Eugenics [Archive]

ÑóẊîöŉ

18th August 2008, 17:19

The problem with previous eugenics programs is that they were set to some pre-existing ideal, and often with a lot of pseudoscientific racism mixed in as well.

Very well, we now know that racialism is all junk and that to talk of "ubermensch" is nonsense when speaking in terms of evolution. But it may be possible to screen embryos/foetuses for what most sensible people agree are genuinely crippling conditions that decrease the quality of life of the sufferer and their next of kin, such as spina bifida, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis and similar conditions.

Why not? Selecting a healthy embryo over an unhealthy one or aborting a deformed foetus is far more preferable than forcibly sterilising or executing an already living person with friends and family.

Beyond that, I do not see anything wrong with people choosing a certain genetic start in life for their children, as long as the altered characteristics are not deliberately crippling or mandated according to some over-arching social vision - people's individual preferences will serve to cancel out problems somewhat, whereas if some master genetic plan goes wrong then lots of people are going to end up screwed.

Unfortunately, the word "eugenics", along with the swastika, has a reputation indelibly attached to it. It seems unlikely that the word will ever be "reclaimed" for some innocent purpose.

apathy maybe

18th August 2008, 17:51

Well, I did define eugenics... right here:

Umm, for some reason I skipped over that. It is true, you did provide a definition.

To go with "the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population" ignoring the method, you can have forced, or voluntary means. I see nothing wrong with individuals voluntarily not breeding, or selecting for certain genetic characteristics for their children.

Does that mean I'm for? No, I'm not for, I'm other. It isn't my decision.

piet11111

18th August 2008, 18:26

i voted other too on the same reason as jazzratt also i do not see anything wrong with genetic engineering to enhance someones health or intelligence provided that everyone has complete access to it.

it just sucks that my parents could not have given me these benefits.

mikelepore

19th August 2008, 04:39

Decolonize The Left

19th August 2008, 05:16

I voted for it because the prefix "eu" means "good." That means that, if the goals or the way they are implemented aren't genuinely good, then it isn't eugenics in the first place. Therefore all socially harmful goals and methods are irrelevant in evaluating genuine eugenics, since they aren't eugenics, regardless of whether the name "eugenics" has been popularly given to them. How can someone logically say about the good, "Whatever the good might be, I'm opposed to it"?

It's one of those definition things like there can't be "another universe", since "universe" is defined as everything that exists. The word itself answers the question.

That's a very clever semantic argument, but you fail to realize that "good" is a subjective concept. Hence your entire argument crumbles as "good" can mean whatever the individual wants it to mean, including genocide...

Why not? Selecting a healthy embryo over an unhealthy one or aborting a deformed foetus is far more preferable than forcibly sterilising or executing an already living person with friends and family.

Beyond that, I do not see anything wrong with people choosing a certain genetic start in life for their children, as long as the altered characteristics are not deliberately crippling or mandated according to some over-arching social vision

I understand your position, and in itself it is rather justified. But you ignore the possibilities which your position opens. Your argument sends us down a slippery slope of what is "a certain genetic start?" What if numerous people come together and agree that certain characteristics are better than others? What if these people then attempt to legislate against others? You can see where this can go very, very, easily.

- August

Sentinel

19th August 2008, 05:19

Eugenics is a fascist position.

There are fascist variants of eugenics, but eugenics aren't necessarily fascist. I support eugenics, just not the kind of eugenics usually connected to the word in the media and in everyday talk.

There have been many discussions on this in the past, run a search in this forum. Also, I thought you used to be in the Human Progress Group, this shouldn't be news to you..?

This time I'm going to repost this piece, which clarifies my -- and that of transhumanist leftists -- position on eugenics pretty well. It's originally from a discussion in the Commie Club, even though I might have posted it in the HPG forum on some occasion as well.

How would society go about "improving our species"

You seem to assume (or at least it sounds like that way) that society would forcefully impose something on people. This is not the purpose of transhumanists, as a matter of fact it's the prime difference between the eugenics fascists and nutters like this guy advocate, and the kind we support.

They attempt to improve (it should be pointed out here that the eugenics performed by these criminals has seldom actually 'improved' jack shit, but has rather been based on racist pseudo-science, like Jazzratt already pointed out) the human genepool by authoritarian methods -- such as deciding who gets to procreate and who doesn't with forced sterilisations etc.

We, on the otherhand, wish to do it by providing all human beings with the opportunity to cut the biological chains imposed by them on 'nature' with the help of technology. They wish to restrict people, we wish to set people free.

The improvements we stand for would not be forced upon people by the society -- other than in the same fashion you already are forced to use technology to be an equal and functioning member of society today. This is just the way technological progres works, and that's something inevitable and unstoppable, something we should accept and embrace as welcome.

When it comes to the improvement of the genome of the unborn, it's obviously impossible to ask for consent. But I for one would thank the people who had 'saved me' from the terrible fate of living 200 years instead of 70, and having perfect vision instead of my current -4.75, with a fist in the eye.

and what do you mean by "improvement"?

Eliminating hereditary diseases and weakness, enhancing the intellect and physical capabilities, curing damage caused by physical trauma or aging, and prolonging life -- with the help of a combination of genetic engineering and cybernetics -- sounds like a good start to me. :)

Your argument sends us down a slippery slope of what is "a certain genetic start?" What if numerous people come together and agree that certain characteristics are better than others? What if these people then attempt to legislate against others? You can see where this can go very, very, easily.

Yeah, it can very easily lead to people using the slippery slope fallacy to condemn it. But certain characteristics are better than others -- perfect eyesight is better than a shitty one. A long life is better than a short one.

All those what ifs aren't a reason to halten scientific progress but to ensure that fascist elements cannot get to control it. Anyways, I think my old post should shed some light on the aspects of the issue that concern you. I'm pretty sure it reflects NoXion's position good as well.

Decolonize The Left

19th August 2008, 05:31

The following quote was extracted from the quote you noted in your previous post:

When it comes to the improvement of the genome of the unborn, it's obviously impossible to ask for consent. But I for one would thank the people who had 'saved me' from the terrible fate of living 200 years instead of 70, and having perfect vision instead of my current -4.75, with a fist in the eye.

I would like to greatly caution you against 'freeing' human beings from the 'chains' of the current average lifespan.

From your post I have gathered that you would rather live 200 years than 70. This seems highly problematic to me for the following reasons:
1) How would your body develop over these remaining 130 years? This is unclear.
2) If the average lifespan is extended, the stress of everyday events on each individual is multiplied exponentially. Why? Think about it. If you are blinded today, and you're twenty, you're going to be blind for an average of fifty more years. But what about being blind for 180 more years? Furthermore, each and every possible danger to one's health becomes more important and dangerous as one's life is 130 years longer. It appears as though this would cause an enormous amount of unknown and unpredictable psychological damage.
3) The human brain begins to lose much psychological capacity after a certain age. If we live 130 years longer, what does life mean at that point? Why live if you cannot think beyond a certain point, cannot remember, and cannot formulate coherent thoughts?

There are many other demanding questions, but these will suffice for now.

- August

mikelepore

19th August 2008, 05:48

That's a very clever semantic argument, but you fail to realize that "good" is a subjective concept. Hence your entire argument crumbles as "good" can mean whatever the individual wants it to mean, including genocide...

No, that's an illustration of the meaning of my argument; it doesn't make my argument crumble. That "good" is a subjective concept is the basis of my point, not something ignored by my point. To say "I don't think genocide is good" is the same as saying "I don't believe genocide is a form of eugenics." To say "that other person may believe that genocide is good" is the same as saying "that other person may believe that genocide is a form of eugenics." That puts the word "eugenics" in the same category as "justice", "freedom", etc. -- various speakers and writers include vastly different details within the meanings they propose for such words, but everyone is in favor of those goals as they define them themselves.

Sentinel

19th August 2008, 05:59

I would like to greatly caution you against 'freeing' human beings from the 'chains' of the current average lifespan.

Caution is always crucial when it comes to science, and obviously very much so when it comes to transhumanist sciences.

1) How would your body develop over these remaining 130 years? This is unclear.

Yeah, the scientists should figure that out before making the relevant changes. I'm pretty sure they would come to think about it at some point during their research. :rolleyes:

But even with my mediocre education I'd guess that they would enable us to live longer precisely by finding out ways of preventing the various problems that come with aging.

2) If the average lifespan is extended, the stress of everyday events on each individual is multiplied exponentially. Why? Think about it. If you are blinded today, and you're twenty, you're going to be blind for an average of fifty more years. But what about being blind for 180 more years? Furthermore, each and every possible danger to one's health becomes more important and dangerous as one's life is 130 years longer. It appears as though this would cause an enormous amount of unknown and unpredictable psychological damage

Actually, the scientists have already come up with the technology to connect a camera -- an artificial eye -- to the brain. It is quite rudimentary atm but I'd figure it will develop in the next 180 years.. Human tests of bionic eye a success (http://www.revleft.com/vb/human-tests-bionic-t56810/index.html?t=56810&highlight=blind)

Basically, you are ignoring the fact that science progresses.

And, even though it's beside the point I'd rather live as blind or whatever than die, and I figure so would most others, unless they believe in an 'afterlife'.

3) The human brain begins to lose much psychological capacity after a certain age. If we live 130 years longer, what does life mean at that point? Why live if you cannot think beyond a certain point, cannot remember, and cannot formulate coherent thoughts?

Once again, the scientists who have devoted their lives to this particular research will have thought of these very basic concerns. Even you have, after reading this thread on Revleft, why wouldn't they?

But to counter this particular point with the obvious answer just for the sake of it, perhaps you weren't aware that stem cell research has revolutionised the research to cure alzheimer's disease and similar ailments? Unless bioconservatives and prolife morons manage to hinder progress too much, probably in a generation or so no rich people will have these problems -- and once we reach a communist society, noone should..

Norseman

19th August 2008, 19:21

If we were to take the eugenicist notions of genetic improvement seriously, then the first thing we need to do is make sure that eugenicists are euthanized. They argue that it can improve intelligence, save resources, and prevent suffering. Firstly, eugenicists have caused plenty of suffering, certainly more so than any cripple has ever caused. Secondly, they're too stupid to recognize that human evolution is no longer necessary, and that survival of the fittest among humans is no longer desirable, if it ever was. Cripples at least understand that killing innocent people is bad, which makes them significantly smarter than eugenicists. This shows that all of the education and other resources used for the benefit of eugenicists were wasted, so if they were to raise their children to be eugenicists, their children would entail further waste of societal resources.

piet11111

19th August 2008, 20:35

Norseman you must be really working hard to be so misinformed about our intentions as transhumanists.

Norseman

19th August 2008, 20:43

piet11111 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=10541) http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/statusicon/user_online.gif
totalitarian purge monger
Commie Club Member
You expect me to take you seriously? Fuck totalitarianism.

ÑóẊîöŉ

19th August 2008, 21:30

You expect me to take you seriously? Fuck totalitarianism.

I think the title is intended to be sarcastic/ironic.

Firstly, eugenicists have caused plenty of suffering, certainly more so than any cripple has ever caused.

What you say may or may not be true, but allow me to point out that you are falling into the same trap as the pseudoscientific eugenicists you despise so much - assuming without evidence that A) a tendency to favour eugenics as a social subsystem is genetic in origin and B) that what one personally feels as good and desirable is thus for society as a whole.

Therefore, your initial statement:

If we were to take the eugenicist notions of genetic improvement seriously, then the first thing we need to do is make sure that eugenicists are euthanized. They argue that it can improve intelligence, save resources, and prevent suffering.Turns out to be utter hogwash.

Secondly, they're too stupid to recognize that human evolution is no longer necessary, and that survival of the fittest among humans is no longer desirable, if it ever was.Why is further evolution not necessary?

"Survival of the fittest" is not what evolution is about in any case. It's an uninformed caricature often used by creationists/IDers to fallaciously connect evolution with racism.

Cripples at least understand that killing innocent people is bad, which makes them significantly smarter than eugenicists.Assuming that eugenics requires killing "innocent people" is on the same level as using the USSR as an argument against communism. Just because people carry out an idea in an incorrect or unethical fashion, does not make that idea a bad one.

This shows that all of the education and other resources used for the benefit of eugenicists were wasted, so if they were to raise their children to be eugenicists, their children would entail further waste of societal resources.The arguments to support your conclusion are riddled with strawmen, thus rendering them and subsequently your conclusion completely invalid.

Norseman

19th August 2008, 22:26

What you say may or may not be true, but allow me to point out that you are falling into the same trap as the pseudoscientific eugenicists you despise so much - assuming without evidence that A) a tendency to favour eugenics as a social subsystem is genetic in origin and B) that what one personally feels as good and desirable is thus for society as a whole.

I said: "If we were to take the eugenicist notions of genetic improvement seriously..." I'm not falling into a trap. I am assuming that eugenicists are correct and I'm identifying who the eugenicists should get rid of first. By assuming that eugenicists are correct, I assume A and B.

Therefore, your initial statement:

Turns out to be utter hogwash.

That's the premise. The rest of the paragraph supports it.

Why is further evolution not necessary?

Because humans are now able to make their environment adapt to them; humans no longer need to adapt to their environment. As long as humans retain that ability, human evolution is unnecessary.

"Survival of the fittest" is not what evolution is about in any case. It's an uninformed caricature often used by creationists/IDers to fallaciously connect evolution with racism.

Eugenicists don't propose that we take the entire population and irradiate them, infect them with viruses and inject them with mutagens so that the resulting mutations will result in greater genetic diversity and faster evolution. They don't propose that we have far, far too many children, and then kill off as many of the least intelligent ones as necessary so that the world doesn't become overpopulated. There are many, many ways to accelerate evolution, but eugenicists only talk about one; killing or sterilizing people who they deem unfit to live.

Assuming that eugenics requires killing "innocent people" is on the same level as using the USSR as an argument against communism. Just because people carry out an idea in an incorrect or unethical fashion, does not make that idea a bad one.

Then why not describe a good way of implementing eugenics?

ÑóẊîöŉ

19th August 2008, 23:01

I said: "If we were to take the eugenicist notions of genetic improvement seriously..." I'm not falling into a trap. I am assuming that eugenicists are correct and I'm identifying who the eugenicists should get rid of first. By assuming that eugenicists are correct, I assume A and B.

The point is that the pseudoscientific, coercive and racist variants of eugenics that you seem to be talking about are bad eugenics. Even if the intended goals bad eugenics were genuinely beneficial to society, the faulty methodology means failure at best and an ethical nightmare at worst.

Because humans are now able to make their environment adapt to them; humans no longer need to adapt to their environment. As long as humans retain that ability, human evolution is unnecessary.Two things;

A) Evolution is going to happen to humanity for the forseeable future, so why not control it?

B) This assumes that it will always be easier and more desirable to adapt our environments to us than for us to adapt to our environments. This may not always be the case, especially if we have any interest whatsoever in living anywhere outside the Earth. There are very good reasons for wanting a human presence outside the Earth, which hopefully I won't have to spell out to you.

Eugenicists don't propose that we take the entire population and irradiate them, infect them with viruses and inject them with mutagens so that the resulting mutations will result in greater genetic diversity and faster evolution. They don't propose that we have far, far too many children, and then kill off as many of the least intelligent ones as necessary so that the world doesn't become overpopulated. There are many, many ways to accelerate evolution, but eugenicists only talk about one; killing or sterilizing people who they deem unfit to live.Killing and sterilising adult individuals is not the only way of achieving eugenical goals. There are less ethically tricky ways as I illustrate below.

Then why not describe a good way of implementing eugenics?I thought I just did. Selection of healthy embryos or those displaying desired traits, and abortion of obviously unhealthy foetuses to name but two.

Norseman

19th August 2008, 23:35

A) Evolution is going to happen to humanity for the forseeable future, so why not control it?

Because controlling it requires either saving lives, and improving people's ability to reproduce, or killing people, and reducing people's ability to reproduce. Saving lives and improving reproductive ability is already happening by itself, so that leaves only one thing that would allow eugenicists to control human evolution. No thanks.

B) This assumes that it will always be easier and more desirable to adapt our environments to us than for us to adapt to our environments. This may not always be the case, especially if we have any interest whatsoever in living anywhere outside the Earth. There are very good reasons for wanting a human presence outside the Earth, which hopefully I won't have to spell out to you.

It's probably at least a dozen orders of magnitude cheaper and faster to make environments beyond Earth suitable for humans than it is to make humans suitable for environments beyond Earth. We already have all of the technology needed to establish human colonies on the moon and Mars, by simply creating habitats for humans to live in. Nobody has a fucking clue how to make a human who could survive on the moon, or Mars, without a specially-built habitat.

I thought I just did. Selection of healthy embryos or those displaying desired traits...

Selection how exactly? What do you mean by selection? And who is supposed to do the selecting?

...and abortion of obviously unhealthy foetuses to name but two.So, would a fetus with sickle cell anemia count as being unhealthy, or as having desired traits (seeing as this protects against malaria)? What about DNA repair-deficiency disorder (since this speeds up evolution by creating more genetic diversity)? What about a child who is autistic (who could potentially be an autistic savant)? Genetic disorders can quite often have good effects, and it's, at least in theory, possible that those good effects can be produced with minimal bad effects. If you get rid of everything you perceive as being generally bad, you reduce genetic diversity, and slow down human evolution.

Furthermore, who is supposed to decide to abort the fetus, and at what point does unhealthyness rule out a fetus' viability? When it naturally cannot survive? When it's not flawless? And if you think that saves resources, how do you pay the doctors to test every single fetus which is conceived every year?

Lynx

20th August 2008, 00:56

I'm afraid if you create a society where one group is 'genetically enhanced' and the other is not, this gives reactionaries a new angle to play with.

Comrade Rage

20th August 2008, 02:04

I'm afraid if you create a society where one group is 'genetically enhanced' and the other is not, this gives reactionaries a new angle to play with.

This is why I oppose it. That is the only irreconcilable problem with humans enhancing ourselves genetically.

Dust Bunnies

20th August 2008, 03:13

Sentinel

20th August 2008, 06:26

There is perhaps nothing as annoying as an obvious strawman, such as the babble in this thread about 'creating a superior race'. Superior in comparison to whom? As egalitarian, internationalist communist transhumanists NoXion, Piet and myself are obviously vehemently opposed to any notion of creating a class society of 'enhanced' and 'unenhanced'.

We of course strive for a society where everyone would have free access to all kinds of enhancements, much like everyone now should have access to what we have so far accomplished within medical science. But if bioconservatives voluntarily choose to not participate (in enhancements available for already born humans obviously, such as nanotech and cybernetics etc) and then complain, then it's tough shit, and their complaints should rightfully go to deaf ears.

However, if they will be allowed to exclude their children from genetical enhancement will be debatable. Should we allow religious cultists to exclude their children from acquiring modern medicines because it's 'unnatural'? Or people like jehovas witnesses, who don't wish to allow their offspring blood transfusions, should we be ok with that??

I see no difference here at all. What genetic enhancement can achieve is and should be seen as nothing but a continuation of medical progress so far, and it's fruits should be considered a human right. That is why bioconservatism is so extremely reactionary.

In Star Trek: Enterprise

This might come as a shock to you, but 'Star Trek' is what we refer to as 'science fiction', and the events that take place in it are entirely fabricated. But maybe they should involve some kind of disclaimer before every episode for people like you.

However, please take my word for it now, and don't bring it up as evidence in the Science forum, ok? :lol:

piet11111

20th August 2008, 08:12

I'm against it, making a superior race is what the Nazis were aiming to do, the only problem is that with eugenics they can finally achieve it.

In Star Trek: Enterprise there was a war over eugenics (in the 1990s, not in the year the series took place). Once these super humans come they will restrict our rights because they believe they are superior. Maybe some slight eugenics that could improve the quality of life a bit, but eugenics is very shaky, one must always be cautious about it.

you should understand that in sci-fi they are making a story so that people are entertained.
you can imagine how boring a movie like terminator would be when the robots do not rebel and start killing people.

my view of eugenics is to better the human race through technology to remove disability's and other illnesses without any need to harm the individual.
repair/enhance people not trashing them.

ComradeG1967

20th August 2008, 09:30

I have always been against the concept. However, given the following definition of eugenics:

"the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)." (Dictionary.com)

I am actually in favour of it, or rather I am in favour of "improving the qualities of the human species or a human population". I magine a world where people are not predisposed to mental or physical illness! With clonining and genetic engineering this may well be possible and I believe we should invest resources in such a project.

The rest of the quote is preceded by "esp." (hence in bold font) which does NOT imply exclusively - ie. I do not have to be in favour of sterilization to be in favour of eugenics.

BTW, this is my first post. I hope it is not too controversial. :D

Sentinel

20th August 2008, 10:11

As long as you don't believe in forced eugenics with sterilisations or eugenics based on pseudoscience and racism, you are amongst comrades here so don't worry. We do seem to have gotten a new fresh crop of bioconservatives since I last posted on this topic, but they have been in minority so far. :)

Revolutiondownunder

20th August 2008, 12:19

HG wells and George Bernard Shaw were for it, but this is a different time and a different age.

piet11111

20th August 2008, 16:49

You expect me to take you seriously? Fuck totalitarianism.

my title is based on something that was said in the CC that i found hilarious so i adopted it as my title.

ÑóẊîöŉ

20th August 2008, 18:41

Because controlling it requires either saving lives, and improving people's ability to reproduce, or killing people, and reducing people's ability to reproduce. Saving lives and improving reproductive ability is already happening by itself, so that leaves only one thing that would allow eugenicists to control human evolution. No thanks.

We no longer need such crude measures to have control over evolution. Embryo selection and genetic engineering allow one to control the course of evolution without terminating fully developed individuals.

You are simply wrong.

It's probably at least a dozen orders of magnitude cheaper and faster to make environments beyond Earth suitable for humans than it is to make humans suitable for environments beyond Earth.At the moment, yes. But that will not always be the case - terraforming Mars, for instance, will require lots of materials and careful calculations, and you only get a limited amount of chances to get it right. On the other hand, genetically engineering a race of Martians able to endure much thinner atmospheres and lower air pressure (and perhaps lower temperatures) means considerably less work would need to be done to Mars itself.

Then there is also the consideration of eradicating genetic disorders. How would that be anything but a huge boon to humanity?

We already have all of the technology needed to establish human colonies on the moon and Mars, by simply creating habitats for humans to live in. If we want those colonies to be able to sustain themselves without any energy or material input from Earth, then we need to improve our ability to recycle air and water, and also establish a completely spaceborne industry that gets its raw materials from asteroids, comets, the Moon and other non-Earth bodies.

But even if we had a thriving spaceborne industry and materially independant colonies, genetic alteration of astral populations would still be necessary - in microgravity and the reduced gravity of the Moon and Mars, human muscle and bone wastes away. True, artificial gravity can be produced through centrifugal force, but that is not always practical in microgravity and would always be impractical for colonies on the Moon and Mars. It would save a lot of energy and materials to simply engineer away the tendency for human bone and muscle tissue to waste away in low gravity environments.

No doubt there are other genetic "fixes" that can be applied to the unique physiological problems posed in space.

Nobody has a fucking clue how to make a human who could survive on the moon, or Mars, without a specially-built habitat.The Moon is the trickiest because the complete lack of any atmosphere, but knowledge of the environment can provide pointers for genetic engineers - because of the Moon's lack of atmosphere and extremely weak magnetic field, the Moon experiences a high amount of radiation influx - so obviously one of the features of Homo Sapiens Selenienthis would be increased resistance to radiation relative to common or garden human beings.

Unlike the Moon, Mars at least can be terraformed with technologies that have a good chance of appearing in the future (redirecting comets and asteroids, chemical synthesis etc) or technologies that currently exist but are too impractical or small in scale to be used for that purpose at this moment in time. This makes the task of genetic engineers easier, as a terraformed Mars will closely resemble Earth conditions if they cannot be replicated.

Selection how exactly? What do you mean by selection? And who is supposed to do the selecting?Currently, we can fertilise multiple eggs from the mother or an egg donor with sperm from the father or a donor, and developed to the zygote, blastocyst or embryonic stage. Out of this batch the healthiest examples are allowed to develop further, with faulty, deformed, otherwise undesirable or just plain average members of the batch being rejected, although otherwise healthy embryos might be put to other uses if there is a shortage. The embryo is then implanted back into the mother (or if the mother's natal environment is unhealthy or damaging, a willing host mother) and the progress of the resulting foetus is monitored for any abnormalities and other developmental anomalies. If the pregnancy goes well, then bouncingly healthy baby should be the result.

In the future, parents may be able to select certain traits and features for their child. Genetic "templates" may become available, each one with traits and features predisposing the potential towards mental acuity, athletic ability, physical beauty, or any combination of such. I would expect a certain minimum standard of such templates, and procedures and legislation in place to ensure that parents do not deliberate create mentally, physically or aesthetically crippled children.

So, would a fetus with sickle cell anemia count as being unhealthy, or as having desired traits (seeing as this protects against malaria)?Considering we have ways of eradicating or reducing the instances of malaria without resorting to genetic fiddling (of humans, at least - it would be interesting to see if malaria or the mosquito could be altered so that those horrible mozzies are sufferers of malaria and not just carriers), I don't see why not.

What about DNA repair-deficiency disorder (since this speeds up evolution by creating more genetic diversity)?How does increasing one's chances of cancer "create more genetic diversity"?

What about a child who is autistic (who could potentially be an autistic savant)?Can't we try to create geniuses that aren't social retards?

Genetic disorders can quite often have good effects, and it's, at least in theory, possible that those good effects can be produced with minimal bad effects.If that's the case, then one should be able to select such qualities. By the time we actually have the ability to do things as described, providing medical care to offset any bad effects should be trivial.

If you get rid of everything you perceive as being generally bad, you reduce genetic diversity, and slow down human evolution.That assumes that everyone will pick the same set of qualities for embryos. Considering the variety inherent within human preferences, I see no reason why this will happen.

Furthermore, who is supposed to decide to abort the fetus, and at what point does unhealthyness rule out a fetus' viability?The woman involved, with consultation from a qualified medical professional. If the woman desires, the father/egg donor can have some input.

When it naturally cannot survive? When it's not flawless? And if you think that saves resources, how do you pay the doctors to test every single fetus which is conceived every year?You can train lab technicians to do the actual gruntwork, with GPs or medical specialists acting in a consulting/coordinating role. Like what they do with IVF nowadays.

Glenn Beck

25th August 2008, 14:47

I voted yes. Even though the term eugenics has been poisoned by the disgusting capitalist racists who forcibly sterilized millions of victims of imperialism in the interests of their crackpot theories and/or genocidal settler aspirations. Unless we advocate a primitivist future, tampering with human genetics is inevitable.

If you are here and not restricted in OI then you obviously don't think that capitalists and racists should have the technological means at their disposal to make their sick fantasies of infinitely exploitable labor drones and goose-stepping supermen a reality. But the power to eradicate genetic disease and improve the abilities of everyone would bring infinite benefit under an egalitarian society.

And I agree with NoXion's ideas as to how this would be implemented. All that needs to be done is make the current level of genetic technology available to every woman who wants a child. Mothers naturally want what is best for their children, if they can give their child a guarantee to be bright, healthy, and happy they will take it, no coercion is needed. And if this technology is available to everyone then what's the problem?

Revolution 9

6th September 2008, 23:20

Labeling eugenics as fascism is just plain wrong. Eugenics can simply be subsidies for more intelligent, stronger, etc. people to have more children.

That said, I voted against because I'm an anarchist and eugenics can only be a government-created program.

mikelepore

7th September 2008, 12:21

Should we continue to allow childhood leukemia and muscular dystrophe and sickle cell anemia to exist, even after scence knows how to repair chromosomes to prevent them, because there is more "anarchy" and less "government" in doing so ?!?

Revolution 9

8th September 2008, 20:42

^ It's up to the parents, not an all-knowing, all-powerful government.

piet11111

8th September 2008, 21:01

^ It's up to the parents, not an all-knowing, all-powerful government.

what right do parents have to force their children to have a disease ?
any parent that would do that is unfit as a parent in my eyes.

i do see why you would not want to have some outside organization making the decisions but we are talking about quality of life for the kids here so parents in this case have to be overruled on their decision.

we would not allow parents to beat their children so why should they be allowed to knowingly let disease ruin their childrens life's.

mikelepore

8th September 2008, 21:38

Government has no part in the definition. The "eugenics" is in the act of sticking a pipette or other instrument into the dish, or other technical procedure, and therefore changing the species' genetic heritage, and believing that what you're doing is beneficial, so that you call it eugenics rather than dysgenics. As far as the word is concerned, it has no bearing whether government is involved.

Revolution 9

8th September 2008, 21:43

what right do parents have to force their children to have a disease ?
any parent that would do that is unfit as a parent in my eyes.

i do see why you would not want to have some outside organization making the decisions but we are talking about quality of life for the kids here so parents in this case have to be overruled on their decision.

we would not allow parents to beat their children so why should they be allowed to knowingly let disease ruin their childrens life's.

The issue here is whether or not you believe that someone else has the right to your own body. If you grant the government just a little power over your body, you'll end up making yourself (or at least your descendants) a slave to government as the evil clutches of statists will just keep on trampling your rights and liberties, one by one.

The alternative would be worker-organized defense and court services which would not have as much power as a state could conceivably grab.

piet11111

9th September 2008, 11:26

The issue here is whether or not you believe that someone else has the right to your own body. If you grant the government just a little power over your body, you'll end up making yourself (or at least your descendants) a slave to government as the evil clutches of statists will just keep on trampling your rights and liberties, one by one.

The alternative would be worker-organized defense and court services which would not have as much power as a state could conceivably grab.

the problem is not giving someone power over your body in this case because we are still talking about a lump of cells that is going to grow into a person.
so someone is going to have to make a decision if genetic defects are going to be fixed or if the child is going to keep those defects.

i do not think parents have any right to decide against fixing those defects as they would negatively affect the child's life quality.

ÑóẊîöŉ

15th September 2008, 14:13

The "eugenics" is in the act of sticking a pipette or other instrument into the dish, or other technical procedure, and therefore changing the species' genetic heritage, and believing that what you're doing is beneficial, so that you call it eugenics rather than dysgenics.

I would appreciate it if you were to elaborate on this. What manner of genetic engineering would be "believed" to be eugenic while objectively being dysgenic?

If you grant the government just a little power over your body, you'll end up making yourself (or at least your descendants) a slave to government as the evil clutches of statists will just keep on trampling your rights and liberties, one by one.

Hello there, Mr Slippery Slope Fallacy! It's been a while since I've seen you around!

Problems with your objection: What if there is no state? Only collectives of scientists, doctors and technicians willing to help people create their ideal children?

Coggeh

28th January 2009, 16:02

Umm, for some reason I skipped over that. It is true, you did provide a definition.

To go with "the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population" ignoring the method, you can have forced, or voluntary means. I see nothing wrong with individuals voluntarily not breeding, or selecting for certain genetic characteristics for their children.

Does that mean I'm for? No, I'm not for, I'm other. It isn't my decision.
So you would support people selecting harmful genes for there kids purposely simply because its there decision?

The voluntary selective breeding already exists , its called sexual selection ,if people are attracted to someone with good genes then no one can do anything about it , its whatever floats your boat .

This is a natural process , therfore eugenics cannot be voluntary .

Against .

Edit: wtf , i didn't realise this thread was so old :|

Bitter Ashes

24th February 2009, 17:00

piet11111

24th February 2009, 18:38

Putting the stigma of where it came from aside, I just dont see the point in eugenics. We're animals. We have an enviroment that we live in. We survive and breed and every generation we seem to survive a bit longer and breed more effectivly. That's all done naturaly, so why change it if it isnt broken?

because it takes too damn long for the benefits to spread.

genetic engineering can do what nature would take tens of thousands of generations to do.

Rangi

24th February 2009, 20:43

Eugenics means that the state selects who gets to breed.

I think that humans have a set of inalienable and natural rights.

Food, shelter.

The right to believe in a god/ideology.

The right to breed.

How is it anyone's decision but that of the individual as to who gets to further their DNA?

piet11111

24th February 2009, 23:19

Rangi

26th February 2009, 00:37

Comments such as FAIL belie the paucity of your vocabulary.

I was referring not to the definition of eugenics but as to when it was deployed by a state as social policy. When eugenics has been favoured by states in the past it has resulted in mass sterilisation (choosing who gets to breed). To me this is someone exerting their power to select who breeds and furthers their DNA.

piet11111

26th February 2009, 14:45

I was referring not to the definition of eugenics but as to when it was deployed by a state as social policy. When eugenics has been favoured by states in the past it has resulted in mass sterilisation (choosing who gets to breed). To me this is someone exerting their power to select who breeds and furthers their DNA.

good for you but everyone else is talking not about the historical wrongdoings of authoritarian states but about practical application today without forcing people to subject to a eugenic program.

it should be obvious we have no desire to force anyone to subject to such a program instead we seek to better mankind through the application of technology's like genetic engineering in order to for instance eliminate disease and prolong lifespan.

clearly that is different then what you where saying about eugenics being some sort of state program that forbids people from having children.
and how does it even have anything to do with the right to food shelter and the right to follow an idiots religion ?

Rangi

27th February 2009, 14:23

ÑóẊîöŉ

27th February 2009, 15:54

I don't believe that you can talk about eugenics without tainting it with the historical connotations that surround it. I'm sure if you discussed such an issue with a holocaust survivor that you would get a negative reaction.

Then it's just a matter of terminology?

Humans work just fine as they are. Seventy years on the planet is long enough for me and I think anyone wanting much more than that is just being greedy.Why? If live to eighty years and someone else only lives to sixty, how can you say that I as an individual have deprived the other person of anything?

Seventy years may be good enough for you, but what about everyone else? Shouldn't they get to live for as long they like?

Eugenics programs of the past have stopped segments of the population from breeding. I think breeding is a basic right, like food and shelter.How is breeding a "basic" right?

Rangi

28th February 2009, 01:59

I think breeding is a basic right because men have penises and women have vaginas. I'm sorry if this seems coarse but it is an undeniable fact. Who's business is it but that of a consenting couple if they wish to breed? Who gives anybody the right to judge who can or can't breed?

ÑóẊîöŉ

28th February 2009, 13:02

I think breeding is a basic right because men have penises and women have vaginas. I'm sorry if this seems coarse but it is an undeniable fact.

It's also an undeniable fact that I can form my hands into fists, but that doesn't give me the right to hit anyone I feel like.

Who's business is it but that of a consenting couple if they wish to breed?

The society that they live in. You see, when having children it is more than a private matter between two individuals.

Who gives anybody the right to judge who can or can't breed?

Nothing gives individuals the right, but society decides what makes someone fit to be parent or not. Why should anybody be permitted to have children if they have demonstrated themselves to be unfit as parents?

Rangi

1st March 2009, 00:04

ÑóẊîöŉ

1st March 2009, 03:43

Society doesn't get to say what my penis does - I do. It's my penis and not society's penis. Just as it is my partners vagina and not society's vagina. It's none of society's business whether I inseminate my partner or not. The idea that it is is bordering on the most oppressive form of control that I have ever heard of. I find it strange that you call yourself an anarchist but have such strong ideas on controlling individuals.

It's not just about you and your partner. What about the child? Doesn't she have a right to be raised in appropriate conditions? If you're popping out sprogs without any serious regard to their welfare and upbringing, and by extension the good of society and the community, then that's not only incredibly irresponsible but manifestly cruel to the children and detrimental to others.

Much like those convicted of animal cruelty are prevented from owning animals, so should those convicted of cruelty to children (and related offences) be prevented from reproducing.

What do animals do? Eat, sleep, breed, socialise, migrate etc.That's irrelevant. Other animals live by instinct, but that's not good enough for human beings.

Does society get to say when you or I get to do any of these? Who makes up society's mind? Is it up to a small group of people or is it democratic? What if I don't subscribe to society's views?

Who do you think shouldn't be able to breed?I would expect there to be a basic standard of care that parents must meet in order to raise children. For example, if you cannot or will not feed, clothe, provide adequate shelter, provide medical attention or educate your child in a satisfactory manner and/or without recourse to violence then you are unfit to be a parent and your children should be removed from your custody.

The details may differ according to each community, but the general idea is the same - failure to provide an adequate level of care means one forfeits their right to parenthood.

So I ask you again: Why should anybody be permitted to have children if they have demonstrated themselves to be unfit as parents?

Rangi

1st March 2009, 06:41

So in your view the rich people get to breed as they have adequate access to the resources needed to raise children whereas the poor people don't breed as they have inadequate access to said resources.

Shouldn't the state/society try and upskill the parents rather than banning them from reproducing?

You ask why should anybody be permitted to have children if they have demonstrated themselves to be unfit as parents.

First I need to know what standards these parents are they being measured against. Who judges them? You?

How do you enforce such a ban? Enforced sterilisation?

ÑóẊîöŉ

1st March 2009, 07:22

So in your view the rich people get to breed as they have adequate access to the resources needed to raise children whereas the poor people don't breed as they have inadequate access to said resources.

I said no such thing. An "adequate" upbringing is not synonymous with a "rich" upbringing. Pay attention.

Shouldn't the state/society try and upskill the parents rather than banning them from reproducing?Why? If they've already managed to fuck up the lives of their current children, why should they be given the chance to do so again?

Possibly they could be given the chance to demonstrate that they have become fit to be parents once again, but such a thing would most likely be decided on a case-by-case basis if at all.

You ask why should anybody be permitted to have children if they have demonstrated themselves to be unfit as parents.

First I need to know what standards these parents are they being measured against. Who judges them? You?Of course not. The standards are decided by the community in question. How those standards are set depends on the community, whether it is capitalist, communist or mentalist.

How do you enforce such a ban? Enforced sterilisation?If somebody insists on having children in spite of their inability to properly raise them, then depending on the nature and context of the case it could involve anything from counselling to a mandatory vasectomy/tubal ligation. Having a one-size-fits-all policy strikes me as both counter-productive and unappreciative of the nuances of the real world.

Rangi

1st March 2009, 09:58

You take my breath away. You want to sterilize people? All I can say is that I hope you never get your hands on any kind of real power.

You say that the community decides on who gets the snip for being a bad parent. Could you please elaborate on the process that a community would take in such circumstances?

Would it go like this...

Community Parenting Officer: "I see that your children aren't being well cared for."

Bad Mother: "Yeah, I guess."

Community Parenting Officer: "I'll have to sterilize you then."

Bad Mother:"Oh wow, thats not cool."

Community Parenting Officer: "Yeah sorry - its policy. Just jump up on the table. It won't take long."

There we have it. I know you are an admin and all but I can't help but point out the fact that you have some pretty strong fascist tendencies. I may get a ban or an infraction for this but I call 'em like I see em.

Jazzratt

1st March 2009, 11:27

You take my breath away. You want to sterilize people? All I can say is that I hope you never get your hands on any kind of real power.

I don't imagine NoXion, or indeed anyone else, actually wants to sterilise people. However, if people are judged to be an intolerable risk to, or completely unfit to parent, any children they will produce then a sterilisation may be required. Much like the death penalty is required for members of a society that show themselves to be intolerable risks to the wellbeing of those in the community.

You say that the community decides on who gets the snip for being a bad parent. Could you please elaborate on the process that a community would take in such circumstances?

Much as they would decide on anything else, through discussion and consensus.

Would it go like this...

Community Parenting Officer: "I see that your children aren't being well cared for."

Bad Mother: "Yeah, I guess."

Community Parenting Officer: "I'll have to sterilize you then."

Bad Mother:"Oh wow, thats not cool."

Community Parenting Officer: "Yeah sorry - its policy. Just jump up on the table. It won't take long."

No. Of course it wouldn't. There wouldn't be a single "Community Parenting Officer" with the supreme executive authority to make arbitrary decisions. The decision on what to do would be put to the community at large, with sterilisation (much like execution) being kept for extreme cases of neglect/abuse. I'm not entirely sure what part of:

Having a one-size-fits-all policy strikes me as both counter-productive and unappreciative of the nuances of the real world.

Yiou had difficulty understanding, but perhaps you should go back and read it again.

There we have it. I know you are an admin and all but I can't help but point out the fact that you have some pretty strong fascist tendencies. I may get a ban or an infraction for this but I call 'em like I see em.

No. You're not going to be banned for throwing wild accusations about. Lose all credibility, yes, but not be banned.

Rangi

1st March 2009, 13:04

Coggeh

1st March 2009, 14:34

An anarchist who is for what seems to be a centralized power that can forcibly sterilize certain citizens for failure to parent properly? Hmmm... Okay.

I'm not going to get into a debate as to the true definition of anarchism/anarchy but its root word is the greek anarchia meaning 'without ruler', which I'm sure you already know.

I think that such ideas as forced sterilization and the death penalty are completely abhorrent and I would resist the implementation of them in my country with every fibre of my being.

I myself would choose to implement a more inclusive social policy that educated and assisted the parents into being better at caring for their children. I think that enforced sterilization is a short sighted, fascist and lazy way of fixing a widespread and deeply rooted social problem.

As for my credibility; Nothing lost, nothing gained.
I don't agree with sterilisation mainly because the reasons for it are very grey and it wouldn't solve anything . Much like the death penalty .

Anyway just on another point , whether its forcibly sterilising someone or not it wouldn't make society this big autocratic centralised system . Society has the power democratically to take action against neglect and abuse .

Obviously their has to be an attempt at educating parents in most situations but ultimately society can't hold a family unit above the well being of a child .

ÑóẊîöŉ

1st March 2009, 14:56

An anarchist who is for what seems to be a centralized power that can forcibly sterilize certain citizens for failure to parent properly? Hmmm... Okay.

What centralised power? I mentioned no such thing. You are reacting on pure emotion, and that's causing you to misrepresent my position.

I'm not going to get into a debate as to the true definition of anarchism/anarchy but its root word is the greek anarchia meaning 'without ruler', which I'm sure you already know.What's that got to do with this discussion? Are you claiming that it is impossible for a community to decide in a democratic fashion that it is in their interest if one of their members be sterilised?

I don't see how you could possibly back that up.

I think that such ideas as forced sterilization and the death penalty are completely abhorrent and I would resist the implementation of them in my country with every fibre of my being.That's your opinion. You're entitled to have it, but don't expect it to carry any weight in a debate.

I myself would choose to implement a more inclusive social policy that educated and assisted the parents into being better at caring for their children. I think that enforced sterilization is a short sighted, fascist and lazy way of fixing a widespread and deeply rooted social problem.Once again, you seem to be assuming that I am advocating sterilisation as a routine policy. I'm not, but I also have yet to see why it should not be an option.

As for my credibility; Nothing lost, nothing gained.You have repeatedly misrepresented my arguments and resorted to cheap rhetorical tricks - crying "fascist!" is not a substitute for reasoned debate.

piet11111

1st March 2009, 15:17

and it wouldn't solve anything . Much like the death penalty .

it removes the possibility of the problem repeating itself.
so it is a solution even if its a permanent one.

ÑóẊîöŉ

1st March 2009, 16:55

it removes the possibility of the problem repeating itself.
so it is a solution even if its a permanent one.

Actually, vasectomies and tubal ligations are reversible procedures as far as I can tell.

rosie

1st March 2009, 17:00

The question wasn't do you agree with the way the Nazi's played with eugenics. The question was a literal one, based on the definition of the word. basically asking, do you believe it is okay for someone with aids to have children (after diagnosed of course) or should only genetically healthy people reproduce as to fulfill their obligations to improve society and the human race?

ÑóẊîöŉ

1st March 2009, 17:03

rosie

1st March 2009, 22:07

I would say if you have a negative hereditary trait (such as downs syndrome, any auto immune disease) that could be corrected in-utero you would be classified as genetically healthy. However, there are many circumstances that would prevent most people from the ability to have any procedure that would correct the negative heredity done (money, health insurance, etc.). There are other ways to have a family and raise children than reproduction. Adoption is always an option. Granted there are adoption agencies that are very particular in who is allowed to adopt (are you married, gay, are you christian, do you smoke, have any past criminal history etc.), but there are also many other adoption agencies that will adopt to people who don't fit these criterion. All in all, I think people should just be responsible when deciding to have a child. There are more issues that go into the desicion making process than finances and (for most people) marraige. Thanks for asking for clarification!

rosie

1st March 2009, 22:18

Vasectomy and tubal ligation are reversible, although the possibility of becoming pregnant after a tubal ligation is reversed is cut down to about 20%. Before you can get your tubes "tied", you have to go to classes and short amounts of counseling. Most doctors will not give a tubal ligation to a woman unless she is married, has at least two children already, and is at least twenty-five. There are public service clinics (such as Planned Parenthood) that do not have such requirements. Planned Parenthood in particular does require you are at least eighteen and if you do not have children they make sure you know the small chance of a successful pregnancy after reversal. They also require that if you do not have children yet and are under twenty-five years of age you must have a legitamate reason for wanting the procedure done (such as a hereditary disease). Vasectomies, on the other hand, are reversable and the sperm count is almost back to normal shortly after recovery.

butterfly

2nd March 2009, 04:11

Wow, this is really taking utilitarian philosophy to the extreme.
Forced sterilisation? I would have to disagree...and then go on to wonder how this fits with a self-descibed anarchist.

RASHskins

2nd March 2009, 06:36

Wow, this is really taking utilitarian philosophy to the extreme.
Forced sterilisation? I would have to disagree...and then go on to wonder how this fits with a self-descibed anarchist.
I agree with you butterfly. This forced sterilization sounds pretty fucking crazy. If they ever tried to abuse my individual body rights they would have to get the gun outta my hands first.

#FF0000

2nd March 2009, 06:52

Wow, this is really taking utilitarian philosophy to the extreme.
Forced sterilisation? I would have to disagree...and then go on to wonder how this fits with a self-descibed anarchist.

It doesn't.

Execution and forced sterilization carried out on an individual by the state = bad

Execution and forced sterilization carried out on an individual by the commune = A-okay!

Please.

Os Cangaceiros

2nd March 2009, 07:34

It doesn't.

Execution and forced sterilization carried out on an individual by the state = bad

Execution and forced sterilization carried out on an individual by the commune = A-okay!

Please.

Glad we got that cleared up. :lol:

Rangi

2nd March 2009, 07:39

Good to see I'm not the only one here who thinks that capital punishment and forced sterilisation are ghastly forms of oppression.

ÑóẊîöŉ

2nd March 2009, 08:14

By the way, anarchism =/= individualism. Just thought you guys might like to know that. There may be individualist tendencies within anarchism, but they don't get to decide what makes an anarchist and what doesn't any more than I do.

Obviously you guys are entitled to your opinions, but in this case they seem to be based on gut feelings and kneejerk reactions rather than being the product of reasoned reflection.

Not one of you has provided a good reason why a reversible surgical procedure is so unspeakably terrible that it shouldn't be an option. Societies routinely restrict the rights of individuals who abuse them or fail to live up to the responsibilities associated with those rights. Why should reproduction be exempt from this?

butterfly

3rd March 2009, 06:56

You have varients of what causes bad parenting. Even in a post-scarcity society, post-natal depression, behavioural problems on behalf of the kid, with the parent unable to cope, in such a situation the parent may require professional assistance.

It would be a very small minority, if at all, who actually set out to raise childeren ill-equipped to provide for them, conscious of they are not prepared.

Also in a sense, forced sterilisation jeopardises the parents bodily autonomy for the sake of an inexistent fetus, it sort of correlates with the fundamentalist anti-choice perspective.

It's a different scenario for every child.
If the parent is abusive towards an existant child they should be denied parenting responsibilities until they can display an ability to take on the role.

If a person is so desperate to have childeren despite the fact that they are ill-equipt and the solution is to deny them this right via a medical procedure, what is to say that the reversal of the procedure will not go underground like most thing's that are banned?

ÑóẊîöŉ

3rd March 2009, 07:03

If a person is so desperate to have childeren despite the fact that they are ill-equipt and the solution is to deny them this right via a medical procedure, what is to say that the reversal of the procedure will not go underground like most thing's that are banned?

What's in it for the person performing the illicit surgery?

butterfly

3rd March 2009, 07:10

Why should it matter? It will emerge anyway. Maybe it's a person looking for retribution against the medical community who took away his/her right to have childeren.

ÑóẊîöŉ

3rd March 2009, 07:22

Why should it matter? It will emerge anyway.

What makes you so sure? In the absence of a monetary incentive, just why would anyone risk hurting someone else and getting caught?

Maybe it's a person looking for retribution against the medical community who took away his/her right to have childeren.

If somone wants to attempt surgery on themselves, they're welcome to it. But I doubt the results would be pretty.

butterfly

3rd March 2009, 07:41

piet11111

3rd March 2009, 19:27

interesting how somehow the issue of "right of procreation" trumps the well being of a child.

also the forced sterilization of people should only happen in extreme cases where kids being born into that family will end up being in danger (say with a child molester or those that beat up their kids whenever they feel like it)

Rascolnikova

4th March 2009, 22:11

What makes you so sure? In the absence of a monetary incentive, just why would anyone risk hurting someone else and getting caught?

Am I missing something here? Are you actually stating that the only incentives people respond to are financial?

As for the rest, I find this thread most curious. The question was eugenics, "true-genes." The idea is that one can "improve" the gene pool by making sure those considered "inferior" don't reproduce; generally only creepy classist idiots connect that question with "having children you can't take care of."

Rangi

7th March 2009, 15:52

You could give them magic beans.

rosie

9th March 2009, 20:58

We as humans have also a natural born responsibility to the rest of our species. Such as birds kick out the bad egg from the nest we as humans should prevent the bad seed from producing more bad seed. Why would anyone be in agreement of a woman with downs syndrome reproducing and raising a child? How about a man with schizophrenia (passed down to each child giving each child over 50% chance of being born with it, even more of a percentage of developing it later on in life). Now, I have nothing against those with disabilities (I myself am not perfect by far and would be classified as disabled) but why would we as a species want to devolve and take responsibility for those who can not take responsibility for themselves. Everyone must accept personal responsibility (one of my biggest problems with American society today) for their actions and the actions of others. For example: My best friend wants to jump off a bridge. Instead of stopping her I say "no man, its alright, you know, like, everyone is free to decide for themselves what is good. Do what feels good to you man"...so she jumps off that bride and kills herself. Wouldn't I be responsible for that? Yes. As her friend and fellow human I should have upheld my personal responsibility to prevent her from self destructive acts. Such is the same for those who allow humanity to deteriorate rather than progress. Everyone has the responsibility to decide whether their genes can produce a healthy human being. If your neighbor is not capable of viewing reality the same as everyone else and chooses to reproduce, shouldn't you advise that neighbor against the choice to breed? Yes. That's all I have time to say right now.

ÑóẊîöŉ

9th March 2009, 21:39

In the rhetoric that a person values procreation to the extent that they're willing to continue despite being ill-equipt to raise childeren, retribution goes beyond monetary incentive I guess is the simple answer.

I meant the person performing surgery on someone else...there's your incentive because that person may just be trained in surgery as well.

I'm doubtful that the sort of person who's likely to have mandatory surgical contraception performed on them is the sort to have surgical training. But I do concede it's possible. If it turns out that enough disgruntled people are reversing the procedures for it to be problematic, then something has obviously gone wrong.

As for the rest, I find this thread most curious. The question was eugenics, "true-genes." The idea is that one can "improve" the gene pool by making sure those considered "inferior" don't reproduce; generally only creepy classist idiots connect that question with "having children you can't take care of."

I'm not arguing that being unable to take care of one's children is genetic, instead I am proposing that such people are prevented from bringing in yet more children into society who'll grow up in broken homes, the negative repercussions of which are felt by the community and society as well as the immediate family.

RASHskins

9th March 2009, 23:25

Everyone must accept personal responsibility (one of my biggest problems with American society today) for their actions and the actions of others. For example: My best friend wants to jump off a bridge. Instead of stopping her I say "no man, its alright, you know, like, everyone is free to decide for themselves what is good. Do what feels good to you man"...so she jumps off that bride and kills herself. Wouldn't I be responsible for that? Yes. As her friend and fellow human I should have upheld my personal responsibility to prevent her from self destructive acts.
Everyone can't be responsible to everyone Else's actions cause really i don't know what other people are gonna do. All i can be responsible for is myself. And if someone does wanna kill themselves so bad i see absolutely no problem with it at all. If they made the decision themselves and really were feeling that shitty i see no problem with suicide. If they also asked for some assistance in it or needed help, i would also help them accomplish their suicide.

Guerrilla22

10th March 2009, 01:05

The thing about eugenics was that more often than not they were sterilizing people simply because they were poor, or not exactly soically graceful (see Carrie Buck) not because they had any physical or mental defects, as if that wasn't bad enough. Really no different from the social cleansing purges carried out by paramilitaries in Colombia.

piet11111

10th March 2009, 17:08

JohannGE

13th March 2009, 20:07

Other (specify) :-

I can't believe I am asked this question on this forum!

:confused:

Coincidently, this documentry was shown on BBC last night. (Available to view for the next 7 days)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00j6r1b/Darwins_Dangerous_Idea_Born_Equal/

rosie

13th March 2009, 20:50

Everyone can't be responsible to everyone Else's actions cause really i don't know what other people are gonna do. All i can be responsible for is myself. And if someone does wanna kill themselves so bad i see absolutely no problem with it at all. If they made the decision themselves and really were feeling that shitty i see no problem with suicide. If they also asked for some assistance in it or needed help, i would also help them accomplish their suicide. I have no problem really with assisted suicide. That is a different topic though. The topic of discussion is eugenics. I was only siting an example. If someone wanted to kill themselves, and asked for help, i would need to know what their reasons were for needing to die. If there were other options they were unaware of i would attempt to help someone to live. After all, what good are we to the revolution if we're dead? If the options i could offer were not good enough for the suicidee, then i would gladly help them to complete thier task. This really doesn't have anything to do with eugenics, and i appologize for my obfuscation. It is kind of interesting how conversation topics can so easily wander to something completely different! Thank you for your reply!
Peace, love, music...rosie:hammersickle:

8th April 2009, 07:00

I hope the people who voted "for" are kidding..

Jazzratt

8th April 2009, 14:07

I hope the people who voted "for" are kidding..

Hence the five page argument.

MarxSchmarx

9th April 2009, 06:28

the sort of eugenics i would support involves correcting obvious genetic defects like downs syndrome via genetic engineering of the fetus not taking away someones productive rights unless they are truly terrible parents (and even then i would much rather see the child put up for adoption)You have a valid point, but this is ultimately a slippery slope.

Indeed, the problem is with a society that labels someone with Down's syndrome "obviously defective". This isn't a good example, because I know you don't seriously take this view. But looked at a certain way, it's deeply inconsistent with our egalitarian vision. Sure blind people won't be able to fly airplanes, but that doesn't mean they are socially useless or even undesirable. Even under capitalism, enough people with Down's syndrome live happy, productive lives that I have no reason to believe it will be any worse under communism.

I think better examples are genetic diseases that ruin people's lives, including things like genetic tendencies to reject vaccination or Tay-sachs. These should be cured, possibly through genetic engineering. But we need to also make society more livable for people who are viewed as "obviously genetically defective".

ComradeOm

9th April 2009, 16:49

the sort of eugenics i would support involves correcting obvious genetic defects like downs syndrome via genetic engineering of the fetus not taking away someones productive rights unless they are truly terrible parents (and even then i would much rather see the child put up for adoption)Note that this is typically labelled 'genetic engineering'. Definitions differ of course but 'eugenics' is almost always considered to involve the addition to or subtraction from the gene pool by way of selective breeding. Certainly when discussing it outside of science-fiction

But looked at a certain way, it's deeply inconsistent with our egalitarian vision. Sure blind people won't be able to fly airplanes, but that doesn't mean they are socially useless or even undesirable. Even under capitalism, enough people with Down's syndrome live happy, productive lives that I have no reason to believe it will be any worse under communismInterestingly enough, the Soviet Union was one of the only industrialised nations not endorse eugenic programmes during the 1920s and 1930s. This was largely because in the 'nature v nurture' debate Marxist theory came down very much on the side of the latter. Of course this did have one or two unfortunate side effects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism) in this historical example

piet11111

9th April 2009, 17:14

being born blind is something that should be corrected as it has no benefits to the child only downsides.

if the person feels its part of his/her identity to be blind then by all means let them blind themselves but until they are at the point where they can decide for themselves the guiding principle should be to give all the benefits possible to the unborn child and remove as much of the negative results of their genetics.

in my family diabetes is very common and if i where to be told that my parents chose me to have a very big change of getting diabetes later in life (i have it only i can manage with pills) out of some bizarre reason like "not wanting to change who i am" i would get very mad at them for not giving me the best start in life that they could and should have given me.

down's syndrome does not cause someone to live a bad live but it certainly restricts their freedom because they usually can not manage to live on their own as such i think its best that when given the choice its better to remove the down syndrome genes.

ÑóẊîöŉ

9th April 2009, 19:44

You have a valid point, but this is ultimately a slippery slope.

Which I'm pretty damn sure is a fallacy.

Indeed, the problem is with a society that labels someone with Down's syndrome "obviously defective". This isn't a good example, because I know you don't seriously take this view. But looked at a certain way, it's deeply inconsistent with our egalitarian vision. Sure blind people won't be able to fly airplanes, but that doesn't mean they are socially useless or even undesirable. Even under capitalism, enough people with Down's syndrome live happy, productive lives that I have no reason to believe it will be any worse under communism.Just how "egalitarian" is it to enable the tyranny of nature and fortune to continue? Just because it's possible to live a happy and productive life if one is blind for example, does not take away from the fact that life is even better if one can see.

I think better examples are genetic diseases that ruin people's lives, including things like genetic tendencies to reject vaccination or Tay-sachs. These should be cured, possibly through genetic engineering. But we need to also make society more livable for people who are viewed as "obviously genetically defective".Sure, for those already born and for whom we can't do anything to help. But I fail to see what is to be gained from allowing people to be born blind if we have the capability to correct such things in utero or later on through surgery or prosthetics.

MarxSchmarx

11th April 2009, 08:06

I'll cut to the chase.

Both you guys seem to forget that being "female" or "non-white" was considered a genetic defect until surprisingly recently. In fact many of the arguments you raise as to why we should "breed out the negro in aboriginee children" or "dilute the Irish gene pool" or "do what we can to have only sons" etc... are verbatim what you are saying.

The point is that the limitations that are placed on people are just as social as they are "natural." Every generation insists that there are concrete, physical, qualitative and scientific reasons why being born a certain way is "objectively and obviously shitty". Hell if Englishmen felt pity on the Irish for being born Irish, because they will never enjoy the "finer things in life", or a "brute Asiatic won't enjoy the freedom enjoyed by an Anglo-saxon to chose his own destiny", well, it makes me wonder about people who go around today and say "blind people will never be truly free" or "people with Down's syndrome are suffering". To be sure, I would rather not have my genetic limitations and be among the genetic uber-mensch, a genetically brilliant scientist, world class athlete, and ridiculously beautiful, but in many respects many people the world over would rather have my problems than the problems they have. So where does this get us?

if the person feels its part of his/her identity to be blind then by all means let them blind themselves but until they are at the point where they can decide for themselves the guiding principle should be to give all the benefits possible to the unborn child and remove as much of the negative results of their genetics.But see, our identies are only so much under our control. By this logic, Barack Obama is just as white as he is black, so he should have a choice of his racial identity, right? Nope.

[Just how "egalitarian" is it to enable the tyranny of nature and fortune to continue? Just because it's possible to live a happy and productive life if one is blind for example, does not take away from the fact that life is even better if one can see

Yeah but the thing is life would be better, under present circumstances, if one wer white. Why are the benefits of being able to see any less socially contingent than the benefits of being white?

Sure, for those already born and for whom we can't do anything to help. But I fail to see what is to be gained from allowing people to be born blind if we have the capability to correct such things in utero or later on through surgery or prosthetics. This gives me a good opportunity to explain why it's not a fallacy. See, what is to be gained by letting people be born by anything less than supermodels and Einsteins and uber-athletes? Why be genetically "inferior"? WHy not just have people clone themselves and remove any and all "genetic defects"?

See, this is where we differ. Society needs to be remade to accept and celebrate individuals for who they are. We need to get rid of the social construct that being deaf or black or blind is a limitation of your personal freedom and enrichment. Sure I'd rather be sane than insane, but at the same time I wouldn't want to be regarded with pity or be seen as "damaged goods" just because I'm blind or black. I know a lot of people who are considered "disabled" and they don't appreciate even the well meaning pity, because it doesn't accept them for who they are.

ÑóẊîöŉ

11th April 2009, 09:54

I'll cut to the chase.

Both you guys seem to forget that being "female" or "non-white" was considered a genetic defect until surprisingly recently. In fact many of the arguments you raise as to why we should "breed out the negro in aboriginee children" or "dilute the Irish gene pool" or "do what we can to have only sons" etc... are verbatim what you are saying.

And they were wrong. Being non-white or female is part of normal human diversity. Blindness, spina bifida, and so on are not.

The point is that the limitations that are placed on people are just as social as they are "natural." Every generation insists that there are concrete, physical, qualitative and scientific reasons why being born a certain way is "objectively and obviously shitty". Hell if Englishmen felt pity on the Irish for being born Irish, because they will never enjoy the "finer things in life", or a "brute Asiatic won't enjoy the freedom enjoyed by an Anglo-saxon to chose his own destiny", well, it makes me wonder about people who go around today and say "blind people will never be truly free" or "people with Down's syndrome are suffering". To be sure, I would rather not have my genetic limitations and be among the genetic uber-mensch, a genetically brilliant scientist, world class athlete, and ridiculously beautiful, but in many respects many people the world over would rather have my problems than the problems they have. So where does this get us?

But see, our identies are only so much under our control. By this logic, Barack Obama is just as white as he is black, so he should have a choice of his racial identity, right? Nope.And I wonder about those people who bring up seriously outdated notions of "race", which is a social construct with no scientific basis.

Yeah but the thing is life would be better, under present circumstances, if one wer white.As a white person, I find such a viewpoint utterly fucking ridiculous. I've never had my dick held for me just because of my white skin. My good fortune comes from being born into a rich country with a good social safety net. It has nothing to do with my pale complexion, which isn't some kind of fucking meal ticket.

Why are the benefits of being able to see any less socially contingent than the benefits of being white?Are you fucking serious?! Being able to see is a benefit unto itself which is not socially contingent unless you're some kind of fucking postmodernist, which I hope for your sake that you are not.

This gives me a good opportunity to explain why it's not a fallacy. See, what is to be gained by letting people be born by anything less than supermodels and Einsteins and uber-athletes? Why be genetically "inferior"? WHy not just have people clone themselves and remove any and all "genetic defects"? Strawman. Eliminating congenital conditions such as blindness and spina bifida is not the same thing as only letting geniuses and supermodels reproduce. That's something that you've just made up.

See, this is where we differ. Society needs to be remade to accept and celebrate individuals for who they are. We need to get rid of the social construct that being deaf or black or blind is a limitation of your personal freedom and enrichment.But being blind/deaf is a limitation on one's personal enrichment, and it's not a social construct unlike the limitations imposed by skin colour. Sound and vision are real physical phenomena with their own inherent beauty and subtlety, which is lost to those who are blind and/or deaf.

I also can't help but notice that the vast majority of people who can see and hear don't choose to blind or deafen themselves. Seems to me the default position of humans is to maintain as many faculties as possible.

Sure I'd rather be sane than insane, but at the same time I wouldn't want to be regarded with pity or be seen as "damaged goods" just because I'm blind or black. I know a lot of people who are considered "disabled" and they don't appreciate even the well meaning pity, because it doesn't accept them for who they are.While there is a lot to be said about not being condescending or patronising, people who are born missing a sense that humans normally enjoy really are missing out. It's fine and healthy that such people don't let such a thing bother them and simply get on with life, but I don't think that people should be denied anything because of the vagaries of nature.

Hoxhaist

11th April 2009, 16:04

Eugenics is a pseudoscience that was the base of fascist racism. Totally unacceptable!

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

11th April 2009, 17:27

I'm confused. The eugenics argument assumes the procedures are safe. If we grant that, we can benefit a lot from such procedures. Less susceptibility to illness, physical strength, intellect.

If you outlaw eugenics, imagine X and Y in the woods. Because their intellect is low, they forgot to bring safety equipment. They are attacked by a bear. Because their intellect is low, and they are afraid, they forgot the procedures for bear attacks. In addition, the bear isn't fully grown. The two of them try to fight it off, but they are unsuccessful. Had they been stronger, they would have survived.

Communist society can't pretend certain things aren't more desirable. What a ridiculous notion. If you're blind, you aren't damaged goods. We can explain that the way the world works makes you have a disadvantage. Strong would be at a disadvantage if the world was so brittle that strength broke things.

The fact is though, the world isn't fair. We can recognize that people got their advantage by luck, and not compensate them for having advantages, but we can't pretend they don't have advantages. That helps no one. You should let the farmer treat the sick and the doctor tend the fields, then, because otherwise one of them has a limitation.

Hoxhaist

11th April 2009, 17:33

Intellect is not a product of genetics, it is a product of education!!

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

11th April 2009, 17:47

Intellect is not a product of genetics, it is a product of education!!

Intellect is primarily genetic and secondarily environmental. You can't deny scientific evidence, assuming you've seen it, just because your political views are contrary to the results.

If intellect is genetic, my sister who has a learning disability can become a mathematician. Of course, the standard reply is "they have a learning disability." Well, learning disabilities are categorized regularly based on being outside the normal range of intellects rather than any particular genetic defect in the brain. So if we apply the limitation reasoning to people outside the normal intelligence range, who are no different genetically than us, we should apply it inside the normal intelligence range.

There is a reason why twins raised apart perform almost identically in academic environments. Genetics.

Hoxhaist

11th April 2009, 17:55

mentally ill people like John Nash rose above schizophrenia to become a Princeton professor and Nobel Prize winner. With your logic, inner kids must genetically inferior not just denied access to quality education because of the low high school graduation rate

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

11th April 2009, 18:36

Schizophrenia is a mental disorder not a lack of intellect. I said intellect is primarily genetic. There is still a significant portion of it that can be influenced by the environment. Also, environment has more affect on academic performance than on intellect. Intelligent people in bad circumstances can have academic difficulties. People can also have had underdeveloped intelligence (permanently) because of poor pre-natal nutrition, lack of early education, and other factors.

Here is quote from Singer:

"Let us suppose that the genetic hypothesis turns out to be correct... I believe that the implications of this supposition are less drastic than they are often supposed to be... First, the genetic hypothesis does not imply that we should reduce our efforts to overcome other causes of inequality between people... Perhaps we should put special efforts into helping those who start from a position of disadvantage, so that we end with a more egalitarian result. Second, the fact that the average IQ of one racial group is a few points higher than that of another does not allow anyone to say that all members of the higher IQ group have higher IQs... The point is that these figures are averages and say nothing about individuals... The third reason... is simply that, as we saw earlier, the principle of equality is not based on any actual equality that all people share. I have argued that the only defensible basis for the principle of equality is equal consideration of interests... Equal status does not depend on intelligence. Racists who maintain the contrary are in peril of being forced to kneel before the next genius they encounter."

If we accept that genetics do influence our intelligence and even place limits on how far we can develop our capacities, it isn't a problem for communism.

Adopted children raised together are no more similar in intelligence than strangers probably because the environmental effects are equalized and only genetics accounts for a difference.

The point is that although we need to treat people fairly, intelligence is a beneficial trait and using eugenics to increase it could be helpful.

Hoxhaist

11th April 2009, 19:51

dividing people and catagorizing individuals as genetically inferior to the rest of society is a dangerous road and regardless of intentions, it can so easily be perverted. The lack of access to equal quality education is the real genetic differences are unproven in DNA sequencing and is an excuse to disregard certian individuals' potential

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

11th April 2009, 20:09

There is plenty of evidence that genetics influence intelligence. You're completing ignoring evidence because you don't like it. I never claimed evidence can be perverted, but you haven't engaged the evidence. If you show me evidence that the earth revolves around the sun, I don't deny your claim because evidence can be easily perverted. I accept your evidence or give a reason why it's unfounded.

Inferiority is a moral claim. A less intelligent person is not inferior, but they are less capable. If you define "less capable" as inferior, there are people who are inferior. No amount of well wishing can change reality.

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

That is what you are talking about. There is little evidence that intelligence is entirely determined by the environment. There is little evidence that intelligence is entirely determined by genetics. There is plenty of evidence that both are important factors.

Disregarding potential has nothing to do with assuming limitations on intelligence. When someone with difficulties in math is given easier problems, it is because they can't do the harder problems. We aren't disregarding their potential. If they manage to complete the easier problems, we give them the harder ones.

Sometimes we realize people have reached a plateau. If they want to keep trying, they are entitled to do so. Logically, though, we can induce certain limitations. If I am asked to climb a wall without using other objects, simply by my own body, I will consider myself limited.

If I am asked to copy a famous painting, my ability in art is insufficient to do that. You can teach me how to draw much better than I can now, sure, and it may be that I could copy that painting if sufficiently trained. However, people need certain skills to accomplish a task.

Mathematics produces methodologies for solving problems. The people who came up with those methods were far ahead of the rest of us. They solved math problems without knowing how to solve math problems. They figured out, truly, how to solve them. Most of us just copy procedures, but we vary in the ability to copy those procedures. Some of us can't even do that.

Hoxhaist

11th April 2009, 20:15

Just as you said people can be trained to accomplish tasks it may take different amounts of time for different people but to disregard people because they dont meet a set period for development is not right. People should not be abandoned in their pursuit of self improvement or told not to even try because their "genetic makeup" holds them back. Show me a gene that codes for mathematics ability or artistic ability not anecdotes or hypotheses

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

11th April 2009, 21:54

You don't need a gene to induce a conclusion. We can observe people who are unable to learn certain things after thousands of attempts to teach them. We "could" be teaching them the wrong way, but why we would assume that?

If you see that lighting a match causes fire a thousand times, it could be the 1001th time that deviates from the rule. If we see people unable to learn something, we assume they are unable to learn it based on induction. We might be mistaken, but that is how we come to conclusions.

We need to encourage people to keep at tasks, yes. If someone thinks they can't learn an instrument because it is difficult at first, they miss out on an opportunity. However, evidence suggests that some people simply can't learn certain things. Even if we graciously rejected this point, some people can't learn learn as fast, and that is still an advantage.

Also, the idea that one gene is linked to intelligence is not accepted. Most scientists think multiple genes, and how they interact, contribute to intelligence. Below is a single gene that is estimated to account for only about 3% of intelligence, which is still significant for a gene.

http://www.physorg.com/news91799494.html

MarxSchmarx

12th April 2009, 05:18

Well Noxion you raise some interesting points; I still see them as skirting around the issue, though.

In essence I agree we need to maximize human choice and minimize human suffering to the extent that we can. But the important point is that this needs to be an individual decision. I won't object to adults who undergo cosmetic surgery or even genetic modifications, but the point is this shouldn't be society's decision but an individual's.

And they were wrong. Being non-white or female is part of normal human diversity. Blindness, spina bifida, and so on are not.

Prey tell what is "normal human diversity"? Who are you to proclaim what this is?

Yeah but the thing is life would be better, under present circumstances, if one wer white. As a white person, I find such a viewpoint utterly fucking ridiculous. I've never had my dick held for me just because of my white skin. My good fortune comes from being born into a rich country with a good social safety net. It has nothing to do with my pale complexion, which isn't some kind of fucking meal ticket.

From the tone of your post it sounds like you seriously believe "White privilege" is a myth. If so, then I can only view such a perspective as "fucking ridiculous" and we don't share a basic premise. Fine.

But let me add this. Take a trip to sub-Saharan Africa. I did. I'm not black African and believe me, the treatment I received by virtue of that fact, you can't forget.

How many Londoners of Carribbean origin hold your view? Or Asians in the UK? Why do you suppose they dye their hair, and some even use cream to lighten their skin? Is it because England has transcended racism? Ask those that grew up in predominantly white communities the struggles they went through and I will wager my money they won't share your perspective.

Are you fucking serious?! Being able to see is a benefit unto itself which is not socially contingent unless you're some kind of fucking postmodernist, which I hope for your sake that you are not.

Talk about a strawman! I am not blind, but I believe it when I'm told that blind people appreciate plenty of things that I don't, like the subtleties of music or the fragrance of a dinner. That's not postmodernism. In fact they've done experiments where they make people where blindfolds for long periods of time, and these people report that after a few days they see the world differently, and they stop regarding it as a major inconvenience.

Strawman. Eliminating congenital conditions such as blindness and spina bifida is not the same thing as only letting geniuses and supermodels reproduce. That's something that you've just made up.

Well, I prefer the phrase "that is an ingeneous argument" to "That's something that you've just made up" but whatev. But in any way, if we can eliminate what you consider to be inconveniences, Why not eliminate "ugliness" , below "150 IQs", alcoholism, slowness of breath, wouldn't all that enhance our lives by your standards?

But being blind/deaf is a limitation on one's personal enrichment, and it's not a social construct unlike the limitations imposed by skin colour. Sound and vision are real physical phenomena with their own inherent beauty and subtlety, which is lost to those who are blind and/or deaf.

Well first of all you're incorrect. There are deaf people who can apreciate a great piece of music through vibrations, and scientists have been working on how to convey many of the subtleties of the visual arts to the blind, with the blind having similar reactions to the rest of us. I have no real reason to believe they won't eventually nail it.

Second of all, who are you to tell them that they're experiences are any less enriching? I mean, do we lead shitty lives because we can only indirectly appreciate "real physical phenomena" like UV spectrums or subatomic processes? Come on.

I also can't help but notice that the vast majority of people who can see and hear don't choose to blind or deafen themselves. Seems to me the default position of humans is to maintain as many faculties as possible.

Under present social conditions...

While there is a lot to be said about not being condescending or patronising, people who are born missing a sense that humans normally enjoy really are missing out. It's fine and healthy that such people don't let such a thing bother them and simply get on with life, but I don't think that people should be denied anything because of the vagaries of nature.

Well sure, people should maximize their choices. But that should apply to them and them alone. Not parents, not society, not extended family, should tell them what they can and can't enjoy. And eugenics has always been about improving other people, not yourself, through genetic changes.

If we want to redifine it to include "genetic medicine" or stem cells or some such then this is really a matter of semantics and we don't disagree on the substance.

Guerrilla22

12th April 2009, 06:06

There wasn't even anything wrong with a lot of the people forcibly sterillized in the US. Quite a few people were simply sterillized because they were not economically well off, and were not exactly socially graceful. See Carrie Buck, a woman who was sterillized in Virginia, for being poor, from a rural area and relatively uneducated.

ÑóẊîöŉ

12th April 2009, 08:47

Well Noxion you raise some interesting points; I still see them as skirting around the issue, though.

In essence I agree we need to maximize human choice and minimize human suffering to the extent that we can. But the important point is that this needs to be an individual decision. I won't object to adults who undergo cosmetic surgery or even genetic modifications, but the point is this shouldn't be society's decision but an individual's.

Well, if one doesn't like being able to see, one can always choose to blind oneself. Yet people only seem to do so under duress.

Prey tell what is "normal human diversity"? Who are you to proclaim what this is?It's not up to me - human evolution is the deciding factor here. Humans naturally evolved different skin tones, but not blindness.

From the tone of your post it sounds like you seriously believe "White privilege" is a myth. If so, then I can only view such a perspective as "fucking ridiculous" and we don't share a basic premise. Fine.

But let me add this. Take a trip to sub-Saharan Africa. I did. I'm not black African and believe me, the treatment I received by virtue of that fact, you can't forget. Whites are a minority in sub-Saharan Africa, if I remember correctly. Considering also that unhappy continent's history of colonialism it makes sense that "white privilege" would exist there.

How many Londoners of Carribbean origin hold your view? Or Asians in the UK? Why do you suppose they dye their hair, and some even use cream to lighten their skin? Is it because England has transcended racism? Ask those that grew up in predominantly white communities the struggles they went through and I will wager my money they won't share your perspective.The discrimination faced by non-whites in the UK has not served to enhance my status in any way whatsoever, in my experience.

Talk about a strawman! I am not blind, but I believe it when I'm told that blind people appreciate plenty of things that I don't, like the subtleties of music or the fragrance of a dinner. That's not postmodernism. In fact they've done experiments where they make people where blindfolds for long periods of time, and these people report that after a few days they see the world differently, and they stop regarding it as a major inconvenience. Well, that's a testament to the human ability to adapt to circumstances, but why should people be forced to do so by circumstance of birth in the first place? If people who are already blind are content with that situation then that's fine, but physiologically speaking it's a lot harder to regain function that was lost (or was never present in the first place) than it is to lose it in the first place. Even if function is regained, it's not always optimal.

Well, I prefer the phrase "that is an ingeneous argument" to "That's something that you've just made up" but whatev. But in any way, if we can eliminate what you consider to be inconveniences, Why not eliminate "ugliness" , below "150 IQs", alcoholism, slowness of breath, wouldn't all that enhance our lives by your standards?It would, and I would support it if in utero gene therapy meant that one doesn't have to be a genius or supermodel to give birth to one.

Well first of all you're incorrect. There are deaf people who can apreciate a great piece of music through vibrations, and scientists have been working on how to convey many of the subtleties of the visual arts to the blind, with the blind having similar reactions to the rest of us. I have no real reason to believe they won't eventually nail it.They're experiencing vibrations, not sounds. Not the same thing. I can experience vibrations as well, but I can also experience sound as well.

Second of all, who are you to tell them that they're experiences are any less enriching? I mean, do we lead shitty lives because we can only indirectly appreciate "real physical phenomena" like UV spectrums or subatomic processes? Come on.Actually, if it were possible to genetically engineer the ability to detect the UV spectrum or have a built-in appreciation for subatomic processes, then I would indeed be missing out. The limitations of the human senses are the mother of all burqas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QI3Vg0kpYE)

Under present social conditions...It also seems to be the case under all previous social conditions also. In fact, considering the technologies and assistance currently available for the blind, if one wanted to blind oneself, the current era is the best one to do so in. Yet strangely, precious few people do.

Well sure, people should maximize their choices. But that should apply to them and them alone. Not parents, not society, not extended family, should tell them what they can and can't enjoy. And eugenics has always been about improving other people, not yourself, through genetic changes.We should want the best for our children - anything less is negligence. That's a sentiment seemingly shared by many in their pursuit to get their children into the best schools. Yet when it comes to giving our children strong minds and healthy bodies via genetic alteration, there is this strange double standard.

Comrade_Red

12th April 2009, 09:12

All i can say on the matter of eugenics is that i don't support it, but many people here would undeoubtedly be in favor of aborting a retarded child. And while i am pro-choice, that certainly makes you wonder.

Yazman

13th April 2009, 05:05

I don't support eugenics, but I do support screening of foetuses and in utero gene therapy. I don't see any reason to oppose this. We can screen out some horribly fucked up conditions but some of you seem to think that they're beneficial or somehow good for the people who have them.

MarxSchmarx

13th April 2009, 05:55

WEll at this point we may be talking past each other. I see your broader point, but in many respects I:m not sure I would call what you:re describing "eugenics", certainly not in the way it was conceived or widely understood.

As for specifics:

It would, and I would support it if in utero gene therapy meant that one doesn't have to be a genius or supermodel to give birth to one...We should want the best for our children - anything less is negligence. That's a sentiment seemingly shared by many in their pursuit to get their children into the best schools. Yet when it comes to giving our children strong minds and healthy bodies via genetic alteration, there is this strange double standard.So what would become of somebody who wasn:t privy to all this? Would they be regarded as "obviously genetically defective" and treated the way people who receive a substandard education are today?

Indeed, just as say expensive top notch schooling is a privilege that enforces class hierarchies under present socioeconomic conditions, genetic improvement would simply effectevily enforce current hierarchies.

Whites are a minority in sub-Saharan Africa, if I remember correctly. Considering also that unhappy continent's history of colonialism it makes sense that "white privilege" would exist there...The discrimination faced by non-whites in the UK has not served to enhance my status in any way whatsoever, in my experience.
The point was that many people view the ability to change their race as desirable. And frankly it would be, if one looks at the opportunity to take advantage of "white privilege" in Africa and, yes, in Europe or America. White privilege is more subtle in these places, but exists. For instance your life expectancy is likely going to be longer because you are White and not born to Jamaican parents. Or you are likelier to make more money, etc... even in the UK. Every time a person of color is not hired for a job on the basis of their skin, your benefit because that:s one more job you have available to you. You don:t have to put up with a lot of the stress adolescents of color do, and this gives you a leg up. So sure it:s not as blatant as the privilege extended to non-blacks in Africa, but exists and is a social force that tends to benefit white people. But this goes too off topic.

They're experiencing vibrations, not sounds. Not the same thing. I can experience vibrations as well, but I can also experience sound as well.Just as a blind person can experience a sculpture through touch taht is not visible light waves. the point was that there are ways that these people experience and internalize their experiences that people who aren:t blind or deaf often don:t.

It also seems to be the case under all previous social conditions also. In fact, considering the technologies and assistance currently available for the blind, if one wanted to blind oneself, the current era is the best one to do so in. Yet strangely, precious few people do.

Peoploe don:t go irreversibly blind, butI can imagine a future where people may want to go blind for short lengths of time. But whatever I won:t press this point, it was more of a rhetorical device to highlight the socially contingent nature of what is considered "genetically appropriate".

Revy

13th April 2009, 10:34

I'm against eugenics, and I don't think it's compatible with a liberated society. You cannot tell specific people they cannot reproduce because of their genes, and turn around and allow the so-called "superior" person to do so, it is a barbaric and inhuman way of thinking.

I think that transhumanism is far more ethical (because it is voluntary). Genetics can be unequal and discriminatory, because certain people have to suffer through painful or disabling conditions through no fault of their own. If science can overcome this (without being prejudiced in the process), it is a wonderful achievement.

If I were blind, I certainly would not appreciate it. Without my contact lenses, my sight is bad enough (trust me, it's bad). Blurry vision is not awesome. Even though I am not legally blind, if this technology could engineer my vision to be 20/20, I would absolutely opt for it.

ÑóẊîöŉ

13th April 2009, 14:05

WEll at this point we may be talking past each other. I see your broader point, but in many respects I:m not sure I would call what you:re describing "eugenics", certainly not in the way it was conceived or widely understood.

As I mentioned earlier, it might simply be a case of semantics. The word eugenics is inevitably associated with coercive, pseudoscientific programs with ludicrous or ill-defined goals, it seems.

My conception of the idea, whatever you choose to call it, is intended to benefit as many people as possible, rather than creating a seperate class of superior individuals. This is why I also support forms of human enhancement that can be applied to currently living people as well as those yet to be born.

As for specifics:

So what would become of somebody who wasn:t privy to all this? Would they be regarded as "obviously genetically defective" and treated the way people who receive a substandard education are today?

Indeed, just as say expensive top notch schooling is a privilege that enforces class hierarchies under present socioeconomic conditions, genetic improvement would simply effectevily enforce current hierarchies.The trouble is that if your attitude had prevailed, nobody would be getting a decent education because it would be (and might still be) impossible to provide everyone with a top-notch education. We have to start somewhere.

Also, like with education, genetic improvements benefit everyone due to ripple effects. With education, it's one of the payoffs of having an educated workforce, even if not everyone has been educated to university standard. Similarly, it's not certain that enhanced individuals will only reproduce with other enhanced individuals, meaning that genetic improvements will eventually propogate into the general population even if only a minority has them at first.

The point was that many people view the ability to change their race as desirable. And frankly it would be, if one looks at the opportunity to take advantage of "white privilege" in Africa and, yes, in Europe or America. White privilege is more subtle in these places, but exists. For instance your life expectancy is likely going to be longer because you are White and not born to Jamaican parents. Or you are likelier to make more money, etc... even in the UK. Every time a person of color is not hired for a job on the basis of their skin, your benefit because that:s one more job you have available to you.Crap. It's not certain that I'll ever get a particular job. Like I implied earlier, just because other people are getting shafted does not mean I benefit. Life is not a zero-sum scenario.

In my experience, I find that when a particular individual gets shafted, there's a noticeable negative ripple effect - think of as the reverse or "evil twin" of the positive ripple effect I mentioned above. Using the job application scenario you mentioned as an example, an employer who turns down applicants based on race is also likely to turn down other applicants based on other spurious criteria, such as age, personal appearance, sex, accent, nationality, and so on and so forth.

Just as a blind person can experience a sculpture through touch taht is not visible light waves. the point was that there are ways that these people experience and internalize their experiences that people who aren:t blind or deaf often don:t.But they can still experience them if they so choose - on the other hand, blind people cannot choose to see (at least at the present time).

Peoploe don:t go irreversibly blind, butI can imagine a future where people may want to go blind for short lengths of time. But whatever I won:t press this point, it was more of a rhetorical device to highlight the socially contingent nature of what is considered "genetically appropriate".As a rhetorical device, I must say I find it most unconvincing. People can choose to blind themselves, but if they are born blind then they do not get that choice. If your aim is to maximise human choice as you say, then you're not doing a very good job of it.