NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, this thread is going to be the center of either some heavy debate or some heavy flak-taking on the part of yours truly for thinking that this is even an issue. Before we start, I'd like to clarify that I am not looking for indoctrinated responses such as "Eugenics is evil because the Nazis killed the Jews for it!" and "Eugenics is awesome because we are the master race!" Please. Give it some thought, and please remember that eugenics is not a black-or-white issue.

...Which brings me to my list of definitions for this thread. Please note that these terms are largely of my own invention, and feel free to give the official terms if you know them.

Disease eugenics - Eugenics for the purpose of eliminating debilitating genetic diseases such as Parkinson's, Cystic Fibrosis, etc.
Social eugenics - Even though it's not formal, any discrimination about who you are combining your genes with is a form of eugenics. For example, a supermodel is much more favored than, say, Tammy Faye Baker.
Purity eugenics - As demonstrated by Hitler and Company.

Natural selection - The unconscious decisions of individuals to mate or not to mate with other individuals depending upon their characteristics.
Voluntary eugenics - Voluntary and conscious discrimination upon the part of any individual or group of individuals to make reproductive choices on the basis of genetics. This is distinguished from natural selection by the intent: in natural selection the focus is upon the partner, while in voluntary eugenics the focus is on the future characteristics of the child.
Eugenics by prevention - Enforced use of birth control and abortion for eugenic purposes.
Eugenics by sterilization - Forced sterilization of those deemed not fit enough to reproduce.
Blitz eugenics - Either killing or exiling those deemed not fit enough to reproduce.

Also, some rules.
1. Thou shalt not call into question the moral character of members of this thread.
2. Thou shalt not forget thy manners.
3. Thou shalt not forget thy grammar.
4. Thou shalt neither break nor attempt to circumvent these four rules, or else I shall smite thee with an angry face, or perhaps a machine gun.

So, what do you think of eugenics? Personally, I'm against the blitz, sterilization and prevention methods, for the first two because they will permanently prevent those people from contributing to the gene pool, and for the third because it is a violation of civil liberties. Regarding the eugenics mindsets, I think that purity eugenics is stupid, but if it's voluntary eugenics or natural selection, we don't have the right to stop the people practicing it.

*sits and waits, unsure of whether she is going to be pelted with fruit, ignored, or actually taken up on the issue*

Eugenics places the group above the individual. That is unacceptable.

I think there should be mandatory parenting licenses.

Eugenics, though effective, is not getting rid of the problem. Through genetic engineering these problems could be eliminated before they become one.

I think of humans as individuals, not tools to be modified for the benefit of civilization.

I think there should be mandatory parenting licenses.
i would like parenting licences based on competence, not eugenics

i would like parenting licences based on competence, not eugenics

True. But then that may be a kind of eugenics in the assumption that people who are judged competent are judged worthy of breeding... I don't know.

Either way though. A good idea, it's time has come.

True. But then that may be a kind of eugenics in the assumption that people who are judged competent are judged worthy of breeding... I don't know.

Either way though. A good idea, it's time has come.

No, it's not eugenics because it's thinking about the child's welfare, not their genetic traits.

i would like parenting licences based on competence, not eugenics

Is that not a Eugenic form in itself? Selecting those that are competent to reproduce? You can argue that the intent is different, but that doesn't mean it isn't Eugenics.

I don't think the original poster necessarily meant state-eugenics. At a personal level, everybody save maybe for a hooker or something is practicing this at some level, only hooking up with those who have similar interests or are mildly attractive or are of similar intelligence levels (by your own estimation), even if you don't mean to.

I don't think I could blame a person for not wanting to have a child with somebody who has a genetic disorder that will kill them by age 30 for fear of passing it to the child, either. This is a personal decision, and I don't see it as putting "the group over the individual".

No, it's not eugenics because it's thinking about the child's welfare, not their genetic traits.

...these are different, how?

I don't think we should be guiding our kids to be blonde-haired and blue-eyed or anything, but how is it not thinking about the welfare of your children if you elect not to have children with a person with Parkinson's disease sitting latent in their genes?

Eugenics places the group above the individual. That is unacceptable.

Why? The individual is God Almighty? The body politic has no rights? Any viable society, even those along the Libertarian model, must sometimes put the rights of the many above the rights of the individual. Failure to do so not only damages the social order, sometimes beyod repair, but flies in the face of our evolution as human beings. Cooperation, not "rugged individualism" made us a successful species.

Is that not a Eugenic form in itself? Selecting those that are competent to reproduce? You can argue that the intent is different, but that doesn't mean it isn't Eugenics.

I don't think the original poster necessarily meant state-eugenics. At a personal level, everybody save maybe for a hooker or something is practicing this at some level, only hooking up with those who have similar interests or are mildly attractive or are of similar intelligence levels (by your own estimation), even if you don't mean to.

I don't think I could blame a person for not wanting to have a child with somebody who has a genetic disorder that will kill them by age 30 for fear of passing it to the child, either. This is a personal decision, and I don't see it as putting "the group over the individual".
no, its not

its not distributing licences for people to breed to perpetuate a certain characteristic, it is distributing licences to those people who haev the capability and stability to have a family

...these are different, how?

I don't think we should be guiding our kids to be blonde-haired and blue-eyed or anything, but how is it not thinking about the welfare of your children if you elect not to have children with a person with Parkinson's disease sitting latent in their genes?

They are different because one involves genetics and one doesn't (necessarily). Wow. That was hard.

Why? The individual is God Almighty? The body politic has no rights? Any viable society, even those along the Libertarian model, must sometimes put the rights of the many above the rights of the individual. Failure to do so not only damages the social order, sometimes beyod repair, but flies in the face of our evolution as human beings. Cooperation, not "rugged individualism" made us a successful species.

Amen.

Why? The individual is God Almighty? The body politic has no rights? Any viable society, even those along the Libertarian model, must sometimes put the rights of the many above the rights of the individual. Failure to do so not only damages the social order, sometimes beyod repair, but flies in the face of our evolution as human beings. Cooperation, not "rugged individualism" made us a successful species.

A capitalist lecturing an anarcho-communist on the necessity of collectivism. Now I've seen everything. I'm all for coöperation, but only when it helps people, never to perpetuate an abstract concept that has directly and indirectly killed millions of people.

The group is far more important than the individual... so yes, I support it, but not when it's clearly not rational. For example, Hitler was clearly irrational, he decided the the Aryan race was superior and that was that (He wanted to create a super race) While I respect the goal of wanting to make humanity better, wouldn't a more logical idea be... to simply take all the best, regardless of race or religion?

Disease eugenics - Eugenics for the purpose of eliminating debilitating genetic diseases such as Parkinson's, Cystic Fibrosis, etc.

For, but not for all diseases. I'd support it for the more horrid diseases, basically diseases where the child would be left incapable of fending for themselves (even at an adult age) and could not contribute to society. However if it's not that serious, then no I don't think it'd be good.

Social eugenics - Even though it's not formal, any discrimination about who you are combining your genes with is a form of eugenics. For example, a supermodel is much more favored than, say, Tammy Faye Baker.

I don't really know if it counts as eugenics if it's not formal... I mean informal selective breeding is completely uncontrollable, unavoidable, and really hard to determine how prevalent it is.... For example no matter how strongly people may believe in equality, no girl is going to take me over some other guy who's more attractive, intelligent, and nicer (I'm in a rather self-hating mood right now....)

Purity eugenics - As demonstrated by Hitler and Company.

I don't believe in racial purity... although purifying the human gene pool over the course of centuries would be a good idea. By that I mean purifying it so that several hundred years from now (done slowly of course, to avoid attrocities such as mass slaughter) everyone would be much stronger, much more intelligent, much more rational and such than we are now (as a species collectively) If indeed one race WERE truly better, then naturally they would be the only ones left if you based the system off merit.... of course it doesn't work out this way :)

Natural selection - The unconscious decisions of individuals to mate or not to mate with other individuals depending upon their characteristics.

See what I said about "social eugenics"...

Voluntary eugenics - Voluntary and conscious discrimination upon the part of any individual or group of individuals to make reproductive choices on the basis of genetics. This is distinguished from natural selection by the intent: in natural selection the focus is upon the partner, while in voluntary eugenics the focus is on the future characteristics of the child.

Hmm good, but only to a limited extent. If you take this too far it will end up with children being killed because they aren't "perfect" (I may be a perfectionist, but even I think killing children because they aren't perfect is wrong). If you just mean people not breeding with complete morons, sure it's a damn good thing

Eugenics by prevention - Enforced use of birth control and abortion for eugenic purposes.

Strongly in favor, for those who have diseases that would be passed on to a child and render them to lead a a miserable and unproductive life, or for those who will genetically produce a child that is simply a drain on society. Mind you I'm not saying these people shouldn't be allowed to be married and stuff or whatever, just saying they shouldn't be able to have children, and if they do it should be put up for adoption until they can prove that they are now capable of producing a child that will NOT be ... all the stuff I said above, I'm lazy

Eugenics by sterilization - Forced sterilization of those deemed not fit enough to reproduce.

Same opinion as above, except that permanent sterilization isn't a good idea if the person has a possiblity of later becoming someone with the capability of properly raising a good child. For example, if they were unable to have a child due to financial problems, they could resolve those problems in the future and have a child.

Blitz eugenics - Either killing or exiling those deemed not fit enough to reproduce.

Opposed to this. While I'm obviously in favor of restricting who can reproduce, killing people is pointless. What good do you do in killling them? They aren't having a child anyways. Besides, currently they have loved ones and possibly productive members of society. Murdering them would accomplish little, if not have a negative effect. However, if you simply restrict reproduction, relatives and friends will not fall apart in grief because they didn't have a child that never existed in the first place.

A capitalist lecturing an anarcho-communist on the necessity of collectivism. Now I've seen everything. I'm all for coöperation, but only when it helps people, never to perpetuate an abstract concept that has directly and indirectly killed millions of people.

ROFLMAO!!! Hahahahahahaha! I am NOT a "capitolist!" I consider myself to be a scientific realist ... whatever works. I agree that any concept, including "cooperativeness," taken to its extreme, can be a bad thing. Strive for balance, grasshopper! ; ))

[ God, that was funny! You're a HOOT! LOL! ]

ROFLMAO!!! Hahahahahahaha! I am NOT a "capitolist!" I consider myself to be a scientific realist ... whatever works. I agree that any concept, including "cooperativeness," taken to its extreme, can be a bad thing. Strive for balance, grasshopper! ; ))

Fine, so you're a state socialist or technocrat or whatever. My point is that an abstract concept has no rights and certainly no right to be valued over the individual. What you're talking about is dangerously close to fascist thinking.

Against in all forms.

For one, it contributes to what Jeremy Rifkin once called the mechanization of the human body. Basically, his point was that to the extent we reduce our understanding and valuation of a person to his constituent elements, you at the same time reduce his worth to nothing more than the summation of the value of his parts. This tends to undermine the concept of natural rights.

As an example, let's consider a hypothetical scenario: A certain unknown disease has broken out in the U.S. which causes a degenerative condition in the kidneys of 99% of the population, which eventually forces citizens on dialysis if they're rich, dead if they're not. You, fortunately, for some reason have immunity from this disease. Now, let's ask a hypothetical question for this hypothetical scenario: Does the government have the right to compel you to undergo renal and genetic testing to determine why you have been spared?

The question initially seems absurd: of course they don't. Why? Because you have natural rights evolving from your fundamental dignity as a rational human being, and one of those natural rights is the freedom from being compelled to do something against your will so long as you're not directly harming another. While it might be noble on my part to volunteer for testing, you certainly are under no obligation to submit to the CDC vivisecting your renal system.

But under the scientist system espoused by eugenicists, a system in which your kidney is not an integral part of a rational human being with rights of his own is simply a part that can be removed or tooled around with, the question becomes much less absurd. To the extent that the kidney in question is viewed purely as an expendable asset to your physical body, and that the concept of "natural rights" is viewed as some kind of hokey religious relic because it can't be reduced to a physical part (which is what behaviorists like Skinner have already argued), the easier it is for the government to make the case that they in effect have eminent domain over it; that they have the right to remove it forcibly from you.

I used the example of the kidney in this case, but genes work just as well, because genes are already seen as things that can be patented, bought, and sold. To the extent that anyone else can charge money for the privilege of purchasing a gene or enzyme that certain people produce, it consequently reduces the legitimacy upon which we ground the idea that man is more than the sum of his parts, and one of the things that springs from this surplus is natural rights.

Against in all forms.

For one, it contributes to what Jeremy Rifkin once called the mechanization of the human body. Basically, his point was that to the extent we reduce our understanding and valuation of a person to his constituent elements, you at the same time reduce his worth to nothing more than the summation of the value of his parts. This tends to undermine the concept of natural rights.

As an example, let's consider a hypothetical scenario: A certain unknown disease has broken out in the U.S. which causes a degenerative condition in the kidneys of 99% of the population, which eventually forces citizens on dialysis if they're rich, dead if they're not. You, fortunately, for some reason have immunity from this disease. Now, let's ask a hypothetical question for this hypothetical scenario: Does the government have the right to compel you to undergo renal and genetic testing to determine why you have been spared?

The question initially seems absurd: of course they don't. Why? Because you have natural rights evolving from your fundamental dignity as a rational human being, and one of those natural rights is the freedom from being compelled to do something against your will so long as you're not directly harming another. While it might be noble on my part to volunteer for testing, you certainly are under no obligation to submit to the CDC vivisecting your renal system.

But under the scientist system espoused by eugenicists, a system in which your kidney is not an integral part of a rational human being with rights of his own is simply a part that can be removed or tooled around with, the question becomes much less absurd. To the extent that the kidney in question is viewed purely as an expendable asset to your physical body, and that the concept of "natural rights" is viewed as some kind of hokey religious relic because it can't be reduced to a physical part (which is what behaviorists like Skinner have already argued), the easier it is for the government to make the case that they in effect have eminent domain over it; that they have the right to remove it forcibly from you.

I used the example of the kidney in this case, but genes work just as well, because genes are already seen as things that can be patented, bought, and sold. To the extent that anyone else can charge money for the privilege of purchasing a gene or enzyme that certain people produce, it consequently reduces the legitimacy upon which we ground the idea that man is more than the sum of his parts, and one of the things that springs from this surplus is natural rights.

Beautiful post!

Fine, so you're a state socialist or technocrat or whatever. My point is that an abstract concept has no rights and certainly no right to be valued over the individual. What you're talking about is dangerously close to fascist thinking.

Cooperation is "an abstract concept?" Hmmm. And here all along I thought it was scientific fact! Oh well. Shame on me! :D

Cooperation is "an abstract concept?" Hmmm. And here all along I thought it was scientific fact! Oh well. Shame on me!

I'm talking about society. It's only good if the people making it up are happy.

Against in all forms.

For one, it contributes to what Jeremy Rifkin once called the mechanization of the human body. Basically, his point was that to the extent we reduce our understanding and valuation of a person to his constituent elements, you at the same time reduce his worth to nothing more than the summation of the value of his parts. This tends to undermine the concept of natural rights.

As an example, let's consider a hypothetical scenario: A certain unknown disease has broken out in the U.S. which causes a degenerative condition in the kidneys of 99% of the population, which eventually forces citizens on dialysis if they're rich, dead if they're not. You, fortunately, for some reason have immunity from this disease. Now, let's ask a hypothetical question for this hypothetical scenario: Does the government have the right to compel you to undergo renal and genetic testing to determine why you have been spared?

The question initially seems absurd: of course they don't. Why? Because you have natural rights evolving from your fundamental dignity as a rational human being, and one of those natural rights is the freedom from being compelled to do something against your will so long as you're not directly harming another. While it might be noble on my part to volunteer for testing, you certainly are under no obligation to submit to the CDC vivisecting your renal system.

But under the scientist system espoused by eugenicists, a system in which your kidney is not an integral part of a rational human being with rights of his own is simply a part that can be removed or tooled around with, the question becomes much less absurd. To the extent that the kidney in question is viewed purely as an expendable asset to your physical body, and that the concept of "natural rights" is viewed as some kind of hokey religious relic because it can't be reduced to a physical part (which is what behaviorists like Skinner have already argued), the easier it is for the government to make the case that they in effect have eminent domain over it; that they have the right to remove it forcibly from you.

I used the example of the kidney in this case, but genes work just as well, because genes are already seen as things that can be patented, bought, and sold. To the extent that anyone else can charge money for the privilege of purchasing a gene or enzyme that certain people produce, it consequently reduces the legitimacy upon which we ground the idea that man is more than the sum of his parts, and one of the things that springs from this surplus is natural rights.

Good post! To continue your example, if I may ... our understanding of quantum physics ( and string theory as well ) has brought us to the conclusion that the sum is not only greater than the whole, but indeed defines the part. Nothing exists in a vacume or bubble, entire unto itself. Ecological science has served to emphasize this as well: no living thing can be effectively considered apart from the environment in which it lives. Anthropology illustrates this by showing that only through cooperative actions was early man able to overcome the lack of "tooth and claw" and avoid extinction.

And before some of you begin to tune up on me, this does NOT mean that the individual should or must be subjugated by his or her society. Cooperation does NOT mean subservience!

I'm talking about society. It's only good if the people making it up are happy.

That's a value judgement with which I happen to agree, but only to a point. Happiness is an internal state subject to the decision of the individual to decide to be happy.

Thanks for the kudos. Usually, I just get the equivalent of a cyberbrick lobbed at me for my trouble. . .;-)

Against in all forms.

For one, it contributes to what Jeremy Rifkin once called the mechanization of the human body. Basically, his point was that to the extent we reduce our understanding and valuation of a person to his constituent elements, you at the same time reduce his worth to nothing more than the summation of the value of his parts. This tends to undermine the concept of natural rights.

As an example, let's consider a hypothetical scenario: A certain unknown disease has broken out in the U.S. which causes a degenerative condition in the kidneys of 99% of the population, which eventually forces citizens on dialysis if they're rich, dead if they're not. You, fortunately, for some reason have immunity from this disease. Now, let's ask a hypothetical question for this hypothetical scenario: Does the government have the right to compel you to undergo renal and genetic testing to determine why you have been spared?

The question initially seems absurd: of course they don't. Why? Because you have natural rights evolving from your fundamental dignity as a rational human being, and one of those natural rights is the freedom from being compelled to do something against your will so long as you're not directly harming another. While it might be noble on my part to volunteer for testing, you certainly are under no obligation to submit to the CDC vivisecting your renal system.

But under the scientist system espoused by eugenicists, a system in which your kidney is not an integral part of a rational human being with rights of his own is simply a part that can be removed or tooled around with, the question becomes much less absurd. To the extent that the kidney in question is viewed purely as an expendable asset to your physical body, and that the concept of "natural rights" is viewed as some kind of hokey religious relic because it can't be reduced to a physical part (which is what behaviorists like Skinner have already argued), the easier it is for the government to make the case that they in effect have eminent domain over it; that they have the right to remove it forcibly from you.

I used the example of the kidney in this case, but genes work just as well, because genes are already seen as things that can be patented, bought, and sold. To the extent that anyone else can charge money for the privilege of purchasing a gene or enzyme that certain people produce, it consequently reduces the legitimacy upon which we ground the idea that man is more than the sum of his parts, and one of the things that springs from this surplus is natural rights.
what he said

its not eugenics unless the government or other controlling group is doing it

it would be a big mistake to put our genetic future in the hands of politicians. some things are just best left to natural selection.

Thanks for the kudos. Usually, I just get the equivalent of a cyberbrick lobbed at me for my trouble. . .;-)

Well, at least you know you're in good company! I just had someone tell me that because I use emoticons, I couldn't possibly have an advanced degree! Tsk! And to think I wasted SO much time in those classes! SIGH!