On eugenics

[Unicorn]

While the romantic numskulls of Nazi Germany are dreaming of restoring the old race of Europe’s Dark Forest to its original purity, or rather its original filth, you Americans, after taking a firm grip on your economic machinery and your culture, will apply genuine scientific methods to the problem of eugenics. Within a century, out of your melting pot of races there will come a new breed of men – the first worthy of the name of Man.
Trotsky supported eugenics???:confused:

[Led Zeppelin]

Trotsky supported eugenics???:confused:

What is wrong with eugenics? And by that I mean "the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage" and by "race" I mean the human race.

There is nothing wrong with using science to improve humanity genetically, if it doesn't include barbaric non-scientific methods which the Nazis used of course, as Trotsky said.

[Unicorn]

What is wrong with eugenics? And by that I mean "the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage" and by "race" I mean the human race.

There is nothing wrong with using science to improve humanity genetically, if it doesn't include barbaric non-scientific methods which the Nazis used of course, as Trotsky said.
It depends on the methods. What kind of methods would you consider acceptable? Sterilizations? Controlling immigration?

[Led Zeppelin]

I already replied to that. I said scientific methods, so for example if the gene is found which causes a certain disease and it can be altered, then it should be done.

If the gene is found which causes shitty eye-sight and it can be altered, then it should be done, etc.

That's also what Trotsky meant.

[Unicorn]

I already replied to that. I said scientific methods, so for example if the gene is found which causes a certain disease and it can be altered, then it should be done.

If the gene is found which causes shitty eye-sight and it can be altered, then it should be done, etc.
Sterilizations are a "scientific" eugenics method. If people who have a dominant allele causing deafness are sterilized then for scientific reasons there won't be people in the next generation who have this disability.

The problem is coercion.



That's also what Trotsky meant.
I doubt it because altering genes was not possible in 1934 and scientists had no idea whether it would be possible.

[KC]

I believe that Trotsky was simply saying that a "new man" would emerge after the revolution.

[Led Zeppelin]

Sterilizations are a "scientific" eugenics method. If people who have a dominant allele causing deafness are sterilized then for scientific reasons there won't be people in the next generation who have this disability.

Trotsky obviously didn't support this, if he did he would've praised the Nazi methods instead of ridiculing them.


I doubt it because altering genes was not possible in 1934 and scientists had no idea whether it would be possible.

It's speculation to know what Trotsky meant when he wrote about "applying genuine scientific methods to the problem of eugenics".

Also, the science of genetics has existed since the 19th century, and even though the altering of genes was not possible in 1934, scientists and philosophers debated about the future prospects of it long before then.

The Nazis themselves tried to apply it to race to get rid of any "non-aryan elements", an intention which Trotsky ridiculed.

Anyway, even disregarding that, we can now say that eugenics can be applied like that today, because the altering of genes is possible now.

[Unicorn]

Trotsky obviously didn't support this, if he did he would've praised the Nazi methods instead of ridiculing them.
Nazis
Trotsky obviously referred to the race laws of Nazi Germany. Nazis said that they were eugenical but they actually had no eugenical benefits whatsoever.

("While the romantic numskulls of Nazi Germany are dreaming of restoring the old race of Europe’s Dark Forest to its original purity, or rather its original filth")

It is unclear what he thought of the sterilization laws.



It's speculation to know what Trotsky meant when he wrote about "applying genuine scientific methods to the problem of eugenics".

Also, the science of genetics has existed since the 19th century, and even though the altering of genes was not possible in 1934, scientists and philosophers debated about the future prospects of it long before then.

The Nazis themselves tried to apply it to race to get rid of any "non-aryan elements", an intention which Trotsky ridiculed.

Anyway, even disregarding that, we can now say that eugenics can be applied like that today, because the altering of genes is possible now.
Would you support the kind of eugenics plan H.J. Muller proposed to Stalin in 1936?
http://www.mankindquarterly.org/muellersletter.pdf

This Trotsky quote is interesting:

“Man will set to work on himself, in the pestle and retort of the chemist. For the first time, mankind will regard itself as raw material, or at best as a physical and psychic semi-finished product”
-Trotsky
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/11/oct.htm

[Sendo]

I don't see why the "person-ists" have to justify everything their heroes did or said. I can stand by early Maoism and still criticize Mao's hypocritical tendencies in his old age and still say "The Great Leap Forward" was a huge mistake, I can stand by Che's focoism and Pan-American Federationism and still reject his early hero worship of Stalin, for examples. Overall Trotsky was a good influence, but he still did and said some negative things.

Eugenics is a sick commodification of life that takes away beauty and love from the creation of life. Even if done "socialistically" and free of charge, who decides what is good and what is bad? A person? A vote? what if 51% think that human height should be capped at 6'1"? It's also a slippery slope to racism, as EVERY well-known eugenicist/phrenologist/pseudo-scientist as been guilty of doing. The sheer idea of eugenics is ridiculous...you know what the most successful genetic code to have is, from a scientific standpoint? Microbes. Maybe we should become single-celled organisms since they're the most fine tuned, most successful, most mutable organisms on Earth.

Liberation is freedom in romantic and sexual and reproductive partnerships. If everyone can be provided for, then there are few problems. I'll run the risk of having to have public health care take care of therapy for those born with genetic disorders if it means I can have children with whomever and whenever (which would also in practice ironically reduce population booms).


Anyone seen GATTACA? Eugenics would be a new form of discrimination. The movie criticized a capitalist commodification of human life, but all the problems of the movie would happen under socialism, too. The only difference is that everyone could equally afford genetic engineering, but there would still be those who would choose not to. If you want to make eugenics a collective project what do you do? Extract everyone's sperm and eggs and them sterilize the people? Choose their breeding partners? Grow every human in a test tube? Inject engineered embryos into women?

I would also wager that eugenics supporters are closet fascists. Wanting a purified human species is no different than a pure nationality, in practice and in theory. The obsession over ideological purity (as in killing non-socialists just because) and sectarianism that some display on this board is equally troubling. Note I said some. I guess the fears that people in the West used to harbor about communism being a state of like-faced automatons all wearing gray jumpsuits were based on something.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You're on to something in regards to "new Maoism." ;)

[I'm implying here those rare Maoists who reject the grossly revisionist "Comrade" Stalin and who have more positive attitudes toward the revisionist Trotsky than the typical Maoist. I still think that Maoism is revisionist, but an open acknowledgement that "New Democracy" was invented by "Comrade" Stalin and not by Mao would indeed by a "great leap forward" for anti-sectarianism.]

[Led Zeppelin]

I love how people cringe when hearing the term "eugenics" when in reality they don't know anything about it at all, besides some vague references to Nazi and racist ideology of course.

Read something about the term and its various uses before you go off on a rant and call members "closet fascists" while making yourself look like a total clown, which you are by definition if you oppose eugenics, i.e., the improving of mankind by use of science.

Also, I split the thread.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Since this doesn't have to do with core revolutionary theory, I can actually agree with Trotsky on this. Isn't stem cell "research" a form of eugenics?

[Led Zeppelin]

Yes it is, and so are vaccinations.

But we don't want to be "closet fascists" now do we? :rolleyes:

[TC]

^^^ Since this doesn't have to do with core revolutionary theory, I can actually agree with Trotsky on this. Isn't stem cell "research" a form of eugenics?

No...eugenics is "improving" the human condition by producing "better" people (whether through selective breeding, genetic modification, genetic screening, etc), it modifies people involuntarily at the point of reproduction. (involuntary from the point of view of the offspring not necessarily the parents)

Stem cell research uses stem cells for medical therapies to improve the lives of existing people, it uses embryos for medicine not eugenics or reproduction.


Yes it is, and so are vaccinations.

Again, this is not eugenics...eugenics refers only to modifying inheritable traits not physically modifying existent people.

[Led Zeppelin]

When you use stem cells to improve the lives of existing people by eradicating a disease like Alzheimers, for example, it automatically affects the entire evolution process of humanity in a way that Alzheimers disease will become "wiped out" through later generations.

So you are "improving humanity", because human beings aren't static, at least not when we are talking about changes in such broad ranges.

The same applies to vaccinations. When you use them to eradicate a disease, the next generation will have less of it, and so on and so forth, so you are using scientific methods to better humanity, which is the definition of eugenics which Trotsky used and which I and many others also use.

There are racist variations of the term which are about "purifying" a certain race or using "population control" or sterilization methods to "better humanity", but those aren't really scientific methods, now are they? That definition of the term is used by Nazis and racists, not by Marxists, and to say that Trotsky (and many other communists) are "closet fascists" for using that term is absurd.

Isn't it rather ludicrous to say that the person who fought fascism and exposed the racism inherent in Nazism coherently was himself a racist and a fascist? I can't help but be amazed at the historical ignorance of that person to even come up with such an idea.

[Unicorn]

No...eugenics is "improving" the human condition by producing "better" people (whether through selective breeding, genetic modification, genetic screening, etc), it modifies people involuntarily at the point of reproduction. (involuntary from the point of view of the offspring not necessarily the parents) [/QUOTE]
Involuntarily? Embryos have no will and therefore such modification can't be involuntary. The woman has a right to modify the embryo as she wishes because it is just a part of her body, not a person.

[Unicorn]

When you use stem cells to improve the lives of existing people by eradicating a disease like Alzheimers, for example, it automatically affects the entire evolution process of humanity in a way that Alzheimers disease will become "wiped out" through later generations.

So you are "improving humanity", because human beings aren't static, at least not when we are talking about changes in such broad ranges.

The same applies to vaccinations. When you use them to eradicate a disease, the next generation will have less of it, and so on and so forth, so you are using scientific methods to better humanity, which is the definition of eugenics which Trotsky used and which I and many others also use.
Vaccinations are not a form of eugenics. Eugenics means the improvement of human hereditary traits. Vaccinations prevent infectious diseases which are not hereditary.



There are racist variations of the term which are about "purifying" a certain race or using "population control" or sterilization methods to "better humanity", but those aren't really scientific methods, now are they? That definition of the term is used by Nazis and racists, not by Marxists, and to say that Trotsky (and many other communists) are "closet fascists" for using that term is absurd.

Isn't it rather ludicrous to say that the person who fought fascism and exposed the racism inherent in Nazism coherently was himself a racist and a fascist? I can't help but be amazed at the historical ignorance of that person to even come up with such an idea.
Stalin wanted to create a race of man/ape hybrids which would become supersoldiers in the Red Army. "I want a new invincible human being, insensitive to pain, resistant and indifferent about the quality of food they eat", Stalin said. Soviet biologist Ilya Ivanov attempted to impregnate human females using chimpanzee sperm.

I don't think this this project was bioethically sound either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Ivanovich_Ivanov_(biologist)#Human-ape_hybridization_experiments

[piet11111]

there is nothing wrong with the creation of healthier more intelligent through genetic engineering.

[Sendo]

But what does this mean, in practice?


Also, there is no objective definition of a perfect human. It's almost a sick obsession, it's like wanting to live the perfect life you never had by creating what you feel is the ideal human. Life's really too short for this crap. We should focus on helping people who are actually alive, right now, and their children. You're not helping future generations with eugenics, you're creating your own vision of the future generation in your image (of what is perfect, not necessarily in your own image). And this eugenicist elitism would create pointless distinctions: look at physical fitness, is the best runner you know from some super-lineage of runners....or does he train a lot?

Eugenics also seems like a big waste of time and resources. Instead of creating a better world for people to live in you just want to manipulate what kinds of people will exist or not exist based on their genes. If you want funding for this you're best off trying to get a fascist state in England, that country has a history of obsession with ancestry and good/bad blood.

Finally it perpetuates existence for its own sake? What is the final goal of life? I'm sure most people want happiness, genetic engineering won't bring its creations love and satisfaction and purpose, it just seems to want to create uber-mensch for its own sake. Or do you have in mind creating super-strong workers who are worked to death a la Blade Runner. Maybe you could make a caste of super-intelligent people while you're at it. Who knows; maybe we could finally do away with squinty eyes, too (sarcasm).

[piet11111]

such bullshit you wrote there Sendo

humanity is (or will soon be) capable of adjusting the genes of unborn children and we can then remove or repair disability's like say autism blindness down-syndrome and lots more.
also there is reason to believe that genetics also plays an important role in future development of cancer.

are you too blind to see that technology can prevent a lot of human suffering ?

[wallflower]

I'm not (yet!) the most erudite Trotsky-scholar, but I think the "new Man" to which he is referring is most definitely a post-revolution individual, living in a post-revolution world where one's biology does not dictate one's destiny. Yes, eugenics, in its purely scientific, not ideological incarnation, holds out the promise of preventing crippling diseases. Yet, we should not blind ourselves to its strange-bedfellow relationship to the aims of fascism, even capitalism. What is to stop prospective parents from altering, "correcting" an unborn child's sex, race, or sexual orientation? Such an augmentation could be construed as desirable in a pre-revolution world where one's status and quality of life are determined by these secondary traits. From here, it's just a skip and a hop to a nightmarish world of near-immortal capitalists (keeping in mind we are still speaking of a pre-revolution world, would the working-class even be able to afford genetic augmentation?) with an agenda distinctly opposite our own. While I'm not against genetic augmentation on principle, I strongly caution against its implementation until the unfortunate reality of biology-as-destiny is abolished. Which brings me full-circle to my initial interpretation of the Trotsky quote: he is speaking of the "new Man" lying dormant until liberated by revolution.

[Led Zeppelin]

Vaccinations are not a form of eugenics. Eugenics means the improvement of human hereditary traits. Vaccinations prevent infectious diseases which are not hereditary.

You don't seem to understand how evolution works.

Human beings aren't static, when you vaccinate a population the next generation is less likely to get that disease because it was vaccinated against in the previous generation.

So vaccination is actually a form of eugenics, because it uses scientific methods to improve humanity, not just for living humans right now, but also for generations to come.


Stalin wanted to create a race of man/ape hybrids which would become supersoldiers in the Red Army. "I want a new invincible human being, insensitive to pain, resistant and indifferent about the quality of food they eat", Stalin said. Soviet biologist Ilya Ivanov attempted to impregnate human females using chimpanzee sperm.

I don't think this this project was bioethically sound either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Ivanovich_Ivanov_(biologist)#Human-ape_hybridization_experiments

That's very interesting, yet at the same time totally irrelevant to my point.

I am not arguing for the creation of a new "master race" by mixing genes of humans with apes or elephants or whatever. I am simply arguing for the logical use of those methods to get rid of biological defects in human beings, defects such as; poor eye-sight, diseases of all kinds, hell, the age-process itself can be stopped or prolonged.

No one here is arguing for the right of people to choose the eye or skin-color of their child. Those are idiotic aesthetic purposes which have no effect at all on humanity in terms of biological betterment, and it is in only in those terms that I support eugenics.

If I could choose between being born as I am now, or born with my gene structure "perfected" or at least "bettered" which would caused me to be less likely to contract a certain disease or develop a biological problem with my eye-sight or something to that effect, I would have preffered the latter of course.

Any person would.

[Unicorn]

You don't seem to understand how evolution works.

Human beings aren't static, when you vaccinate a population the next generation is less likely to get that disease because it was vaccinated against in the previous generation.

So vaccination is actually a form of eugenics, because it uses scientific methods to improve humanity, not just for living humans right now, but also for generations to come.
Vaccinations have no impact on human biological evolution. They do reduce the frequency of infectious diseases in the population and in future generations but this has nothing whatsoever to do with human evolution or eugenics. Vaccinations don't change genes.




That's very interesting, yet at the same time totally irrelevant to my point.

I am not arguing for the creation of a new "master race" by mixing genes of humans with apes or elephants or whatever. I am simply arguing for the logical use of those methods to get rid of biological defects in human beings, defects such as; poor eye-sight, diseases of all kinds, hell, the age-process itself can be stopped or prolonged.

No one here is arguing for the right of people to choose the eye or skin-color of their child. Those are idiotic aesthetic purposes which have no effect at all on humanity in terms of biological betterment, and it is in only in those terms that I support eugenics.

If I could choose between being born as I am now, or born with my gene structure "perfected" or at least "bettered" which would caused me to be less likely to contract a certain disease or develop a biological problem with my eye-sight or something to that effect, I would have preffered the latter of course.

Any person would.
If you accept eugenics why shouldn't parents be allowed to choose the appearance of their child? Some "ugly" people suffer from mental stress and unhappiness because of their appearance. This can lead to worse work performance etc. If I could choose I would prefer that my appearance would be very handsome.

[Led Zeppelin]

Vaccinations have no impact on human biological evolution. They do reduce the frequency of infectious diseases in the population and in future generations but this has nothing whatsoever to do with human evolution or eugenics. Vaccinations don't change genes.

You just contradicted yourself. Reducing the frequency of infectious diseases (or any other kind of diseases) is related to a change in the cell-structure or biological structure of humanity.

Eugenics isn't just limited to "changing genes", it's related to all types of change in humanity, in biological terms.


If you accept eugenics why shouldn't parents be allowed to choose the appearance of their child?

Because it has not impact on their biological betterment, and for the reason mentioned beloew:


Some "ugly" people suffer from mental stress and unhappiness because of their appearance. This can lead to worse work performance etc. If I could choose I would prefer that my appearance would be very handsome

Beauty is subjective, the parents may have a different view on what beauty is than the child s/he is conceiving, that is a sufficient enough reason to be against it.

Nevermind the fact that it has nothing to do with the betterment of humanity in terms of biological structure, as I said above.

[Sendo]

such bullshit you wrote there Sendo

humanity is (or will soon be) capable of adjusting the genes of unborn children and we can then remove or repair disability's like say autism blindness down-syndrome and lots more.
also there is reason to believe that genetics also plays an important role in future development of cancer.

are you too blind to see that technology can prevent a lot of human suffering ?

Down-syndrome is caused by a randomly badly made egg that has a duplicate Chromosome, not a faulty gene.

Autism is developmentally/enivronemntally/psychologically linked far more than it is genetically linked.

Blindness is not, as a rule, an inheritable disease, either.

As for diseases caused by cancer how do we decide what genes to expel from humanity? Do we say, "gee, white people seem to have more ocular cancer than others, maybe we should just scrap these possibly unstable Caucasian eye genes from the record"?

science is not my religion and I do not have any faith in superstitous messianisms like technological "miracles" which will save us from our stupid social/economic practices (eg "we don't need subways and conservation...hydrogen/solar/hover sports cars are just around the corner" "we don't need to fight global warming because we'll just find some way to control the climate with a big machine"). I have little faith in their perfect application when something of the nature of the human genome is being discussed. This isn't technology in the sense of mechanized seed planters, this is humanity itself.

What are we? Machines?! Maybe we should get rid of the genes that make us hungry or anxious or less willing to work as much as possible. Or the genes (if they exist) that make us want recreation (or maybe that's a condition of consciousness?).

Vaccinations are not eugenics. They seek to prevent the spread of certain "species" of bacteria and viruses by inoculating humans. Every single human has to be vaccinated until the disease no longer exists (which rarely happens, even the bubonic plague has survived and still exists in a weaker and very rare form).

And who has the right to dictate what children should look or be like?

For a couple of you Eugenics is your altar. You're being irrational idealists are not thinking about how this would be put into practice. BTW Fascism is not a strangefellow of Eugenics, it's the predictable result of racist ideology and racism is what created eugenics as a movement. Like the quackery of phrenology it's based on some facts..."human heads are bigger and smarter than dog heads therefore...big and round-headed humans are very smart.....and bony eyebrows mean you're a thief....so forth" An example of a strange bedfellow of the Nazis is the appreciation for the German medieval forest, and that comes from some top Nazis' love of the outdoors mixed with a mythical naturalism that associates Gothic wilderness with producing German vitality.

Humans are not machines and I contest anyone creating an entire person as a product of scientific experiment. I'm reminded of the issues brought up by The Dilemma of Modern Agriculture. The book talks about how know-it-all Harvard economists suggested that impoverished Mexico (post-1941 - early 1990s) produce more food and centralize it more. This caused economic and environmental devastation (pesticides, soil exhaustion, et al). The problem was never a failure of Mestizo Mexicans and their way of agriculutre..it was economic incentives and liberalism which caused poor distribution of wealth, made farming unprofitable for most peasants, and destroyed the buying power of the vast majority of Mexicans. So ask yourself, should we spend on our time and dollars on making all existing healthcare available to the utmost for everyone, or focus on making futuristic genome control projects?

What do you do if a significant minority like 40% (or any percent, on principle) doesn't want to use eugenics? Do we force it on them? Eugenics as a school of thought only works if everyone is compelled to participate (as in eradicating bad genes). What do you do, accuse them of being uneducated have them tell they are, then you respond they are enslaved to old superstitions, and they say "fuck you I don't need to explain myself to you, this doesn't affect you" and then you just cut force them anyway? What a world to live in...

There's an existing solution, educating people who are likely carriers of debilitating genetic diseases and encourage them to adopt instead.

[careyprice31]

Trotsky supported eugenics???:confused:

what we do now is a kind of eugenics. Finding cures for diseases, improving life for both humans (and animals too, even animals live longer healthier lives).

I never heard of anyone who opposes eugenics of this kind. What they oppose is the way the Nazis and americans too, did it.

[careyprice31]

"Down-syndrome is caused by a randomly badly made egg that has a duplicate Chromosome, not a faulty gene."

No always duplicate chromosomes.

Some people with down's syndrome have 45 chromosomes instead of the usual 47 (the 47th one being the duplicate, because most humans have 46)

but sometimes down syndrome the person winds up with one missing so they have 45.

[Unicorn]

You just contradicted yourself. Reducing the frequency of infectious diseases (or any other kind of diseases) is related to a change in the cell-structure or biological structure of humanity.

Eugenics isn't just limited to "changing genes", it's related to all types of change in humanity, in biological terms.
The definition of the word eugenics according to Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary:

Main Entry: eugenics
: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed

Infectious diseases are not hereditary. Reducing them is not eugenics in the standard sense of the term.



Because it has not impact on their biological betterment, and for the reason mentioned beloew:
What exactly is "biological betterment"? Is increasing physical strength betterment, for example? Removing tendency to obesity? Removing acne?

You mentioned skin color which has impact on D vitamin synthesis and resistance to UV rays. Light-skinned people are better suited live near the Arctic circle and dark-skinned people near the Equator. That is why the difference in skin color evolved. Nowadays when people live outside the region of their ancestors they often use D vitamin supplements or UV ray protection to overcome this disadvantage but that costs money and time. Anyway, I see no reason why the state should deny the opportunity to have a "rainbow family" to couples which want such a family. There would be no extra expenses in modifying physical appearance if genes related to health are modified in the same time.



Beauty is subjective, the parents may have a different view on what beauty is than the child s/he is conceiving, that is a sufficient enough reason to be against it.
Not really because if we follow that logic abortion should be illegal because it is not in the "interest" of the child and all people are certainly grateful that they were not aborted. Obviously, unborn child is not a person and thus has no interests which have to be taken to consideration. Women have a right to bodily autonomy and thus they have a right to impregnate themselves with a genetically manipulated fetus.

Furthermore, although beauty might be subjective there are certain beauty standards in the society. These beauty standards are of great importance. Studies show that people who are judged by the society as attractive have better careers and self-confidence. These beauty standards are unlikely to disapppear soon even under socialism.

It is also subjective whether people prefer to live long lives or short lives. The vast majority of people would still prefer a long life. In the same way most people would prefer to be beautiful. Extending life span would obviously be a target in an eugenics program and the speculations whether the children will ultimately prefer to live long will not be a consideration. It is not possible to know whether the child would prefer to look like his parents or like a model. (The latter alternative is more likely) So why are you against genetically manipulating appearance?

[Led Zeppelin]

The definition of the word eugenics according to Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary:

I'm not going by the "Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary" definition of the term, and neither was Trotsky or any other Marxist.


What exactly is "biological betterment"? Is increasing physical strength betterment, for example? Removing tendency to obesity? Removing acne?

Health-related issues, such as diseases.

I know you love to blur the line between biological betterment and physical "betterment" in terms of outward appearance to prove your point, but it's not going to work.


You mentioned skin color which has impact on D vitamin synthesis and resistance to UV rays. Light-skinned people are better suited live near the Arctic circle and dark-skinned people near the Equator. That is why the difference in skin color evolved. Nowadays when people live outside the region of their ancestors they often use D vitamin supplements or UV ray protection to overcome this disadvantage but that costs money and time. Anyway, I see no reason why the state should deny the opportunity to have a "rainbow family" to couples which want such a family. There would be no extra expenses in modifying physical appearance if genes related to health are modified in the same time.

If you see no problem with that fine.

I do see a problem with that for the reasons I mentioned already.



So why are you against genetically manipulating appearance?

Because appearance has nothing to do with the biological betterment of humanity.

Look, this isn't rocket-science, and frankly I'm not interested enough to pursue this discussion.

Bettering humanity by preventing diseases and improving their natural abilities is something that any progressive should support, and luckily most of them do.

[Unicorn]

I'm not going by the "Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary" definition of the term, and neither was Trotsky or any other Marxist.
That has always been the commonly accepted definition of the word. The term was coined by Francis Galton who used it in the 1865 article "Hereditary Talent and Character":

"That is, with questions bearing on what is termed in Greek, eugenes namely, good in stock, hereditarily endowed with noble qualities. This, and the allied words, eugeneia, etc., are equally applicable to men, brutes, and plants. We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving stock, which is by no means confined to questions of judicious mating, but which, especially in the case of man, takes cognisance of all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had."

http://galton.org/books/human-faculty/text/galton-1883-human-faculty-v4.pdf

Could you provide a source which says that Marxists have a different definition of the word than Galton and modern dictionaries?



Health-related issues, such as diseases.

I know you love to blur the line between biological betterment and physical "betterment" in terms of outward appearance to prove your point, but it's not going to work.
Why isn't improving intelligence or physical appearance biological betterment? Being healthy improves the quality of life but so do many other hereditary things.



If you see no problem with that fine.

I do see a problem with that for the reasons I mentioned already.
What kind of problem? Are you saying that the state should not fund some specific type of eugenics or that some forms of eugenics should be illegal?

Note that the problem of funding is only a problem in a socialist society. In a capitalist society Marxists should support the right to all types of genetic manipulation for the same reason Marxists support abortion rights (bodily autonomy).

[Led Zeppelin]

Could you provide a source which says that Marxists have a different definition of the word than Galton and modern dictionaries?

It's funny because I didn't even bother reading the definition you provided from that dictionary, so I just looked over it and noticed that you misquoted me, or at least ignored a part of what I said.

So let me address what you said there instead of providing a source which is already provided (i.e., I am myself a Marxist who has that definition of the term):


Infectious diseases are not hereditary. Reducing them is not eugenics in the standard sense of the term.

Which is why I said: "Reducing the frequency of infectious diseases (or any other kind of diseases) is related to a change in the cell-structure or biological structure of humanity."

I bolded it for you this time.


Why isn't improving intelligence or physical appearance biological betterment?

Intelligence is, physical appearance isn't, for reasons I already mentioned.


Are you saying that the state should not fund some specific type of eugenics or that some forms of eugenics should be illegal?

Of course "some form of eugenics" should be illegal. Nazi eugenics for example.


Note that the problem of funding is only a problem in a socialist society. In a capitalist society Marxists should support the right to all types of genetic manipulation for the same reason Marxists support abortion rights (bodily autonomy).

So I guess we should have supported Nazi Germany's eugenics programs too huh?

See, this is the difference between a Marxist position on the matter (i.e., Trotsky's) and a reactionary libertarian position on the matter (i.e., yours).

Also, how exactly did you go from opposing eugenics altogether to supporting it (in terms of all types of genetic manipulation) even within the context capitalist society? What if some fascist state came into existence and started using genetic manipulation to "create a pure race"? Would you support that too?

Because you just basically said you would.

[piet11111]

yes unicorn humans are biological machines in my eyes.
and like all machines there is always room for improvement ;)

myself i think that genetic manipulation will only give marginal improvements to humanity as a whole and that the real gains are with cybernetics.

ofcourse some people will be against cybernetics too but that does not matter
they wont live past a 120 years max anyway.

[Partisano]

I suppose I am perfectly happy knowing this is the only time I'll be on earth, and I can make it count. Perhaps I'd like to live a little longer than average, but I by no means want to become a cyborg.

In any case, why would such technology be available?


yes unicorn humans are biological machines in my eyes.
and like all machines there is always room for improvement ;)

myself i think that genetic manipulation will only give marginal improvements to humanity as a whole and that the real gains are with cybernetics.

ofcourse some people will be against cybernetics too but that does not matter
they wont live past a 120 years max anyway.

[piet11111]

I suppose I am perfectly happy knowing this is the only time I'll be on earth, and I can make it count. Perhaps I'd like to live a little longer than average, but I by no means want to become a cyborg.

In any case, why would such technology be available?

currently most cybernetic research is being performed for the disabled or in the case of the artificial heart a temporary solution for those awaiting a donor organ

eventually these replacements will become so advanced that they actually outperform the normal bodyparts they are meant to replace.
then the question will arise if its desirable to apply these devices to normally functioning humans.

ofcourse this will probably only be available to those that can afford it but the same counted for the car and today most family's can afford a car.

eventually cybernetics would be able to turn us into those cyborgs you mentioned and prolong our lifespans into century's.
and i believe that the prospect of living century's would cause a massive social demand for these enhancements to be made available to everyone.
and if the capitalists don't give it then just maybe it might trigger the revolution.

[Led Zeppelin]

Partisano, I deleted your stupid "fuck eugenics" post.

Please don't spam in the future.

It's not my fault that you are unable to rationally think about a subject without giving in to petty emotionalist feelings about it.

[Unicorn]

It's funny because I didn't even bother reading the definition you provided from that dictionary, so I just looked over it and noticed that you misquoted me, or at least ignored a part of what I said.

So let me address what you said there instead of providing a source which is already provided (i.e., I am myself a Marxist who has that definition of the term):

Which is why I said: "Reducing the frequency of infectious diseases (or any other kind of diseases) is related to a change in the cell-structure or biological structure of humanity."

I bolded it for you this time.
Yes, reducing the frequency of infectious diseases (or any other kind of diseases) is related to a change in the cell-structure or biological structure of humanity. We agree on that.

My point is that eugenics refers only to the improvement of human hereditary traits. That is the meaning the word has. Infectious diseases are not hereditary.



Intelligence is, physical appearance isn't, for reasons I already mentioned.
Maybe enhancing physical appearance is not eugenical. But why should it be immoral or illegal?



Of course "some form of eugenics" should be illegal. Nazi eugenics for example.
In the case of Nazis we are talking about murders or involuntarily sterilizations. These actions are crimes and it does not matter if "eugenics" is used as an excuse.

But why should some forms of voluntary eugenics be illegal?



So I guess we should have supported Nazi Germany's eugenics programs too huh?

See, this is the difference between a Marxist position on the matter (i.e., Trotsky's) and a reactionary libertarian position on the matter (i.e., yours).
I don't have a libertarian position on eugenics. The difference between Marxist and libertarian positions is that in a socialist society any citizen can participate in an eugenics program. In a liberal / libertarian society genetic engineering is very expensive and available only to the elite leading to the creation of a genetic aristocracy.

Libertarian eugenics produces less results and more inequality. Thus, it is wrong. Here is a definition of that kind of eugenics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_eugenics



Also, how exactly did you go from opposing eugenics altogether to supporting it (in terms of all types of genetic manipulation) even within the context capitalist society? What if some fascist state came into existence and started using genetic manipulation to "create a pure race"? Would you support that too?

Because you just basically said you would.
No. Participation in an eugenics program, whether in socialist or capitalist state, should always be voluntary. The coercion Fascist states would use is criminal, of course. My position on Fascism is that I would resist all actions of that kind of state. Racism is repulsive and contrary to the science of eugenics.

So let me state my position better:
I support the right of people to voluntarily genetically manipulate their own sperm and eggs however they want in the context of a capitalist society.

[Led Zeppelin]

My point is that eugenics refers only to the improvement of human hereditary traits. That is the meaning the word has. Infectious diseases are not hereditary.

I didn't just refer to infectious diseases that aren't hereditary, I referred to all kinds of diseases, so also the hereditary.


Maybe enhancing physical appearance is not eugenical. But why should it be immoral or illegal?

Because it's pointless and subjective and has got nothing to do with the betterment of humanity in terms of biology, as I have said several times now.


In the case of Nazis we are talking about murders or involuntarily sterilizations. These actions are crimes and it does not matter if "eugenics" is used as an excuse.

But why should some forms of voluntary eugenics be illegal?

Because wanting a white baby with blue eyes and blond hair is pointless and doesn't better humanity in any way.


So let me state my position better:
I support the right of people to voluntarily genetically manipulate their own sperm and eggs however they want in the context of a capitalist society.

Fascism is a political form of capitalist society, so your statement is a contradiction to what you said above it.

[Trenches Full of Poets]

Trotsky supported eugenics???:confused:

Eugenics is not the study of why the Aryans are superior, rather the study of planned genetic interferences in a culture: That is, inseminating a woman with the semen of, say, Lenin, in order to mold a culture that is more like lenin. Or a worker who gleans a certain amount of crops or a valiant, strong solider could receive the same treatment. It all has to do with technocracy.

[Unicorn]

I didn't just refer to infectious diseases that aren't hereditary, I referred to all kinds of diseases, so also the hereditary.
Fine. This argument about semantics is pointless. We both support using science to combat against diseases.



Because it's pointless and subjective and has got nothing to do with the betterment of humanity in terms of biology, as I have said several times now.
This is a non sequitur. Do you think all "pointless and subjective" human activity should be outlawed? You oppose using genetic engineering to enhance physical appearance. Do you also oppose the use of make-up?



Because wanting a white baby with blue eyes and blond hair is pointless and doesn't better humanity in any way.
Yes, we agree that having a white baby just for the sake of it would be pointless. A rational person would not want that and in a socialist society such thinking would be rare.

Anyway, women have a right to bodily autonomy. It means that they have a subjective right to have abortions and use genetic engineering to improve the fetus that is a part of their body, for example. It does not matter what their possibly "pointless" personal reasons are.



Fascism is a political form of capitalist society, so your statement is a contradiction to what you said above it.
I haven't contradicted myself. I oppose coercive eugenics. I support voluntary eugenics, also in capitalist societies.

[Led Zeppelin]

This is a non sequitur. Do you think all "pointless and subjective" human activity should be outlawed? You oppose using genetic engineering to enhance physical appearance. Do you also oppose the use of make-up?

Again you respond to one part of what I said while ignoring the other, so let me repeat: "Because it's pointless and subjective and has got nothing to do with the betterment of humanity in terms of biology."

And putting on make-up is not the same as changing genes to make sure you have a white baby with blue eyes and blond hair, now is it?


Yes, we agree that having a white baby just for the sake of it would be pointless. A rational person would not want that and in a socialist society such thinking would be rare.

Anyway, women have a right to bodily autonomy. It means that they have a subjective right to have abortions and use genetic engineering to improve the fetus that is a part of their body, for example. It does not matter what their possibly "pointless" personal reasons are.

Individuals are not sacred. Even in a socialist or communist society there will be idiots. Racism and sexism will never be 100% wiped out, just as primitivism and feudal crap are not completely wiped out today.

So when there is (luckily we both agree that this would be a rare occurance) a woman who wants to give birth to a white baby with blue eyes and blond hair, she should (and I say should here because I believe that in such a society the community will decide what to do after a debate on the matter) not be allowed to do so, because "improving the fetus" does not mean changing the skin color of it, it means changing the biological abilities of the fetus.

I keep getting back at the term "biological betterment" and you keep ignoring it. What is so hard to understand about the difference between having blue eyes and preserving a better eye-sight?


I haven't contradicted myself. I oppose coercive eugenics. I support voluntary eugenics, also in capitalist societies.

So then you would support fascist states' rights to propagate genetic engineering to create a "aryan race", as long as it is done voluntarily?

This is simply the logical conclusion of your view that the individual is sacred, and that they should be allowed to do anything they want, even if it is scientifically and logically inane.

[Unicorn]

Again you respond to one part of what I said while ignoring the other, so let me repeat: "Because it's pointless and subjective and has got nothing to do with the betterment of humanity in terms of biology."
Do you think human activity which is pointless and subjective and has nothing to do with the betterment of humanity in terms of biology should be outlawed?

That would be silly. The woman does not harm the child in any way if she chooses his appeareance. She can have many legitimate and understandable reasons to do so.

For example, if her husband is not the sperm donor she can still make the child resemble her husband physically.



And putting on make-up is not the same as changing genes to make sure you have a white baby with blue eyes and blond hair, now is it?
I simply don't understand your problem with modification of physical appearance.

The only debatable question is about the cost of the procedure, IMO.



Individuals are not sacred. Even in a socialist or communist society there will be idiots. Racism and sexism will never be 100% wiped out, just as primitivism and feudal crap are not completely wiped out today.

So when there is (luckily we both agree that this would be a rare occurance) a woman who wants to give birth to a white baby with blue eyes and blond hair, she should (and I say should here because I believe that in such a society the community will decide what to do after a debate on the matter) not be allowed to do so, because "improving the fetus" does not mean changing the skin color of it, it means changing the biological abilities of the fetus.
Changing the skin color of the fetus? Do you mean that if a "white" woman has sex with a black man and becomes pregnant she shouldn't be allowed to change the skin color of the child?

Oh... wait. Such people don't exist. Real racists don't usually have sex with black people. If a racist wants a blonde, blue-eyed child she can find some white sex partner and conceive it naturally. It is much easier to have a blonde child that way. Genetic engineering would not benefit racists.

Also, if white couples think it is cool to have dark-skinned kids they should definitely have a right to do so taking advantage of genetic engineering. Or do you disagree?




I keep getting back at the term "biological betterment" and you keep ignoring it. What is so hard to understand about the difference between having blue eyes and preserving a better eye-sight?
The difference is clear. This is the difference between our positions:

You are saying that only such genetic engineering which has an objective positive impact in your view on the child should be allowed.

I am saying that all genetic engineering which does not harm the child should be allowed.



So then you would support fascist states' rights to propagate genetic engineering to create a "aryan race", as long as it is done voluntarily?
No, Fascist states don't have a right to brainwash people with Nazi propaganda. I have not said that the state should actively tell people to have children with particular physical appearance.

The decision belongs to the mother, not to the state.



This is simply the logical conclusion of your view that the individual is sacred, and that they should be allowed to do anything they want, even if it is scientifically and logically inane.
Hardly. From the perspective of an individual enhancing physical appearance with genetic engineering makes a lot of sense. Some "ugly" children are bullied at school because of their appearance. A friend of mine was rejected by the man she loves mostly because she does not meet Western beauty standards. Studies show that attractive people even have higher incomes.

The fact is that unattractive people don't have the same chances in life as attractive people. This is not going to change much in a socialist society.