Eugenics. Why not?

RampagingBadger

Eugenics is a word that generally inspires thoughts of nazism,
the killing of the mentally handicapped and genocide in general.
However the true meaning of eugenics is "The study of hereditary
improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.".
It is my opinion that in western societies today humans have almost ceased to evolve.
Moderm medecine and creature comforts keep the sick and the weak alive and our
welfare systems allow the unsuccessful to live reasonably normal lives. These are good
things. I am very happy about and grateful for all the above. However it has led to some
imbalances.
For instance those "successful" people in society (for success I'm going to read richer)
are inclined to have less children for a number of reasons (starting families later, more
rigourous family planning etc..). So the successful have less children than those less
fortunate. This is not something that should be allowed to continue unchecked for very
long.
I'm not proposing killing anyone or preventing anyone from breeding. I'm more in favour
of a situation similar to that from Gattaca whereby people would go to the doctors prior
to conception to make sure that their progeny had the best possible combination of
genes from his/her 2 parents. Similar scenarios have already occurred in IVF where
1 of many fertilised eggs is chosen for implantation thanks to its lack of specific defects.

The only drawback I can see to the above system is that in places like America where
proper healthcare is solely for the rich a genetic underclass might arise. However in
europe where the government must provide healthcare for everyone it would make
economic sense to eradicate inherited abnormalities at conception so as to save money
late on on not having to treat the resulting children.

I know a lot of the above is, like Gattaca, in the realms of science fiction. But I'd like to
know if people would be broadly in favour of this system of Eugenics?

wasabi

6 reasons why not.

people are far too hung up on genetics and darwinian selection. how intelligent/successful/rich people are has a lot to do with environment in the case of humans.

anyway the human genome is probably too complex to do screening like this. for certain hereditary diseases, maybe. and at the moment it's only done when there's good reason to suspect problems.

there are strong arguments related to privacy against genetic screening for everyone, personally i wouldn't be for it.

you're assuming most pregnancies are planned, i think you'll find that's not the case.

what about the lack of geneticists and the cost of all this? IVF is a little pricey, you know.

anyway i think you'll find natural selection is probably very much still in operation in the 85% of the world where there isn't cushy welfare systems.

amp

The Hawkings visit the Eugenics clinic:

Mr Hawking: So your saying that this embryo will end up in a wheelchair talking like a Darlek? Fuck that shit, bring on the blonde, blue eyed stud man.

Mrs Hawking: What he said.

Doctor: It's possible that he might end up doing great things despite this handicap.

Mrs Hawking: Like what? Coming up with stuff that could change the very way we see the universe or something?

Doctor: Yeah sorry, pretty unlikely *flushes Stephen Hawking down the toilet*

neuro-praxis

Amp, I think that says it all.

mcWasp

I’m a strong supporter of Eugenics. It’s a subject I have been interested in for the past several years now. I think a sensible and rigorous system of Eugenics can have a major effect on the quality of the civilisation we pass on to our descendants. If we don’t act soon we could quite possibly be seeing the end of our civilisation within the next few decades.

The simple fact is that the problem-creators are outbreeding the problem-solvers. You can see it everywhere – the superior elements of the population are having fewer children than the inferior. The thick are having more children than the intelligent, the uneducated are having more children than the educated, the lazy are having more children than the productive, coloured people are having more children than white folks, criminals are outbreeding the law-abiding – it goes on and on. We can see the results of this negative trend every day with crime, anti-social behaviour, sickness and poverty on the increase. I read somewhere that the number of “members of the travelling community” in the 26 counties has as much as tripled in the last fifty years.

The problem is that civilisation, by its very definition, is anti-evolutionary. Civilisation is about looking after the weak, but by protecting and caring for the weak we are also increasing their numbers and making sure that their genes survive into future generations. Back when our ancestors lived in caves this didn’t happen. The rigours of natural selection meant that only the fittest survived and passed on their genes while the weak died before they had a chance to reproduce. Without this weeding out of the weak from the gene pool we would have never progressed to the point of civilisation.

Many people believe that biological degeneration played a large part in the decline of the great civilisations of the past. The Romans, the Greeks and the Egyptians all underwent major demographic change in the period leading up their collapse. This could be compared to the non-white immigration problem now confronting Western countries. The most important members of those civilisations, the elite, the generals, engineers, writers, tradesmen, craftsmen, administrators and politicians, simply failed to reproduce themselves. This was matched with an influx of foreign and genetically inferior immigrants. This is what is referred to in the famous phrase “Rome fell for lack of Romans”.

We should remember the fate of Rome when it comes to discussing immigration. Probably the most important Eugenic step we could take is to end all further non-white immigration into Ireland. The quality of a country is dependant on the quality of the people who live in that country, and the fact is that most of the coloured immigrants coming to this country are people of weak genetic material. Blacks Africans for example possess neither the intelligence nor the character to succeed in a modern western society. The average IQ of a Nigerian is only 68, a score that would put it in the intellectually retarded segment of the population. There’s nothing racist about pointing this out. It’s a scientific fact that some groups (social, ethnic, racial, national, gender) are intellectually superior to others. A book released in the past few years (‘IQ and the wealth of Nations’ written by Irishman Richard Lynn), shows that the higher the average IQ of a country, the richer that country is likely to be.

I think the biggest problem people have with Eugenics is that they believe it’s some kind of outdated, Nazi pseudoscience. In fact Eugenics is based on a perfectly rational and scientific premise - that the laws of heredity and natural selection apply to Homo Sapiens just as much as any other species. Eugenics is just a logical extension of Natural Selection. If Eugenics is a pseudo-science then either Darwin’s theory is completely wrong, or, if it is right, then humans must be some kind of supernatural beings not subject to the same laws of biology as other living organisms. As for Eugenics being associated with the Nazis it should be remembered that Hitler’s adversary, Winston Churchill, was also a keen Eugenicist as were many of the great men of the twentieth century including George Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russell, H.G Wells, Henry Ford, John Maynard Keynes, Theodore Roosevelt, William Shockley, Alexander Graham Bell and W.B Yeats.

Another major objection to Eugenics is that it involves a loss of freedom on the part of the individual. The freedom to have children is something that most people take for granted and the denial of that freedom is seen as being some kind of sacrilege. This is a bit of a non-sequitur though as having a child involves more than one person. The classic libertarian argument is that people should be free to do what they want provided they do not hurt anyone else. Having a child can hurt someone else (the child) and therefore cannot be considered a legitimate freedom. If a woman with Aids was to knowingly infect a man with the disease she can be charged with a serious crime. And yet the same woman is perfectly free to have a child and pass on the disease to her poor defenceless offspring. Isn’t the latter a more serious crime than the former? Wouldn’t society be justified in intervening to prevent this happening purely for the sake of the child? It goes back to the old joke that you have to have all kinds of licenses to own a dog or a television and yet any fool can have a child. I don’t believe any fool should be allowed to have a child. It’s a basic human instinct, and probably our noblest, to prevent our fellow humans suffering needlessly.

My main interest in Eugenics is how it relates to Ireland. This country has probably more reason than any other to adopt a Eugenics program. Ireland has suffered years of brain drain through mass emigration with the result that today the southern Irish have the lowest average IQ (93 for 26-country Irish, it’s 108 for the 6-country Irish) of any people in Western Europe. There is some truth in the stereotype of the Irish being thick. It’s our lack of intelligence and weak character that is principally responsible for our traditional poverty, backwardness, corruption and underachievement. It follows therefore that by encouraging the more intelligent and productive elements of our population to have more children we could raise the intelligence of our population and ensure the success of our country in the future.

I know this is a subject most liberals find offensive as it involves categorizing people into ‘inferior’ and ‘superior’ groups. But we can’t continue the way we have for the last few decades. The future of our Western Civilisation is at stake.


For a good introduction to Eugenics take a look at this.
http://www.eugenics.net/papers/mission.html

oscarBravo

Originally posted by mcWasp
... the superior elements of the population are having fewer children than the inferior ... coloured people are having more children than white folks ... the number of “members of the travelling community” in the 26 counties has as much as tripled in the last fifty years ... the non-white immigration problem now confronting Western countries ... end all further non-white immigration into Ireland ... Blacks Africans for example possess neither the intelligence nor the character to succeed in a modern western society. The average IQ of a Nigerian is only 68, a score that would put it in the intellectually retarded segment of the population ... There is some truth in the stereotype of the Irish being thick ...

Methinks you should get back under your bridge.

bizmark

I know this is a subject most liberals find offensive as it involves categorizing people into ‘inferior’ and ‘superior’ groups. But we can’t continue the way we have for the last few decades. The future of our Western Civilisation is at stake.

o.........k then

say hello to hitler for me :rolleyes:

richindub2

Originally posted by amp
The Hawkings visit the Eugenics clinic:

Mr Hawking: So your saying that this embryo will end up in a wheelchair talking like a Darlek? Fuck that shit, bring on the blonde, blue eyed stud man.

Mrs Hawking: What he said.

Doctor: It's possible that he might end up doing great things despite this handicap.

Mrs Hawking: Like what? Coming up with stuff that could change the very way we see the universe or something?

Doctor: Yeah sorry, pretty unlikely *flushes Stephen Hawking down the toilet*

Thats an entirely unrealistic argument. For every stephen hawking how many vegtables are sucking up welfare? I could use the same argument to justify letting every criminal out of jail - sure if one of them finds the solution to Nuclear Fission isnt it worth having 99,000 other murderers on the street? Through eugenics we might lose the odd gifted vegtable but how much more could be acheived in a society with no genetic disorders, with extended life spans, with better immune systems and higher average intelligence levels?

Ignoring mcWasps racist themes his idiots outbreeding intelligent people point is entirely valid. We live in a society which encourages people who cant afford to have children to do so (childrens allowance etc) yet makes no special effort to try and get the more important elements of society (to whom 20e/week wont make a difference) to do so. If extensive tax breaks were introduced for children born to people above a certain intelligence cut off point perhaps this could be rectified.

To achieve this an electoral policies reform would probably be necessary. If the majority of the population dont vote or simply vote for the candidite with the best ads (do we really want to eventually degenerate to a level on a par with America?) should they really keep their power to vote? I guarantee you that if only people with college degrees could vote the country's polititicians would be of a much higher caliber than they currently are. Policies that achieved long term goals and not just pandering to constituents whims would be far more common place.

The only reason eugenics hasnt been implemented sooner is the power of the idiot fearing the end of his era.

amp

Blacks Africans for example possess neither the intelligence nor the character to succeed in a modern western society. The average IQ of a Nigerian is only 68, a score that would put it in the intellectually retarded segment of the population. There’s nothing racist about pointing this out. It’s a scientific fact that some groups (social, ethnic, racial, national, gender) are intellectually superior to others.

Prove this to my satisfaction within 24 hours or get banned for racism.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by richindub2
We live in a society which encourages people who cant afford to have children to do so (childrens allowance etc) yet makes no special effort to try and get the more important elements of society (to whom 20e/week wont make a difference) to do so.

In many ways, your post is as offensive as McWasp's. Your post clearly implies that your metric for a person's value is their financial means - the IQ stuff is just a smokescreen.

I guarantee you that if only people with college degrees could vote the country's polititicians would be of a much higher caliber than they currently are.

An arrogant claim - I wonder how you propose to back it up?

richindub2

Originally posted by oscarBravo
In many ways, your post is as offensive as McWasp's. Your post clearly implies that your metric for a person's value is their financial means - the IQ stuff is just a smokescreen.

No, I just take it for granted that the vast majority of people who contribute to the advancement of society/humanity are paid well enough to be above the poverty line for their efforts (engineers, teachers, scientists, doctors, chemists etc). I would have no problem with giving someone living in a one bedroom council flat in Ballymun the vote if they could proove they were intelligent enough to use it properly.

An arrogant claim - I wonder how you propose to back it up?

By starting the revolution and giving the policy a try of course

oscarBravo

Originally posted by richindub2
No, I just take it for granted that the vast majority of people who contribute to the advancement of society/humanity are paid well enough to be above the poverty line for their efforts (engineers, teachers, scientists, doctors, chemists etc).

Taking arbitrary "facts" for granted is a prime indication of stupidity, in my experience. You said earlier:

I guarantee you that if only people with college degrees could vote the country's polititicians would be of a much higher caliber than they currently are.

That automatically disenfranchises many of the successful businessmen that I know in my immediate area alone. For that matter, it disenfranchises me, despite the fact that I'm currently running a reasonably successful business, and the fact that a couple of years ago I was IT Manager for the entire European operation of a multinational corporation.

Frankly, I'm very glad that it's not supremacists (of whatever ilk) or bigots who get to decide who is intelligent enough to vote in this country.

I would have no problem with giving someone living in a one bedroom council flat in Ballymun the vote if they could proove they were intelligent enough to use it properly.

How would they prove this? With an IQ test? A number of the successful businessmen I mentioned earlier would probably score very poorly on such a test. Do you want to be the one that tells them they're too stupid to vote?

Lafortezza

Originally posted by richindub2
I would have no problem with giving someone living in a one bedroom council flat in Ballymun the vote if they could proove they were intelligent enough to use it properly.

And would you be the one who'd do the judging?
You sounds like you're setting yourself as the standard to be reached by all these poor dumb people, what happens if you were considered to be lacking in intelligence and told "No, no kids for you, you're a bit too dim"

chill

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Methinks you should get back under your bridge.

Rock, more likely.


.

chill

Originally posted by mcWasp
Blacks Africans for example possess neither the intelligence nor the character to succeed in a modern western society. The average IQ of a Nigerian is only 68, a score that would put it in the intellectually retarded segment of the population.

From reading the sickening regurgitated nonsense of your posts it is apparent that not only are they a diatribe of lies, but that your own IQ is deeply questionable.

richindub2

You can moan about taking arbitrary facts for granted all you like, I know very very few people in those professions who 20e/week would make any sort of significant difference to.

Originally posted by oscarBravo
That automatically disenfranchises many of the successful businessmen that I know in my immediate area alone.

I know many successful business men who, despite showing an aptitude for manipulating money, are really quite dim. I would have no qualms about taking away the vote from them.

who get to decide who is intelligent enough to vote in this country. How would they prove this? With an IQ test? A number of the successful businessmen I mentioned earlier would probably score very poorly on such a test. Do you want to be the one that tells them they're too stupid to vote? [/B]

A new branch of the civil service could run it fairly easily, mandatory iq tests at certain age points would probably do the job of streamlining the electorate even better than just going by college degrees.

Also, while not wanting to defend the racist guys points too much, a quick google on national iqs does show a worrying trend in world iq dropping and in discrepencies between Western/African countries.
http://w-uh.com/index.cgi/articles/030831-IQ_and_populations.htm
http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.html

DadaKopf

Is this another invasion from www.stormfront.org?

ykt0di9url7bc3

hmmm

Blacks Africans for example possess neither the intelligence nor the character to succeed in a modern western society. The average IQ of a Nigerian is only 68, a score that would put it in the intellectually retarded segment of the population. There’s nothing racist about pointing this out. It’s a scientific fact that some groups (social, ethnic, racial, national, gender) are intellectually superior to others.

IQ tests are Culturally biased and Nigeria is a third world country...imho not pointing these critical facts while pushing that tripe above makes you IGNORANT...

Eugenics...pfft.. "the Elite"...pfft...

idiots outbreeding intelligent people point is entirely valid

on a basic level yes, in a dynamic social enviroment no

DadaKopf

by that racist guy
My main interest in Eugenics is how it relates to Ireland. This country has probably more reason than any other to adopt a Eugenics program. Ireland has suffered years of brain drain through mass emigration with the result that today the southern Irish have the lowest average IQ (93 for 26-country Irish, it’s 108 for the 6-country Irish) of any people in Western Europe. There is some truth in the stereotype of the Irish being thick. It’s our lack of intelligence and weak character that is principally responsible for our traditional poverty, backwardness, corruption and underachievement. It follows therefore that by encouraging the more intelligent and productive elements of our population to have more children we could raise the intelligence of our population and ensure the success of our country in the future.

by richindub2
Ignoring mcWasps racist themes his idiots outbreeding intelligent people point is entirely valid. We live in a society which encourages people who cant afford to have children to do so (childrens allowance etc) yet makes no special effort to try and get the more important elements of society (to whom 20e/week wont make a difference) to do so. If extensive tax breaks were introduced for children born to people above a certain intelligence cut off point perhaps this could be rectified.

Nonsense.

There hasn't been any convincing evidence to show that intelligence varies from race to race on a purely genetic level. Furthermore, no truly satisfactory system of measuring intelligence has been found. And, since you're only addressing the racist issue, and classist issue, I'll ignore the real argument about how we as a society care for the mentally handicapped.

Essentially both your arguments point out how the rich tend to have less children while the less well off and the poor have more children. This is, indeed, a tendancy in recent history (it hasn't always been the case), according to UN statistics.

Your reading of these statistics (well, baseless assumptions, really) are flawed. If anything, these statistics show much more that it's the political economic system that causes this, not 'backwardness'. The system is structured so that the rich requires a surplus of labour in order to accumulate wealth - if the capitalists' own base expands, their economic share diminishes. So this sector of society does everything it can (mostly unconsciously) to keep the majority in a weak position. If there wasn't this disproportion between the capitalist classes and working classes, the system would function very differently, or not function at all. This is the basis of the modern, entrepreneurist political economy.

Consequently, the important factor in intelligence isn't any essentialist idea like "these guys are working class because they're dumb". They're suboordinated due to the unequal distribution of public and private goods. Most significant of all is money: workers get paid less (they have to since the system requires that workers be paid as little as possible) and this decreases their options and opportunites. In particular, access to and time spent in education, proximity to commercial centres, social exclusion by richer/locally privileged social groups play important roles in this dynamic. This dynamic is created by the rich in the interests of the rich.

You're blaming the wrong people. You should be blaming the rich. Blaming yourselves for peddling such smut (that goes to mcWasp and all his stormfront buddies).

GuanYin

This is a flawed arguement.

Originally posted by RampagingBadger
For instance those "successful" people in society (for success I'm going to read richer) are inclined to have less children for a number of reasons (starting families later, more rigourous family planning etc..). So the successful have less children than those less
fortunate. This is not something that should be allowed to continue unchecked for very long.

If you are actually talking about eugenics, the idea is to benefit society as a whole. Rich people's children are no more likely to be of benefit to the society nor are they less likely to inherit genetic conditions than poor peoples. If you want to be callous about it you can argue that the mortality rate for their sick children would be lower and while this would not financially dran the society (assuming they can afford to pay) it would drain man power.As it happens, children of higher income families are more likely to suffer from obesity.

Originally posted by RampagingBadger
I'm not proposing killing anyone or preventing anyone from breeding. I'm more in favour of a situation similar to that from Gattaca whereby people would go to the doctors prior to conception to make sure that their progeny had the best possible combination of genes from his/her 2 parents. Similar scenarios have already occurred in IVF where 1 of many fertilised eggs is chosen for implantation thanks to its lack of specific defects.

In some exceptional cases I might favour eugenics, but the fact is, human nature and determination is a factor that often superceeds genetic predisposition and who can predict what contribution any individual can make before they are born. Contributions to society aren't made soley on the basis of money are great physics equations.

DadaKopf

And another thing, mcWasp, why don't you just come out and say what you really mean instead of hiding your racism and sociopathy behind cyphers and pseudo-rationality?

If by "inferior", you mean poor, or black, or stupid, or Chinese, just say it. If by "superior" you mean white, rich, intelligent, skinhead, say it.

If you want to convince people your arguments are valid, people are going to have to give them the opportunity of taking it at face value.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by richindub2
You can moan about taking arbitrary facts for granted all you like, I know very very few people in those professions who 20e/week would make any sort of significant difference to.

Straw man: that's not the point I took issue with.

I know many successful business men who, despite showing an aptitude for manipulating money, are really quite dim.

Have you ever run a successful business? I can assure you from experience that it takes a hell of a lot more than "an aptitude for manipulating money." A high IQ is by no means a prerequisite for success, or even a likely indicator.

I would have no qualms about taking away the vote from them.

Doesn't that make you, in essence, a fascist? [1]

A new branch of the civil service could run it fairly easily, mandatory iq tests at certain age points would probably do the job of streamlining the electorate even better than just going by college degrees.

Assuming IQ even means anything useful, which I doubt. It's not that difficult to train people to pass IQ tests.

[1] Note to mods: this is not intended as a personal attack; I'm simply drawing an inference from a stated viewpoint. If it's inappropriate, I hereby apologise.

AngelofFire

I am apposed to the idea of unnaturally modifying a persons genetic structure just because society is too lazy to accomadate them. We are human beings not servants of some machine. as many people seem to think

eth0_

Originally posted by mcWasp

Blacks Africans for example possess neither the intelligence nor the character to succeed in a modern western society. The average IQ of a Nigerian is only 68, a score that would put it in the intellectually retarded segment of the population. There’s nothing racist about pointing this out. It’s a scientific fact that some groups (social, ethnic, racial, national, gender) are intellectually superior to others. A book released in the past few years (‘IQ and the wealth of Nations’ written by Irishman Richard Lynn), shows that the higher the average IQ of a country, the richer that country is likely to be.

I think you're an ill-informed bigot with a superiority complex. What makes YOU so great? Why should YOU be allowed to breed? What have YOU contributed to society?

As for your comment about the African IQ study, maybe if you read the *against* side of the argument you would realise that these people were tested with IQ tests devised for people in 'Western society'. AFRICA ISN'T A WESTERN SOCIETY so why the hell should these people have to live to succeed as westerners? Did it also cross your mind that Nigeria is a poor country and education is not the right of every child? What about dyslexics, they don't score highly on a regular IQ test, do they deserve to die or be steralized because they don't fit in with your idea of what is an 'achiever'?

I'm sure if you _did some research_, you'd find that a surprising amount of people in Ireland and the UK have well below average IQ.

So again, please do tell us why you are so superior?

DadaKopf

These stormfront lads aren't smart. Any time they do this stuff, they get destroyed by everyone's counter-arguments. Remember the one on www.thumped.com ?

Dumbest thing is, the more they try to convince us, the more they tame their language and the more they end up agreeing with the rest of us. Emperor's new clothes and all that.

amp

mcWasp, having failed to reply in within 24hours is yellow carded on Racism and Red carded on not providing proof when asked.

(Humanities ironically is based on a certain type of selective evolution; morons don't last long here.)

Back on topic.

DeVore

Lol @ amp....

I think this thread is genuine and not a Stormfront invasion (apart from mcWasp... aside: isnt is funny... wasps are creatures that just buzz about irritate you and if they sting you they die but other then that are of no real consequence to us... rather like Stormfront).

The question deserves debate but I know where I stand on it and Amp pretty much summed it up early on...


DeV.

The Corinthian

I decided to browse this thread, thinking it to be an intelligent debate on eugenics, and I see it's degenerated into a discussion on racalism.

I think amp's challange for this individual to back up his claims is the most appropriate on. Either he's spouting rubbish or he can back up what he's saying with credible evidence - until then, he's best ignored as a troll.

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Doesn't that make you, in essence, a fascist?

No, Fascism is not racist. For example, most of the racist laws that were introduced in Ethiopia and Somalia were introduced by the democratic British after they liberated thouse nations from the fascist Italians. Indeed, with the exception of Nazism (which was a racialist interpretation of Fascism), the Fascist regimes of the 20th century were no more racist than any of the liberal ones in Europe or even in the US.

Returning to the eugenics argument, would the point that eugenics could prevent the birth of a future Hawkins not be a little limited? (other than Hawkins' condition was never genetic) After all, if one is looking to measure what such indiviual contributes to society, one should realistically also measure the cost of others like them who do not, and seek?

Aditionally, arguing that one should not prevent the birth of someone on the basis that they may become the next De Vinci or Gandi has always been a flawed argument. After all, there's just as much of a chance that they could become the next Jack the Ripper or Hitler.

DadaKopf

So what? Eugenics should be viewed as 'jump starting' natural selection? It's not. It's human selection of other humans.

The problem with eugenics is its foundations can never be objective - the very notion obfuscates the political nature, hence the racism, of the whole project. As etho_ pointed out, one value for one culture isn't the same value in another. So let's ditch the idea that it's devoid of political content. It's one group exercising power over another.

Eugenics is presented as serving a common good - making everyone intelligent or successful - but it doesn't because it institutionalises prejudice.

It also conceals the real reasons why there are disadvantaged people in the world. It shifts the blame from those in power who create inequality to those who are disadvantaged by those who create inequality in the first place. I think this applies equally to the physically disabled and mentally handicapped; we should institutionalise equality, not allow ourselves to be duped by backdoors to pernicious prejudice.

bonkey

One thing which I find particularly distasteful about eugenics is the assumption that we understand evolution well enough to be able to decide that human selection will offer us a better tomorrow than natural selection will.

We could breed a world of people who didn't suffer from certain genetic defects, only to find in a century or two that this has some catastrophic impact on our survivability.

While science was all so proud when the human genome got mapped, a recent article in Sci Am pointed out that a much-ignored sub-field has been arguing for years that our so-called Junk-DNA is not so junky at all...and that at least certain parts of it have been identified as playing a necessary part. This is stuff we haven't mapped and have generally no idea what it does...except that we know our previous assumption of "nothing important" is clearly wrong.

With such obviously limited and incomplete knowledge, it strikes me as somewhat, umm, premature to be even contemplating whether or not we should be practicing eugenics for "the benefit" of the future generations

jc

oscarBravo

Originally posted by The Corinthian
No, Fascism is not racist.

I wasn't replying to the racist (whom I had already dismissed as a troll), I was replying to the guy who wanted to decide who was clever enough to vote. Smacked of authoritarianism to me.

Zombrex

Originally posted by richindub2
The only reason eugenics hasnt been implemented sooner is the power of the idiot fearing the end of his era.

Well you seem like an idiot, so I assume you don't let yourself vote, for the good of the rest of us. Very noble of you, and we will miss you when you are breed out of society ... so long ...

My problem with eugenics is do we really think we have either the authority or the wisdom to select what aspects of life are worth more than others. I know a few very very "intelligent" people who have the social skills of potatoes, and I know a few very socially successful people who couldn't tell you what 10 * 10 is. Which group is more desirable in society? Should we breed really really intelligent people who sit in doors watching X-Files all day? Are they going to solve all our problems? Do we believe that "intelligent" people can't do evil, stupid things?

Venom

Originally posted by DeVore
Lol @ amp....

I think this thread is genuine and not a Stormfront invasion (apart from mcWasp... aside: isnt is funny... wasps are creatures that just buzz about irritate you and if they sting you they die but other then that are of no real consequence to us... rather like Stormfront).

The question deserves debate but I know where I stand on it and Amp pretty much summed it up early on...


DeV.

Think its bee;s that can only sting you once Tom, wasp's dont lose there stings when they poke ya one

As for who should breed and who shouldnt, I am a firm beliver in testing. Not on how smart the parents are but based on the grounds of them making good parents. Tax breaks should be given to those who have less or no children. This planet is rapidly running out of resourses and its less people we need using them up not more.

monument

Originally posted by RampagingBadger
Eugenics is a word that generally inspires thoughts of nazism,
the killing of the mentally handicapped and genocide in general.
However the true meaning of eugenics is "The study of hereditary
improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.".

I'm sure "The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding" is just what the nazis would think of eugenics.

Amp's first post sums it up the best.

RampagingBadger, your views remind me of people who like to think they are anti-racist, but have the same views as the likes of the BNP.

AngelofFire

Originally posted by RampagingBadger
I know a lot of the above is, like Gattaca, in the realms of science fiction. But I'd like to
know if people would be broadly in favour of this system of Eugenics?

Yes but certain realms of science fiction were apposed to the idea of eugenics. in star trek a group of selectively bred humans led by kahn were exiled from planet earth after they tryed to take over the planet. in star trek gene roddenberry portrays a future where the human race can progress without cloning, eugenics genetic engineering, black/white segregation etc.

monument

---

Originally posted by RampagingBadger
I know a lot of the above is, like Gattaca, in the realms of science fiction. But I'd like to
know if people would be broadly in favour of this system of Eugenics?

---

Gattaca - which I'm watching right now - is a good example of what could happen.

sceptre

Originally posted by monument
Gattaca - which I'm watching right now - is a good example of what could happen.

Not irrelevant to remember who managed to achieve his dreams in Gattaca - the guy who was naturally "selected" rather than the one who was actually selected (& I'm thinking Vincent v Anton rather than Vincent v Jerome).

(though I tend to think of Gattaca as a story with a moral/message of stretching so your reach can exceed your grasp rather than something with a moral/message on eugenics per se)

Ignoring the more whacko rambling possible futures of Lee Silver in "Remaking Eden" (I'm thinking of the dual species idea), the idea of people breeding only with the chosen few (literally) is indeed a possible future. To a certain extent we all do this when we pick someone suitable for ourselves (the difference being that we don't quite expect a full DNA transcript in a dodgy nightclub on a Saturday night)

Incidentally on the Stephen Hawking factor - most sufferers of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (or "Lou Gerhig's disease") have no family history of it. For about 5-10% of sufferers, the disease appears to be inherited (for example, for about 20% of these, there is a specific genetic defect that leads to mutation of the SOD1 enzyme). (in Hawking's case there's no evidence of a family inherited genetic propensity to the disease, as the Corinthian has already said)

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bonkey
One thing which I find particularly distasteful about eugenics is the assumption that we understand evolution well enough to be able to decide that human selection will offer us a better tomorrow than natural selection will.

But we already tamper with said natural selection whenever we save the life, or promote the reproduction of individuals who would not have survived or reproduced otherwise.

Originally posted by oscarBravo
I wasn't replying to the racist (whom I had already dismissed as a troll), I was replying to the guy who wanted to decide who was clever enough to vote. Smacked of authoritarianism to me.

Fair point. My mistake. The Ozzie weather must be getting to me...

dr_manhattan

Hey, corinthian, Sandman killed you years ago. Back to the dreaming, whydon'tchya? ;-)

Just a 2 cents addition to this thread: concepts like the idea that humanity has 'stopped evolving' or that we have the remotest idea what way evolution really works are usually those forwarded by eugenecists, participants of - yes, here it is - an outdated, dumb, victorian era idea of controlling a system more complex than we can imagine.

Evolution does not go 'upwards' or 'downwards'. Up is a relative human concept and has no place in any real idea of the evolution of a species. In many ways, bacteria which have never 'evolved' since day one are far more sophisticated than us wasteful monkeys. Eugenics is a concept based on old, old colonial hierarchical supremacist ideas.

As, while I'm at it, is the concept of 'race' - there is no real genetic basis for saying a black man is a different race to an arab, any more than there is to say that a black cat is a different race to a tabby cat. There are aspects of breeding (to stretch the cat analogy) that give a cat its features and shape, but again, these are not gena or phenotypes or "racial traits". And that's all I'll say about race.

(except to say that the concept of prejudice based on ethnicity or race is called 'racism' and not 'racialism'. Ahem)

Either way, after my 2 cents I'll just say to the corinthian that the streaming of human reproduction is *not* the same as 'saving a life' and thus altering the gene pool.

Fact is that the catholic (for example) practice of making the poor reproduce like flies whilst the wealthy do whatever the **** they want is another form of eugenics. We are quickly outgrowing that, and to let some other bunch of ****wits start telling us who can and can't have babies is a big step backwards.

After WW2 I was under the impression pretty much everyone agreed that saving all the lives we can rather than deciding who lives and who doesn't by way of master plans was the thing to do.

And besides which, saying that 'there isn't enough resources so stop having kids' is bull****. I myself don't plan to, but read any report of world hunger - the planet produices more than enough for all of us, it's just greedy **** like us lot in the 'developed' world won't share it.

So now we get to decide who lives and who doesn't so that our greed can be even more encouraged? I don't think so. It's all just a thinly veiled excuse by power hungry people to exert their superioriry complexes over the world even more than they do right now.

And to that moron who posted about low african IQs? Your copy of 'the bell curve' must be well travelled. Have you ever taken an IQ test yourself? They are very useful in establishing if someone knows what 'a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush' means - and if someone can build a pyramid out of geometric shapes.

However, these things are no measurement of someone's social or intrinsic worth. For this, we have no way whatsoever, though most people still use the old methods of melanin levels, point of origin, and ability to speak english.

Later folks...

oscarBravo

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
And to that moron who posted about low african IQs? Your copy of 'the bell curve' must be well travelled. Have you ever taken an IQ test yourself? They are very useful in establishing if someone knows what 'a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush' means - and if someone can build a pyramid out of geometric shapes.

That said, I seem to recall a certain African civilisation being very fond of building pyramids...

/me gets his coat...

dr_manhattan

...naturally: of course, in that particular society, building a pyramid from geometric shapes *was* an actual indication of your social worth ;-)

Hieroglyphics, also, I'm sure, would easily indicate that a bird-type-thing in an outstretched upturned hand is worth two in a (burning) bush...

Kemetic IQ test, anyone?

LOL

AngelofFire

Natural selection may have been the norm 100,000 years ago when the main ambition of most human beings was to survive. in the year 2003 surivival is a basic essential that most human beings take for granted therefore natural selection is outdated and has no place in the context of the 21st century. unlike 100,000 B.C there is enough resources to provide for everyone in the world regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender, religion, Socio economic background etc without asking society`s "best off" to alter their lifestyle dramatically.

By suggestion that only society`s best off people should be allowed to vote. Richindub is threading on everything that democracy stands for.

DadaKopf

Yeah, I guess you're right. We're totally able to protect us from ourselves when we exhaust the planet's resources or get annihilated by an asteroid collision.

dr_manhattan

"By suggestion that only society`s best off people should be allowed to vote. Richindub is threading on everything that democracy stands for..."

oh, I'm not too sure about that ;-) - I mean, I agree with you, but if you look at the model everyone else seems to be following, i.e. the US of A style democracy which is eroding europe's socialised government practices as we speak (lol) - it would seem that only the rich *are* supposed to vote.

Everyone else just gets OK magazine and a thighmaster ;-)

I would actually say that those who want everyone to vote, be equal, be supported, be cared for and have a full belly are working directly against EVERYTHING that the worlds economy was built on - and that's why it's so difficult.

To create an equal world where people are given more than just a handout or a token vote, we're working against traditions laid down in thousands of years of slavery, indenture, colonial theft, disciplanarianism and the eugenic principles involved in separating people from their communities and working them 80 hours a week in factories organised like concentration camps until they die.

Since 1945 only have people been really trying their hardest to get away from a world which was crested so that small monarchic families could interbreed and everyone else feed them.

And so for 58 years progress, we're not doing too bad ;-) but I wouldn't pass round the medals too quickly heh.

morning rant ends...

dr_manhattan

and just for another 2 cents...

"Yeah, I guess you're right. We're totally able to protect us from ourselves when we exhaust the planet's resources or get annihilated by an asteroid collision."

As I asked before, what is it with eugenics and science fiction? Despite many discovery channel documentaries to the contrary, the obove are not immediate problems yet. So why consider them? If you consider problems like that, then why not consider the basic fact that with our limited genetic knowledge, we could breed ourselves into sterility in a few hundred years... it's up there with the asteroid anyways...

In the event of a global disaster, will the fact that eugenics has bred asteroid proof people who can photosynthesise save us? I really don't understand...

DadaKopf

Uh duhh... natural selection will continue to be the dominating fact of ours and all other species. Simple point.

I was responding to AngelOfFire's assertion that we've somehow gone beyond the power of the universe.

We're not gods.

dr_manhattan

"Uh duhh... natural selection will continue to be the dominating fact of ours and all other species. Simple point."

Simple point, but wrong DadaKopf - natural selection is a specific process, relating to the streaming of a species via environmental pressures. Humanity, or at least any portion of humanity with enough social control to exert a programme of eugenics, create our environmet. Therefore it is not longer 'natural selection' which determines our genetic profile, but 'human selection'

Anyone who has had to compete with another species for food or survive against adverse atmospheric conditions or try and stake a mating ground in a hostile environment can say "oy, not for me it doesn't!" to the above. Otherwise natural selection means nothing to us as a species anymore. A change in government means more to us than a climate change right now.

And sure, if an asteroid hits earth natural selction may indeed become a factor, but until then, it simply isn't. To my mind, the tendency in genetic discussion for sci fi to pop in as some kind of "aha but..." clause is really odd.

"I was responding to AngelOfFire's assertion that we've somehow gone beyond the power of the universe."

To no longer be subjct to natural selection is not to go beyond the power of the universe. Just the same as to no longer be subject to sexual selection (a different process to natural selection) is not to leave this universe. It's simply called building a shelter and a society and etc. Once you do that, you insulate yourself from your environment (the 'nature' bit) and so are not subject to it.

You're still subject to intra-species competition but that is not natural selection. That's what cynical bankers call 'the law of the jungle' but it's ametaphorical jungle - just because it may ne 'in our nature' to destroy each other doesn't mean that human killing human is 'natural selection'. It's simply politics. It's nothing to do with evolution.

"We're not gods."

Gods do not exist. However, next to any other species on the planet, our power to manipulate, destroy, polute, improve, landscape and alter our environment *is* godlike. There are species on the planet we have never seen who are still feeling the effects of our whimsical destructive lifestyles. And this is because we have long since isolated ourselves from "nature" and are competing with each other for "non-natural" resources.

We don't eat oil or diamonds or gold, for example, yet our pursuit of them has altered the planet to a ridiculous level. They have also killed people in droves, yet are nothing to do with the process of natural selection. You may argue that aggressive males have created a society in which property, essentially a form of mating plumage, is pursued above all else, and you may have a point, but it doesn't change the fact that natural selction doesn't affect us like it does the other species on the planet.

In fact, if you wanted to define the difference between human and animal, I guess that's what it is: governed by natural selection and not governed by it.

interesting points tho'

simu

Eugenics is just too much hassle:

Who decides who gets to breed?

What are the vetting procedures?

If you are going to ban some ppl from breeding, will other groups be forced to do so to keep the population levels up?

etc

It would be so much easier to invest money in health, education and social care services to give kids from disadvantaged backgrounds a better start in life.

AngelofFire

i agree with simu.

in my previous post i did not state that humans have evolved completely beyond natural selection. i meant that we have evolved to the extent that natural selection has no place. in the context of a modern structured society.

Walls

I'm not sure I agree that natural selection has no place. I would say that our understanding of natural selection is only a few hundred years old and so there may still be much to learn.

With regard to Eugenic as a whole, my instinctive and off the cuff reaction is as follows;

If you were to tell me that you could ensure the child I am carrying would face no major diseases or illness, and be free of mental and physical anguish, then I would feel it next to impossible to deny that to him/her and would support such a programme.

If you were to tell me that you must ensure that the child I am carrying would never have any mental or physical illness and that the possiblity of them facing that meant they must be terminated, then obviously I would not let that happen.

If you were to tell me that you must ensure no child of mind [edit] of whatever age, after being born, [edit] would be a victim of perceived mental or physical imperfection and that they must be exterminated (as has happened in several cultures in several centuries) then obviously I would not let that happen.

So, it comes down to this; changing the potenial is far less threatening to me than changing the actual. I would accept safeguarding the well being and social position of my child before birth. I would not accept and would prevent the removal of my child's perceived imperfections though extermination both before and after birth.

A thin line really.

I would also ask; the question of the removal of undesirable traits implies that there is something that is desirable. Can that be said to be a universal, confirmed and knowable thing?

qwertyphobia

Most people have already pointed out the huge holes in the orginial post and the post from the few other subsquent nutter posts.

Most people here see the opinions as they are racist lazy ideas that sad little gits belive to some how make up for the inadaquces of there lifes. (my lifes ****e but it's not my fault blame .......(place flavour of the month group of people in box)

In stead of repeating all replies to this nonsence. I just want to challenge the notion that evolution has stopped, It has not.

There is a lot of interesting debats going on in evoluntion at the moment particularly on the role pathogens and the bodies reponce to them are playing in human evolution this is a really expanding field at the moment, which shows that there is continuley new areas of evolutionary theary being explored. The idea that it's a closed book which we can hope to use to direct the human race is mad. Some gene you see now as being negitive and worth while dumping, with a change in enviorment or outbreak of a new diseases could be esential to the human races survial.

The strenght of the human races collective genome is it's diversty giving it the versitilty to respond to many different situations. By pruning it you would only weaken it.

Of course the nutters who posted the orginal ideas on this thread showed such a limited view of gentics and there influnence on the indivual they are unlikely to be able see anything beond simplistic reductionist views of gene x causes X. life on the other hand is far more complex then that