What is the Middle Ground Between Eugenics and Idiocracy

[Deletedaccount1]

I’m all for eugenics. There are so,e dumb fucking people out there and they are seriously affecting the world.

Look at the alt right. Pure autism.

Do you realize the absurdity of this statement? You think the alt-right is pure autism when you agree with the most basic thing that they do which is that society is for some groups and not for others.

[Tiwack]

Obviously eugenics is bad. With inadiquate diversity in a society the populance can suffer from a host of genetic disorders and be exposed to diseases wiping out large swaths of people.

But in contrast letting stupid people rampantly breed is also bad. It drags down societal progress, results in increased crime and overfilled prisons, and many people resort to welfare riding.

Where is the middle line between eugenics and idiocracy?

Be careful where you throw those stones.


Eugenics and Idiocracy are both things to avoid imo.

- - - Updated - - -

It is frightening that people seriously believe the government should control whether or not you can have children yet will turn around and call others fascist or authoritarian.

Teach the test and not the subject works wonders... What do you mean all subjects can't be taught the same?! /s

[Aleksej89]

Eugenics will become obsolete when we learn how to manipulate genes through science.

Natural selection and the natural mixing of parent genes in a kid is rather random and uncontrollable, so it is a very flawed process with imperfect results.

Once we learn how to "tweak the dials" in the DNA we will be able to reliably make smarter and healthier generations.

And then those smarter generations will probably find a way to make an even bigger improvement for the next generations, which is a very interesting cycle.

[Zelk]

where's the middle ground between water and lightbulbs

[Tiwack]

Eugenics will become obsolete when we learn how to manipulate genes through science.

Natural selection and the natural mixing of parent genes in a kid is rather random and uncontrollable, so it is a very flawed process with imperfect results.

Once we learn how to "tweak the dials" in the DNA we will be able to reliably make smarter and healthier generations.

And then those smarter generations will probably find a way to make an even bigger improvement for the next generations, which is a very interesting cycle.

Also an interesting scenario of the Apocalypse. It'll be "what would earth look like if neanderthals and homo sapiens had nukes?"

[PL-Cibo]

Obviously eugenics is bad. With inadiquate diversity in a society the populance can suffer from a host of genetic disorders and be exposed to diseases wiping out large swaths of people.

But in contrast letting stupid people rampantly breed is also bad. It drags down societal progress, results in increased crime and overfilled prisons, and many people resort to welfare riding.

Where is the middle line between eugenics and idiocracy?

intelligence is not hereditary. Stupid people don't automatically get stupid kids. Thats a social problem not a genetic one.
And eugenics should do what exactly? Deciding the partner of someone? forcing someone to produce kids? In a few years we will be able to cure several genetic disorders in the womb. Farther than that and eugenics will become a problem.

and don't fear, overfilled prisons have nothing to do with rampant breeding, more with your social and prison-system (you sound like an American). And having a job will hopefully be a choice in the near future anyway.

[Deletedaccount1]

I didn't read that as "let the government make these decision", and more like "we as society".

I'm torn on this issue. Obviously, extreme ideas like mandatory blanket sterilizations are just utterly stupid. But even with this off the table we still need to decide what we're talking about: Selective breeding or gene editing?

If selective breeding, then I'd say bollocks. This is way too intrusive into your freedom of choice in your partners, and look at the abominations we "produced" using this method in dogs alone.
Gene editing however could provide a great tool, but it's REALLY hard to police what is allowed and what must not be done, with a high potential for abuse by vain people with a superiority complex. Especially celebrities. When you look at the names they often chose for their poor offspring... imagine what they would opt for in terms of looks and other traits.
But I'd love to see this tool used for the purpose of favoring genes that are more resiliant to certain illnesses, or combat outright genetic defects. (The latter would need a good definition though, since a defect can very well just be an iteration within evolution. I'm not competent enough to make these, but I hope some people could. Eventually.)

I guess I see a middle ground in such way that we could employ gene editing purely for avoidance of suffering and fighting illness, in combination with vastly better education as the actual tool for population control. Especially educate and empower women, especially in societies where they are still treated like second class beings. (Or third. I know of anecdotes where men paid doctors for a pet but not (one of) his wife(s), both faced with fatal / life altering illness. I have all the love in the world for animals, but that's just vile.)
But before we could progress into any of these areas further and more globally, the very first most important thing would be to free ourselves from religions, which would/do hold back massively in both of these areas.

Many here also limit their view to the "developed western world". That's by far not enough, though. Sure, western world has less issues with over population and education, but if that part of global society shrinks in comparison to the less fortunate parts, which WILL (and already are) "spill" into the west, we'd effectively make our own achiements go extinct. No, the above mentioned things would need to happen especially in the poorer parts, but not only.

I am perfectly fine with gene editing but the key to this issue like most others is consent. It would be morally wrong for the government to enforce gene editing in my opinion. It is similar to enforcing vaccinations, a public good but not one that I feel should be mandatory.

I think the more likely scenario in the near-term is that governments will ban gene editing because they don't like being unable to regulate it.

[Shalcker]

intelligence is not hereditary. Stupid people don't automatically get stupid kids. Thats a social problem not a genetic one.

That seems to be contradicted by studies. There is variation, obviously; but "an apple doesn't fall far from the tree" as the saying goes, in either direction, once there is sufficient nutrition and okay education.

And eugenics should do what exactly? Deciding the partner of someone? forcing someone to produce kids? In a few years we will be able to cure several genetic disorders in the womb. Farther than that and eugenics will become a problem.

The only socially-acceptable way i can see for "eugenical pressures" for smart people is to provide them monetary incentives for kids.

That is, literally pay them to have them. Possibly more then they would have gotten through normal career using their smarts and not having kids - after all, they are smart and can calculate when they are getting screwed by the deal.

And that isn't going to come cheap at all.

[XangXu]

Do you realize the absurdity of this statement? You think the alt-right is pure autism when you agree with the most basic thing that they do which is that society is for some groups and not for others.

Okay so they got one thing right.

Honestly, with each passing day, my anger at humanity gets worse and worse. Yeah I want Eugenics.

I also want the internet to die and I support the FCC.

What? I'm pissed off.

[Danner]

Obviously eugenics is bad. With inadiquate diversity in a society the populance can suffer from a host of genetic disorders and be exposed to diseases wiping out large swaths of people.

But in contrast letting stupid people rampantly breed is also bad. It drags down societal progress, results in increased crime and overfilled prisons, and many people resort to welfare riding.

Where is the middle line between eugenics and idiocracy?

IMO a false dichotomy.

Humans are a flock animal. In just about any group of humans, leaders invariably rise. If you eliminate the leader, a new will arise until only one human remain. Every single one of us have the disposition to lead, and to follow. There are outliers, leaders who are so inspired that they change the world. Think Gandhi - but we all have it in us. It's no different from the instinct to protect our kids. Most of us think it is a chore; and avoid it unless the one actually leading is doing something significantly and repeatedly wrong. Which coincidentally means that leaders are typically people more ambition and more ego than others. We get the leaders that we deserve.

Whether you are the leader or not is about whether there is someone around with more assertiveness to take command, and whether you want to take that fight for leadership.

I claim intelligence is the same thing. Every single one of us have a perfectly workable brain. Some of us don't like using it much. Some of us brag about not using it much. But we all have the capacity for learning anything we set ourselves to. It's about will, not capability. Your retarded fifth cousin isn't genetically different from you for it to really matter much; it's about life choices, effort and desires. Every single one of us can learn quantum physics - it's just that most of us find something less taxing to do with life. We get the brainiacs we deserve. As with leaders there are outliers. Savants who think in completely different ways. But I have yet to see those traits being genetically hereditary. Einstein had kids, none of which won nobel prizes.

I wouldn't base my life outlook on a flawed premise like Idiocracy. Because the premise of that movie is that nobody, ever, tries to achieve more than their parents did. Which is why humanity is still roaming around naked hunting mammoths for food by throwing poop at them. If you disagree with that status being reality, Idiocracy falls as a working theory. You have to accept that everyday people still strive to improve their lives, and that is why we are where we are. Progress isn't limited to Achimedes the genius running naked through Syracuse naked, excited about his new idea. Progress is just as much his next door shoemaker neighbour refining a method to manufacture shoes, managing to do so without making a fool of himself in the process.

I also wouldn't base my life outlook on a flawed premise like Eugenics. The idea that one set of genes is so much more inherently better than another has a harsh reality check in face of banana. The perfect banana was Gros Michel. It tasted heavenly. It was cultivated and sold in stores everywhere, and had virtually the same genetic makeup as every other gros michel banana. And every one of them were undone by the Panama disease, prompting songs like "yes, we have no bananas" - there literally was no more bananas to be had. Since the 1950, Cavendish was the new breed. Unlike Gros Michel, it didn't taste as good, but at least it was resistant to Panama Disease - it had better genes. So banana farmers started with that instead. Today, bananas are again a single genetic makeup. And when the Black Sigatoka disease hit... well, Cavendish is currently in deep trouble. Turns out, genetic diversity is the actual safety guard ensuring a long lineage. Eugenics is literally the opposite. I do not see why eugenics is considered a good idea by anyone; and that's even before we start talking about morals.

[Deletedaccount1]

Okay so they got one thing right.

Honestly, with each passing day, my anger at humanity gets worse and worse. Yeah I want Eugenics.

I also want the internet to die and I support the FCC.

What? I'm pissed off.

You sound like you need to smoke a doobie

[Mormolyce]

Eugenics aims to control the gene pool to suit the tastes of the people in charge.

The world's problems have nothing to do with genes, they're behavioural. Pruning the gene tree wouldn't do a damn bit of good and would actually reduce genetic diversity and enhance existing defects.

In fact if you want to improve the gene pool your best bet is actually to re-combine several of its clusters, not remove code entirely. Think mandatory interbreeding program...

[Macaquerie]

Eugenics aims to control the gene pool to suit the tastes of the people in charge.

The world's problems have nothing to do with genes, they're behavioural. Pruning the gene tree wouldn't do a damn bit of good and would actually reduce genetic diversity and enhance existing defects.

In fact if you want to improve the gene pool your best bet is actually to re-combine several of its clusters, not remove code entirely. Think mandatory interbreeding program...

I'm baffled at how many people still think that genetic inheritance boils down to "having a rich daddy makes you better than everyone else" when there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

[Shalcker]

Eugenics aims to control the gene pool to suit the tastes of the people in charge.

The world's problems have nothing to do with genes, they're behavioural.

Behavioural patterns can be selected through genes and inherited; see domestication.

Most of choices affecting such selection in human society negatively or positively don't happen consciously, however; they are usually result of decision on unrelated matters.

Pruning the gene tree wouldn't do a damn bit of good and would actually reduce genetic diversity and enhance existing defects.

It isn't about "pruning"; it is more about keeping desirable traits from going extinct or being severely diluted.

In fact if you want to improve the gene pool your best bet is actually to re-combine several of its clusters, not remove code entirely. Think mandatory interbreeding program...

Depends on what you're selecting for, really.

[Aphrel]

The middle ground is called "dont let ideologial extremists or religiius extremists ruin your education system".

[I Push Buttons]

Unless it's some form of socialized, optional gene therapy I can't see anything close to eugenics actually working.

A subtle form of it is already working in the developed world.

Prenatal screening.

Fetuses found to have genetic defects, abnormalities, diseases, etc., are quite often aborted.

[Mormolyce]

Behavioural patterns can be selected through genes and inherited; see domestication.

Congratulations, you just had an even worse idea than eugenics.

Quite an accomplishment.

[ro9ue]

I think trying to shape the human race is a bit of a lost cause. We have too much baggage from evolution that we can't shake.

Long live the machines.

[Independent voter]

They're aborting babies with Down's left and right now that there's a test. What happens when there's a test for other conditions, autism or whatever?

If a test came back Down's positive for my pre born, I'm not sure what I'd do. The practical thing is aborting, I guess. Hope I don't have to make the decision really.

[Machismo]

There is no middle ground, just don't fucking kill or sterilize people. That's like asking what the middle ground is between raping a random stranger who is jogging, and eating a hot dog.