In defence of eugenics (1 Viewer)

[Silver Persian]

Gggrrraaannneeeyyy

but seriously, what kind of eugenics would you like to see?

 

[prime-factor]

Consideration of the past can be valuable, but in this case you are using faulty logic to extrapolate from the past. You seem to argue in two directions: (1) that fascist regimes always feature eugenics and (2) that benign eugenics always leads to a troublesome fascist form

On (1), consider other things which are associated with facist regimes:
- Some (any!) form of government
- Armed force
- Drug use in the populace

The fact that they are associated should not be seen as a mark against them. Fascist regimes use logic and no doubt they need some semblance of a healthcare system (--> reductio ad absurdum). It seems a mistake to suggest that association, in and of itself, is a black mark.

On (2), I note that you say "nearly all", suggesting that benign forms of eugenics do exist (and if you cannot argue 'always' then you don't really have a case against eugenics per se - only certain forms). A fairly simple example is prenatal screening used by women to screen for genetic and morphological disorders, allowing them to terminate the pregnancy if they so wish. Such programs do not need to be government funded - they can take place in the context of a private healthcare system. In this case funding for eugenics comes from the people. Provided that abortion of the normal fetus is permitted (say, up to 24 wks) them legislation regarding termination following screening can be fairly simple.

Pre-implantation genetic screening in IVF is a fairly similar example which leads you into the territory of 'designer babies'. I would expect uptake of such technology to be consumer, rather than government, driven.

Although my stance regarding eugenics may appear to be cynical and untrusting, I do believe that some forms of eugenics such as the example(s) you mentioned are generally quite reasonable and unreliant on government control, or require only a small amount of such control.

In an ideal society eugenics would be a much less dangerous or 'potentially' dangerous operation than in the society in which we live. The fact of the matter is that technology advances, and it often does so at an exponential, almost frightening rate. If we have a look at something like eugenics, it seems like something that can and (I think) will be taken to far. The idea of designer babies is also raises ethical issues. What if as a result of eugenics a baby that would grow up to become a scientist that would discover a major scientific breakthrough was chosen by it's parents to not live. Although this sounds like a childish argument, it does raise questions.

 

[Graney]

But seriously, what kind of eugenics would you like to see?

I'd like to see bigger boobs on chicks, that'd be mad.

 

[Enteebee]

I'm not sure that homosexuality is a biological trait sir.

And by sir I mean you fucking cunt.

Why do you think we'd be better off leaving our species genetic future to the whim of what essentially amounts to a random number generator? It's not like there's anything special about saying "lets leave it up to nature". All you're doing is practicing a form of eugenics where you enforce the dictate of the equivalent of a RNG. Obviously state-based eugenics lead to all sorts of problems I'd rather not have... but supporting eugenics doesn't necessarily mean supporting the right of the state to enforce their particular genetic 'plan'.

For instance I think it is more than acceptable for us to have screening of mothers to let them know whether their child has down syndrome so they can then choose whether they want to go through with the pregnancy.

 

[Silver Persian]

I'd like to see bigger boobs on chicks, that'd be mad.

But seriously, what kind of eugenics would you like to see?

 

[Will Shakespear]

i wouldn't have any problems with the state offering financial incentives for people who are adequately poor, ugly and dumb to undergo voluntary sterilisation...

 

[Silver Persian]

Why do you think we'd be better off leaving our species genetic future to the whim of what essentially amounts to a random number generator? It's not like there's anything special about saying "lets leave it up to nature". All you're doing is practicing a form of eugenics where you enforce the dictate of the equivalent of a RNG.

Did you quote the wrong quote?

I don't agree that leaving reproduction up to "nature: or chance is a form of eugenics. Eugenics involves a conscious and deliberate attempt to manipulate the demographics of a population in particular ways. Random number generator does not do this.

But I am open to the possibility of eugenics. I'm just trying to see what Graney would adopt as a formal policy that would both avoid the potential for authoritarianism and provide reasonable and just grounds upon which decisions about which traits should be "bred out" can be made.

 

[KFunk]

The idea of designer babies is also raises ethical issues. What if as a result of eugenics a baby that would grow up to become a scientist that would discover a major scientific breakthrough was chosen by it's parents to not live. Although this sounds like a childish argument, it does raise questions.

Consider, though, that the fetus could just as well develop into a psychopath (prevalence-wise this is not too unfair a comparison since the estimated prevalence of psycopathy, ~ 0.5-1%, is about on par with an IQ of 137 which is near the supposed 'genius' range). More pertinently, at present we have little reason to think that designer babies will contribute less to society. In fact, we may predict the opposite if we start selecting them for genetic traits which predict things like intelligence and moral conscientiousness.

If nothing else chaos ensures that it is difficult to take utilitarian reasoning to is fullest extent - i.e. our predictive powers are too weak for certain 'downstream' events (such as the contributions a fetus will make to society 25 years hence) to be morally relevant.

 

[Enteebee]

I didn't quote the wrong person. The problem with your idea that chance isn't a form of eugenics (or maybe disgenics) is that whatever we do will have likely consequences that we will be aware of, sort of like if we have a random number generator which has two options both with a 50/50 chance of black or white, we'll know that what we've done by allowing it to pick the number randomly is most likely chosen half white numbers half black. In the real world for instance, we know that it is far more likely that in America (if we leave things the way they are) you will see an increase in the percentage of the population who are black. By choosing not to engage in a policy of limiting black births in some way we are deciding this is the path we want to go down.

Of course our predictions could be wrong about nature, just as we could be wrong about the consequences of our eugenic programs.

 

[Silver Persian]

But the "random number generator" doesn't involve an external intervention into the decisions being made by individuals. The attempt to reduce the number of black people in the US through sterilisation does.

Liberty dude.

But if you can explain to me a policy program that is not socially authoritarian and does have a legitimate and just basis upon which particular "types" of people are encouraged to reproduce, then I am all ears.

 

[Enteebee]

But the "random number generator" doesn't involve an external intervention into the decisions being made by individuals. The attempt to reduce the number of black people in the US through sterilisation does.

It involves a lack of external intervention. Intervention in the actions/decisions of people isn't necessarily bad... certainly mandatory vaccinations etc have been of benefit to the human species. It could be argued that the proliferation of serious genetic conditions which we could (in theory) stamp out now is passing a costly burden on to future generations.

ALSO tbqh any idea which outlaws eugenics would be as antithetical to the free market as forced eugenics, as I said I have problems with state-based eugenics programs however I do believe that individuals should be able to make (at least some... idk how far I'd go) eugenic decisions such as whether they want to give birth to a child with a serious illness, or if they want to give birth to a kid who is blind etc. A perfect free market approach to this would also say that people should be able to abort their kids until they find one who is really sickly and give birth to them (i.e. dysgenics) and I don't think I'd be too supportive of that either.

 

[Graney]

But seriously, what kind of eugenics would you like to see?

I don't know, I haven't thought this through. I just made the thread, because eugenics is one of the greatest taboo's in our society and I thought a reasonable case against it could be made. The specifics aren't important. I don't even really care either way if society practices eugenics or not.

I'm just trying to see what Graney would adopt as a formal policy that would both avoid the potential for authoritarianism and provide reasonable and just grounds upon which decisions about which traits should be "bred out" can be made.

How do you avoid the potential for authoritarianism anywhere, in any matter? You can't legislate against global authoritarianism.
We can argue against it morally, but government does as it pleases. The UN would adopt a stance that forced eugenics is abhorrent, some states would disobey this, as they've always disobeyed mandates to uphold human rights.

The world would continue to turn as normal.

just grounds upon which decisions about which traits should be "bred out" can be made.

Whichever traits the free market wants? The individual, businesses and programs involved in the scheme can decide this for themselves.

 

[Silver Persian]

Whichever traits the free market wants? The individual, businesses and programs involved in the scheme can decide this for themselves

But, I mean, you don't use eugenics against yourself. The logic of the market can only be associated with freedom when liberal standards about the rights of the individual are invoked to prevent the purchase of slaves or the hiring of professional assassins.

Eugenics necessarily involves the manipulation of others' reproductive behaviour, and thus seems inconsistent with a libertarian-markets-rights of the individual stance.

Under your idea of eugenics, would individuals be primarily controlling the type of children that they are giving birth to (as NTB is suggesting), or would the state be setting up financial incentives to encourage particular groups to voluntary have themselves sterilised, or would the state be sending out the stormtroopers? :<

idk. too sleepy.

 

[Graney]

Under your idea of eugenics, would individuals be primarily controlling the type of children that they are giving birth to (as NTB is suggesting)

Exactly.

I don't think parents selecting for positive traits in their offspring is a violation of anyone's liberty.

 

[moll.]

So called "designer babies" would actually be a great boon for humanity and evolution. If parents were able to get rid of certain genes which are more prone to disease and decay, the child would then be living a longer and healthier lifestyle. If this was done all across Australia it would only take a few generations for such genes to be eradicated completely, leading to lower health costs, higher standards of living and, especially, a lower mortality rate and a higher life expectancy.
Ruddkip should spend some of his $42 on this kind of genetic research.

 

[Silver Persian]

Yeah that's ok then. I have a vague feeling of uneasiness about designer babies, but nothing I can really rationalise,

*leaves thread*

 

[Graney]

Gattaca is one of my favorite movies.

 

[KFunk]

Gattaca is one of my favorite movies.

Told statistically, the success of Ethan Hawke's character would have been but an anomaly - alas. Have pity for the human spirit.

 

[Graney]

However, in 2004, bioethicist James Hughes explicitly criticized the premise and influence of the film Gattaca by arguing that:[14]

1. Astronaut-training programs are entirely justified in attempting to screen out people with heart problems for safety reasons;
2. In the United States, people are already discriminated against by insurance companies on the basis of their propensities to disease despite the fact that genetic enhancement is not yet available;
3. Rather than banning genetic testing or genetic enhancement, society needs genetic information privacy laws that allow justified forms of genetic testing and data aggregation, but forbid those that are judged to result in genetic discrimination (such as the U.S. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act signed into law on May 21, 2008.). Citizens should then be able to make a complaint to the appropriate authority if they believe they have been discriminated against because of their genotype.

 

[moll.]

Told statistically, the success of Ethan Hawke's character would have been but an anomaly - alas. Have pity for the human spirit.

It's not like his brother wasn't human and didn't have any human spirit. He may have desired to become a cop just as much as Ethan Hawke's character desired to become an astronaut. It doesn't make him any less worthy of humanity or the title of human spirit, just because he was born with a genetic advantage.
This is just the 22nd century's version of the Noble Savage. Shame on you KFunk! I expected better.