Could There ever be a case FOR Eugenics?

Anthropology suggests that as a species becomes advanced enough to protect the weakest members of the species, evolution stops or at least drastically slows.

At least 6.5 billion people now inhabit this planet, with the population growing all the time, meaning that at some point in the future, we will outgrow our planet.

With this in mind, I would ask if there could be a case for Eugenics.

en.wikipedia.org...

Please bear in mind (and read further down the link) that modern eugenics is slightly different to that advocated in the early part of the 20th century, and may be more to do with genetically modifying future generations to take out some "undesirable" characteristics.

Of course, this would always be open to abuse, but could this possibly be the answer to the reduction in evolution that anthropology says we face?

www.eugenics.net...

I think that some of this smacks of Nazism, but is it possible that it could have a place in the development of the Human species?

We are either not advanced enough, or do not yet have the will (politically) to move into space for our resources, so could this be the answer "for the good of the species"?

Originally posted by budski
as a species becomes advanced enough to protect the weakest members of the species, evolution stops or at least drastically slows.

Correct - you are basically quoting -

Herbert Spencer. Social Darwinism. Survival of the fittest.
Which I brought up on the Sterilize the poor thread.

Welfare and major social programs that continually 'save' the weakest and/or laziest members of the human race interfere with evolution and cause the human race to weaken. It interrupts evolution. It interrupts the natural law of survival of the fittest. Instead of the lazy and/or stupid and/or useless members of the human species being naturally selected out ... they are instead 'saved' and allowed to breed .. which brings the collective mentality of the human race down.

Don't shoot the messenger - I'm just quoting to you from Herbert Spencer.

IS there a case for eugenics based on that? It depends on your perspective. From a completely logical point of view - absolutely. From a spiritual point of view - never.

Although welfare and/or programs that support the desperately poor (such as in Africa) actually interfere with natural selection .... they COULD help humanity spiritually.

IS there a case for eugenics based on that? It depends on your perspective. From a completely logical point of view - absolutely. From a spiritual point of view - never.

And there is the clincher. Thinking logically, without letting emotion or personal beliefs come into it, I believe eugenics, constant improvement of the human race through selective breeding would spur a dramatic change in our evolution. However, for this to happen, spiritual beliefs need to disappear, and that ain't going to happen

Maybe when the human race is spread out across the galaxy, then like minded people will come together and form a small community, maybe a city, or a small world. They'll probably be seen as vile, immoral, unethical and having no respect for human life. But just imagine, IF (big if), this community of people go about eugenics in a proper fashion (ie: make humans smarter, stronger, faster, more resistant to radiation but do so without reducing the value of human life such as killing off newborns because they're left toe was a few mm too long) imagine how powerfull this new 'race' of intergalactic humans would be? They would no doubt become a major force in the universe, constantly improving, striving, reaching for new goals, evolving faster than anything could naturally do. Super-intelligent beings = faster tech development. Radiation-resistant, longer living beings = able to travel throughout space and be exposed to harsh climates.

Romanticised sci-fi ideal? Probably. But very interesting to think about.

Did anybody read "The Mote In Gods Eye"?

Remember the Sauron Supermen, and how they caused the collapse of the first empire of man?

I'd say that it would have to apply to ALL humans, and soon - by the time we would have been ready to colonise distant stars (if ever) then the dream may have died.

I don't really advocate this theory - just thought it posed an interesting question.

Sorry, got a bit sidetracked there.

To address the spiritual question, please have a read - not necessarily my point of view, but provides a slightly different perspective on the question of eugenics and spirituality.

www.eugenics.net...

there is obviously an argument for eugenics, it's just not good in any way shape or form

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
there is obviously an argument for eugenics, it's just not good in any way shape or form

Could it not equally be said that a lack of eugenics or a similar programme is not good for the human race - and it is therefore irresponsible to future generations not to include something like this into our way of thinking?

Again - not my belief - I am here merely as devils advocate

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Welfare and major social programs that continually 'save' the weakest and/or laziest members of the human race interfere with evolution and cause the human race to weaken. It interrupts evolution. It interrupts the natural law of survival of the fittest. Instead of the lazy and/or stupid and/or useless members of the human species being naturally selected out ... they are instead 'saved' and allowed to breed .. which brings the collective mentality of the human race down.

Just imagine... an entire planet of the 'self sufficient.'

Paris Hilton's and George Bush's breeding like rabbits.

I just got goose bumps.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Correct - you are basically quoting -

Herbert Spencer. Social Darwinism. Survival of the fittest.
Which I brought up on the Sterilize the poor thread.

Welfare and major social programs that continually 'save' the weakest and/or laziest members of the human race interfere with evolution and cause the human race to weaken. It interrupts evolution. It interrupts the natural law of survival of the fittest. Instead of the lazy and/or stupid and/or useless members of the human species being naturally selected out ... they are instead 'saved' and allowed to breed .. which brings the collective mentality of the human race down.

Don't shoot the messenger - I'm just quoting to you from Herbert Spencer.

IS there a case for eugenics based on that? It depends on your perspective. From a completely logical point of view - absolutely. From a spiritual point of view - never.

Although welfare and/or programs that support the desperately poor (such as in Africa) actually interfere with natural selection .... they COULD help humanity spiritually.

That's twice now, FF. Twice that I've seen you post this.

This is precisely the problem with people who don't understand natural selection. I can tell by how you have thrown around the phrase "survival of the fittest."

You obviously think that means "fittest" as in strongest/fastest/smartest individuals. Well, it's time for Truth to school you...

What Darwin mean by "fittest" is those individuals who are best able to reproduce. So, if the "stupid/lazy/useless" people are the ones who have the most kids, guess what? They are the fittest! In terms of evolution, "fitness" means how well you are able to reproduce. It is NOT like the PE meaning of fitness.

So, if these individuals make more children than the "smart/hardworking/usefull" individuals, the latter will not be represented as much in future generations. Which is PRECISELY what you see, as you say. Those who you deem as unworthy (the 3rd world and the poor in other countries) are cleaning the "superior" people with money's clocks, as far as reproduction goes.

That is what CLEARLY tells me what people who subscribe to this line of thought are thinking. It's like, "I'm rich/well-off, and I want more for myself. The useless eaters are sucking up money and resources that I could be using. I am fit, they are not, so why should we support them?"



BTW, since you want to argue biology and all, why should the rich/well-off use modern medicine? Natural selection, through disease, would weed out the "fittest" people, right? And why should these people live in cities? Why not live in more natural settings, where predators would weed out the unfit? And your elderly relatives: why care for them or put them in a nursing home? If they are truly "fit," they will survive without that.

It's just like the idiots who scream "I ain't come from no damn monkey" all day...

We are currently on the scientific verge of genetic manipulation and in the not-to-distant-future we WILL have defective chromosomes selected out in vitro. Of course, the temptation for "vanity" selection will also occur. "Hey doc, can you make my child a blue-eyed girl?"
Genetic manipulation (a form of eugenics) has alluring possibilities but weeding out "defective", ie: poor people is a horrible abuse of eugenics. Poor people aren't necessarily stupid, lazy, unmotivated. Some of us just don't care to sell our souls in a cut-throat competitive arena for the almighty dollar. I don't expect anyone to support me or my children but if the rules of the game are not set up for people like me to win, place or show (financially), then be prepared for us to either cheat or change the rules of the game in our favor.
I have been pregnant 6 times despite using 6 different types of 99.9% effective birth control methods. All my children are healthy even though they were raised on a paupers diet and had little access to (or need for) health care. Which of us is the "fittest to survive"?

Sarcasm alert:

Whitewave, you just don't get it. You are POOR and have had SIX kids. You OBVIOUSLY should have been sterilized a long time ago. It's people like you that make the best case for eugenics. You are not fit, and you should be IMMEDIATELY sterilized.

So says some of the people in this forum...

So say very few of the people.

Ethics and eugenics are not good bedfellows. Or perhaps I should rephrase that and say "good" ethical standards and eugenics are not comfortable bedfellows.

Eugenics in its simplist definition is selection of good traits over bad ones. Simple, but basically correct. My only questions here is, who decides which traits are good, which are bad? You, me, that nebulous other...each individual selecting for their child?

This is a very slippery slope, and our grasp of the ethics involved have not had the chance to catch up with the advances in science. So for the now and into the immediate future, I'd have to say less is more. What will happen in the future further down the line? I don't think any of us really know. Perhaps a humanity wide ethical breakthrough, more likely a breakdown, but anyway; until our ethical standards improve, eugenics is something better to be avoided except in small doses. In vitro treatment of genetic abnormalities we all recognize such as Downs and other genetic abnormalities. But there again, who's to difine abnormalities. Some of the happiest, kindest people I know are two Downs children.

Again, our grasp of the ethics involved in eugenics is lacking. Less is more, at least for now. The future? Who knows.

Originally posted by truthseeka
This is precisely the problem with people who don't understand natural selection. I can tell by how you have thrown around the phrase "survival of the fittest."

:shk: Go back to school. I SPECIFICALLY STATED the 'survival of the fittest' and the SOCIAL DARWINISM concept by HERBERT SPENCER.

it's time for Truth to school you.

Egads .. what a frightening thought. No thanks.

What Darwin mean ...

SOCIAL DARWINISM via Herbert Spencer, truthseeka ... Not Darwin.

You CLAIM to have read the posts ... and yet you obviously haven't. Either that or you don't understand the basic concept of SOCIAL Darwinism. You also missed the part where I said - Don't shoot the messenger. I wasn't advocating it .. I was presenting it to discuss.

An interesting argument is that we never know how our children will turn out.
Of course we can say that "stupid people produce stupid children" but this is not necessarily the case.

Our children may grow up imprinted with our own morals, ethics etc, but genetics tells us that our children do not always get our "bad" genes.

Indeed, how many instances are there of people from poorer families who have become successful in many fields - from politics to medicine to academia - I know plenty of kids whose parents were successful who became nothing, and lived on the money made by previous generations, and there must be plenty of people who know similar stories.

I would argue that no one ever knows what our genes will throw up - we are all a mishmash of many different personality types.
Neither of my parents was successful in any sense of the word, yet my 2 siblings and I have 5 degrees between us, including a masters.

Eugenics may have labelled us before birth as having a probability of low IQ based on the success (or lack of) of our parents, but this is clearly not the case.
The fact is that both of my parents are very bright, yet through a combination of circumstances never achieved the success that their intelligence merited, and because of this lack, eugenics would have barred them from "breeding" and 3 bright kids would never have been able to contribute to society.

In researching a bit about modern eugenics, I have come across the word "de-evolve" or "devolve" quite a lot. It applies to the fact that the most "stupid" people are the ones who have most kids, and that this is lowering the IQ of the human race as a whole. I think this is rubbish - as a species, we cannot now "devolve" - unless of course a nuclear war blasts us back to the stone age, and even then we will re-develop much faster than we originally did.

In short, I think that a form of eugenics may be desirable to rid us of certain health defects, but it can never be used to promote higher intelligence in humans because genetics doesn't work that way i.e. we get a little bit of our make up from many previous generations and those generational questions in relation to intelligence can never be measured.

Another point raised is how people in poorer countries have many children - the answer to this is simple - if there is twice the mortality rate, there must be twice the number of children or the species will die out in that area.



By the way - just my tuppence worth, but I was always given to understand that in relation to Darwin, survival of the fittest meant only those organisms best adapted to existing conditions are able to survive and reproduce.



[edit on 10-5-2007 by budski]

Originally posted by budski


By the way - just my tuppence worth, but I was always given to understand that in relation to Darwin, survival of the fittest meant only those organisms best adapted to existing conditions are able to survive and reproduce.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by budski]

That is precisely true. Darwin's work stressed that evolution favoured species that were best able to adapt to changing environments (look at Darwin's finches as an example) Darwin wrote nothing of the strongest surviving, nor did he make any reference to human society or ever use the term 'survival of the fittest', which was coined by Spencer.

Eugenics will never be accepted by Western society anytime in the forseeable future; purely becasue of the actions of the Nazi regime, any mention of the word eugenics automatically brings up images of Hitler's quest for an Aryan race. The idea of any group deciding upon what qualities are superior in a person is absurd anyway, no person or group really has the right to make such decisions.

Point taken, but eugenics was around long before the Nazi's were involved, and had a major following in the US as well as many other western nations.

www.beloit.edu...

Also, the nazi view of eugenics was (like all nazi ideals) extreme to say the least, with extermination as the prevailing method of making sure the aryan gene pool remained secure.

I don't want people to confuse real and modern eugenics with what the nazi's did, so just thought I'd point this out - not that I'm a proponent of this pseudo-science masquerading as population benefits, just that I'd like to be clear on what's being discussed.

Today the 2 best known examples of eugenics are probably china and cyprus.

China

Only a few governments in the world have anything resembling eugenic programs today, the most notable being China. In 1993, the Chinese government announced a law, "On Eugenics and Health Protection," designed to "avoid new births of inferior quality and heighten the standards of the whole population."[6] In 1994 they passed the "Maternal and Infant Health Care Law", which included mandatory premarital screenings for "genetic diseases of a serious nature" and "relevant mental disease". Those who were diagnosed with such diseases were required either not to marry, agree to "long-term contraceptive measures" or to submit to sterilization. Divorces have been granted for reasons such as schizophrenia.[45] (See also: One-child policy)

[edit] Cyprus

A similar screening policy (including prenatal screening and abortion) intended to reduce the incidence of thalassemia exists on both sides of the island of Cyprus. Since the program's implementation in the 1970s, it has reduced the ratio of children born with the hereditary blood disease from 1 out of every 158 births to almost zero.

In the government controlled areas, tests for the gene are compulsory for both partners, prior to marriage.

wikipedia

It is true that when nazi experiments and breeding programmes were revealed after WW2 people were revolted, and the support for eugenics ground to a halt - this may have been due to a misunderstanding of what actually constituted eugenic theory of the time versus what the nazi's did.

Interesting information on China there, also on Cyprus, although the Cypriot example is only for a particular disease (from the information provided on Wikipedia) so not quite as potent as China's eugenic programme.

Before making any judgements on the matter more research on the subject is needed but I cannot help thinking, whenever the subject of eugenics arises, of Rawls and the idea of the veil of ignorance and original position. Without going into a full explanation of it the theory basically states that when creating a society even the worse off must be able to live comfortably, lest we be in that position (very basic and simplified but you can read about the theory yourself if one desires). This obviously has implications for eugenics; no-one would wish to be exterminated before they were born if they had a minor mental/physical defect for example, so why should anyone pomote it as policy?

Originally posted by Eddie999
Without going into a full explanation of it the theory basically states that when creating a society even the worse off must be able to live comfortably, lest we be in that position (very basic and simplified but you can read about the theory yourself if one desires).

Excuse my ignorance, but how does one go about "creating" a society?
Surely, societies evolve...

Originally posted by budski

Excuse my ignorance, but how does one go about "creating" a society?
Surely, societies evolve...

Yes quite so, its my fault for trying to summarise Rawls' ideas into a sentence. I mean from a philosophical viewpoint, when imagining how a society should be;as all philosophers from Socrates have done at some point. Rawls (and once again oversimplfying here) proposed that in any society no-one should object to being in the worst position as it is unbearable as society who have been shaped in a way that even the worst off weren't in an intolerable position. If that helps...

[edit on 10/5/2007 by Eddie999]

So we're all to be bred like dogs? Will we have pedigree papers and cool lineage names like Ryan Mud Bartholemew Cleveland Roger Berkshire Steve? We could all have our chance to live like the queen and other inbred pigs?

If genetics gets to the point where we can prevent genetic disease thats cool. If it means having conversations like "Mr. So and so, Im sorry but your child will be born with only a left testicle I think we should terminate the pregnancy" then hell no.

I suppose once healthcare is globaly socialized or once social security runs out we'll have to somehow justify wiping out the elderly and the sick. Then of course it will move to political rivals, social rivals, all sorts of crazy excuses, the mentally ill, the chronically depressed, the poor, the very rich... it'll all depends on who's in power and when.

The big push for eugenics in the 20's forward was fueled by racism, concepts of a superior breed of human, (one of the fields leaders went on to start Planned Parenthood BTW) and power. It started out small and simple like with the incurably sick and those born horribly defected then it grew into a religion, a cause. Much like global warming but thats another topic.

The only people who could honestly believe the sytematic killing of another people or the selective breeding of speciffic traits are desireable measures are either evil at their very core or so immensely nacisistic theyve lost all touch with reality.

Its another case of man playing God. Does that ever end well?