Do you believe eugenics is a valid philosophy and practice?

[diddle]

Although I love the concept in theory, I feel that it shares many aspects with communism - the idea sounds dandy on paper but in practice and implementation everything goes horribly wrong.

What are your opinions on eugenics? If you do believe that eugenics can be practically applied, how so and to what degree? Do you believe the negative stigma associated with the concept is due to genuine disapproval, or mostly historical context (i.e. hitler is the reason we can't have nice things)?

[Graeham]

It's a pretty controversial issue, though I feel it's something best avoided. If and when it does happen to occur I believe it should do so naturally. I don't trust the human race to take matters into their own hands and pick and choose what is 'ideal' and what isn't.

[AeneasBK]

I think a cultural renaissance would do more good than eugenics; but then I'm a nurture over nature believer.

[obdigore]

The only trait I think we should ever even think about breeding for is intelligence, and although there is an extremely small genetics factor, most of it is pretty random.

I wouldn't support any kind of governmental policy on eugenics, although I would support cloning our best and brightest.

[Rabian]

Sort of, I mainly wish that people who are educated would have more children as opposed to the ones who pop out a continual stream of kids and have little ambition, education, intelligence, or parenting skills. If there was a way to enforce a rule of say, no more than two kids unless you meet X criteria I'd be for it. There are so many hoops to jump through to adopt a child, it seems fair that biological parents should be able to demonstrate those qualities as well if they wish to "mass produce".

[Charge me Doctor]

No, in common way (of breeding "intelligent people" for example). But in future, with development of genetics i think it will work.

[AeneasBK]

Sort of, I mainly wish that people who are educated would have more children as opposed to the ones who pop out a continual stream of kids and have little ambition, education, intelligence, or parenting skills. If there was a way to enforce a rule of say, no more than two kids unless you meet X criteria I'd be for it. There are so many hoops to jump through to adopt a child, it seems fair that biological parents should be able to demonstrate those qualities as well if they wish to "mass produce".

This is PRECISELY why a cultural renaissance would do FAR more good than any crackpot eugenics.

[Varabently]

Seems logical to me, but it certainly doesn't seem like a tenable social policy in any way. I mean there's just a myriad of problems that are completely obvious without doing research at all.

1. Who decides what's a "valuable" trait?
2. How do you prevent more "undesirables?
3. How do you enforce it?
4. Who is paying for all these extra kids I have to have if I'm "valuable?"
5. What if undesirables start pooping out babies? Kill em or what?

I think it would be a great benefit to the human race if we weeded out the idiots, racists, superstitious, etc. but sometimes you don't do what's "best" because it's inhumane. I mean what's best would be to euthanize all babies who are malformed or mentally challenged or whatever. After all, they are just burdens on society right? I don't think that's a slippery slope sort of statement to make.

- - - Updated - - -

This is PRECISELY why a cultural renaissance would do FAR more good than any crackpot eugenics.

I think in many ways it won't matter. If your parents don't care about education, guess what? You're in trouble for two reasons: 1. your parents aren't going to give you the right environment 2. the deck is stacked against you genetically.

I would argue #1 is a result of #2, but I get a lot of pushback when I talk about "genetics 100% determines everything, not environment."

Edit: I feel like my last part was unconstructive so I'll elaborate. What we need to do is be harder on the system and easier on the people. As I've said many times before, you don't choose your parents or your brain and have very little control over how well you do in your life. That means the education system has to work for every type of individual learner and provide training for everyone. Even if you aren't smart enough to be a doctor or whatever, everyone can add value. We just need to do a better job at detecting skills and harnessing those for productivity, rather than having everyone go through the same hamster wheel.

[Charge me Doctor]

And just to highlight main issue with eugenics: we don't know exactly how inheritance works, it's still poorly understood

[Varabently]

I wasn't aware racism was a genetic trait.

Everything is a genetic trait.

Edit: Let me elaborate, every single notion everyone has isn't linked to a single gene or "trait." But rather, certain underlying notions and personality traits tend to manifest certain types of feelings. There's a reason there's not a lot of racist scientists out there. Because the type of person who is inclined to making science a huge part of their lives will realize THROUGH that sort of dialogue that judging someone based on their race makes no sense, is not supported by data, etc. Hopefully that makes sense. So it's not like the scientist has non-racist genes, but rather the genes that make up the type of person who is a scientist are also the same that lead to non-racism.

[AeneasBK]

I think in many ways it won't matter. If your parents don't care about education, guess what? You're in trouble for two reasons: 1. your parents aren't going to give you the right environment 2. the deck is stacked against you genetically.

I would argue #1 is a result of #2, but I get a lot of pushback when I talk about "genetics 100% determines everything, not environment."

Edit: I feel like my last part was unconstructive so I'll elaborate. What we need to do is be harder on the system and easier on the people. As I've said many times before, you don't choose your parents or your brain and have very little control over how well you do in your life. That means the education system has to work for every type of individual learner and provide training for everyone. Even if you aren't smart enough to be a doctor or whatever, everyone can add value. We just need to do a better job at detecting skills and harnessing those for productivity, rather than having everyone go through the same hamster wheel.

I don't think we can have a discussion about eugenics if you actually think genetics is 100% responsible for who you are.

Did you never go to school with identical twins? I don't know how common they are statistically but there were 3 pairs in my year at 2ndary school. If what you are saying is true they would have been identical personalities/ability; and that wasn't the case. One, for example, was in my maths class and was genuinely pretty good at maths; his brother could barely count to 100 (exageration). Counter to that the one who was a bit shit at Maths was captain of the hockey team and played in the football and rugby teams as well.

TL: DR - you're wrong.

[obdigore]

Everything is a genetic trait.

Edit: Let me elaborate, every single notion everyone has isn't linked to a single gene or "trait." But rather, certain underlying notions and personality traits tend to manifest certain types of feelings. There's a reason there's not a lot of racist scientists out there. Because the type of person who is inclined to making science a huge part of their lives will realize THROUGH that sort of dialogue that judging someone based on their race makes no sense, is not supported by data, etc. Hopefully that makes sense. So it's not like the scientist has non-racist genes, but rather the genes that make up the type of person who is a scientist are also the same that lead to non-racism.

And that is learned behavior, not a genetic trait. Just like racism is learned behavior, not a genetic trait.

'Everything' is not a genetic trait. Going bald is a genetic trait (unless you are exposed to radiation). Having unfounded prejudices is not a genetic trait.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Eugenics is a valid idea.

It's easily corruptible though. When people start picking traits that are not superior, but only perceived as superior (superficial features like skin color, eye color, body type) then it becomes bad. Things like weeding out cancerous genes are good. Another thing is how it is implemented. Genocide is not a way to go about it, neither is sterilization, but possibly opting for better genetics in artificial impregnation.

[Charge me Doctor]

Counter to that the one who was a bit shit at Maths was captain of the hockey team and played in the football and rugby teams as well.

By the way, i found that interesting, that very often, two brothers (around same age) will take different "routes", one will be in sports, another in science. THat's what i've got from my observation

[Jakexe]

With our evolutionary path at the dead end due to advances in medicine etc. I believe eugenics to be our only path forward in that regard, at least until we develop genetic manipulation technology where we can guide our own evolution. Which would be the ultimate goal, to defeat nature and become the masters of our own evolution. So in that regard I fully support eugenics.

However when it comes to the morality and politics that surround eugenics it becomes an abhorrent concept that i'd never support in practice.

[Charge me Doctor]

Eugenics is a valid idea.

It's easily corruptible though. When people start picking traits that are not superior, but only perceived as superior (superficial features like skin color, eye color, body type) then it becomes bad. Things like weeding out cancerous genes are good. Another thing is how it is implemented. Genocide is not a way to go about it, neither is sterilization, but possibly opting for better genetics in artificial impregnation.

One huge problem, you can't "pick" traits. If you mate two smart people and one of them had an alcoholic grand-grandfather, this predisposition to alcoholism can pass to a kid. We still don't know exactly how inheritance works, how these traits are "picked"

[Charge me Doctor]

With our evolutionary path at the dead end due to advances in medicine etc. I believe eugenics to be our only path forward in that regard, at least until we develop genetic manipulation technology where we can guide our own evolution. Which would be the ultimate goal, to defeat nature and become the masters of our own evolution. So in that regard I fully support eugenics.

However when it comes to the morality and politics that surround eugenics it becomes an abhorrent concept that i'd never support in practice.

You are talking about genetics, not eugenics.

[obdigore]

Eugenics is a valid idea.

It's easily corruptible though. When people start picking traits that are not superior, but only perceived as superior (superficial features like skin color, eye color, body type) then it becomes bad. Things like weeding out cancerous genes are good. Another thing is how it is implemented. Genocide is not a way to go about it, neither is sterilization, but possibly opting for better genetics in artificial impregnation.

Is selecting traits through manipulation of gametes/zygotes/fetuses eugenics? Eugenics has a huge stigma of allowing/disallowing specific people displaying traits or with a family history of traits to breed. 'Designer Babies' is something else, in my opinion, although I can see a casual relation.

[Varabently]

People are neither 100% nature nor 100% nurture.

I was hoping you would respond with a legitimate argument for some nurture, but alas.

[AeneasBK]

By the way, i found that interesting, that very often, two brothers (around same age) will take different "routes", one will be in sports, another in science. THat's what i've got from my observation

Conveniently rubbishes claims that genetics are 100% repsonsible for your "you"

- - - Updated - - -

I was hoping you would respond with a legitimate argument for some nurture, but alas.

Then quote the people who are.