

You failed miserably in your attempt to discredit the genetic argument.

I did the math for you. 10% of 7 billion is way greater than 30 thousand when you target the effective population. It is NOT low probability. The benefits are not real because the strength of the species is in its diversity, making eugenics self-defeating.

I believe, you are avoiding getting into an argument about genetics because you don't understand genetics.
 

Bush

cute lil war dog
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
5,182
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I did the math for you. 10% of 7 billion is way greater than 30 thousand when you target the effective population.
Just in case this wasn't clear enough, 10% of 7 billion is 700,000,000. 30 thousand is 30,000.

700,000,000 > 30,000.

The alligator eats the bigger number. 10% of 7 billion is a bigger number than 30 thousand.
 
Last edited:

Mane

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
828
You guys never watched Gattaca, did you?

.... I suspect western culture will slowly add tweaks and add'l screening into the gene pool but avoid any kind of overt mandatory requirements. It'll be more elective and informative.

The Gattaca scenario is sort of already happening (PDG clinic embryo screening), but it might very well be dwarfed compared to what seems to be on the horizon. Right now the trends are cheaper DNA testing, openly accessible online information & constant improvement in big data management. Screening the genetic marker for a heart condition is one thing, imagine if they notice that certain genetic markers correlate with better feedback in contract work websites, with cleaner criminal records, with more answers on dating sites, or with longer "in relationship" status on FB? What about genetic traits leading to personalities that respond better to different ads or political messages? What if certain genetic traits are more likely to volunteer into military service? The mechanic are all very subtle, but we might be reaching a state where we can make a lot of connections without having any idea as to why they work the way they do. It would eventually help us find out, we'd know what to look for in regards to how genes influence our biochemistry and mental development, and we'd be able to harness that knowledge, but a lot can happen within that gap.
 

prplchknz

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
34,397
MBTI Type
yupp
[MENTION=21639]SilentMusings[/MENTION] what is the elite exactly who is part of it?
 

Kullervo

Permabanned
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
3,298
MBTI Type
N/A
As to who would be part of an elite, well...under the scenario I have laid out, at first it would be anyone who didn't have a serious genetic disorder. However as "elite" implies a minority, I do not consider conventional eugenics, which would only target a small percentage of the population, to be a vehicle towards elitism. However, as over time technology will make precise manipulation of the genome a reality, an elite group will coalesce. The financially wealthy will make up this group - like today, we will be able to access better quality treatment, and a wider range of it, than the majority. As much as I will be condemned for saying it, I do truly believe that this is the way it should be, because if everybody had equal resources there would be no motivation to work hard. Some inequality and diversity is desirable in a society. This is why I think eugenics should be regulated, and I laid out how in my earlier posts.

Arguments about genetic diversity are overly hypothetical. For a start, I would point adherents back to my meteorite analogy. Also, they fall on their face when you consider that many people with serious genetic disorders are going to be a biological dead end, either due to other people practicing a primal form of eugenics on them or the invalids themselves dying or being incapable of putting themselves out there. I also mentioned that medical advances mean that we don't rely on genetic diversity in the way we once did.

Sorry to say, but there is a serious lack of Te in this thread.
 

Kullervo

Permabanned
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
3,298
MBTI Type
N/A
Type has nothing to do with this, and saying this is implying in some way that Te is somehow superior for this sort of thing.

It is. Unchecked Ti leads to

mental-masturbation-waste-of-time-demotivational-poster-1288913322.jpg


Now that's sorted, back to eugenics.
 

Kullervo

Permabanned
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
3,298
MBTI Type
N/A
No, it's not. Every function is no better or worse than another, they are meerly preferences. To think otherwise is judgemental, foolish, and COMPLETELY misses the point of MBTI.

You really have no sense of humour, do you?
 

Kullervo

Permabanned
Joined
May 15, 2014
Messages
3,298
MBTI Type
N/A
I take things seriously unless it is totally clear something is a joke.

:doh: When someone posts a picture with lots of half-naked women in this context, it is totally clear that they aren't being entirely serious.
 
Top