NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's one you don't here about too often- eugenics. For those of you who don't know, eugenics is a theory initially develloped by Sir Franis Galton (cousin to Charles Darwin, and something of an evolutionist) and espoused by Alexander Graham Bell, among others. It basically states that since humanity inherits traits from it's ancestors, selective breeding could be used to weed out diseases and human frailties, and to bring about a better form of human, one that on average would be smarter, stronger and healthier than the norm today. Opponents of immigration often used the eugenics theory as a way to shut out those they felt were inferior (such as Jews and any other foreigners they disliked), and Hitler used it as a basis for his theories on race, and an excuse for his actions.
Currently, the Chinese government has a sterilization program which prevents people with "genetic diseases" and "relevant mental diseases" from having children.
My question, however, is this- ignoring it's dubious history, and the misuse it has been put to- is eugenics any different from genetic engineering (such as designer babies"- and would a voluntary, non-coercive eugenics program (such as free screening for inherited diseases, and then telling couples the risks before they have children) be ethically wrong?

Voluntary, non-coersive eugenics as you described it does exist today, and many, many couples take it under advisement before having children. But that's not really eugenics as it's normally understood. Eugenics is usually government-sponsored (read: forced).

I think the "forced" use of eugenics is quite obviously wrong, and totally indefensable. Still, I do find myself in agreement with the statements of two Nobel prize winners- John Sulston ("I don't think one ought to bring a clearly disabled child into the world") and James D. Watson ("Once you have a way in which you can improve our children, no one can stop it.").
In this vein, it is easy to argue that "designer babies" are little different from eugenics, and that begs the question of whether that practice (genetically engineering children) is wrong.

Eugenics isn't inherently wrong, I think it is actually a cool idea. If you think China's program is bad, California has a program to eliminate fat people!

http://www.barking-moonbat.com/index.php/weblog/the_final_obesity_solution/


Anyhow like it or not "Eugenics" pretty much occurs all the time anyway, you don't ussually just fuck people at random and have stranger's babies. Ussually you have children with peole who are physically fit, intelligent, stable, etc. The half retarded crack addict isn't as likely to breed as the brilliant tennis champ doctor.

The way I see it, for me it would be a moral imperative to make sure my children were brought into the world disease-free, so as to have the best chance it life possible. Perhaps it is 'forced', but I cannot think of anyone in their right mind actually wanting to have some sort of terminal disease.

Also, once we have the ability to change genes in fully developed humans, it becomes a nonissue. They can retool themselves to their own desires.

Eugenics isn't inherently wrong, I think it is actually a cool idea. If you think China's program is bad, California has a program to eliminate fat people!

http://www.barking-moonbat.com/index.php/weblog/the_final_obesity_solution/


Anyhow like it or not "Eugenics" pretty much occurs all the time anyway, you don't ussually just fuck people at random and have stranger's babies. Ussually you have children with peole who are physically fit, intelligent, stable, etc. The half retarded crack addict isn't as likely to breed as the brilliant tennis champ doctor.

Free vasectomies to fat people? Interesting concept, but if they're giving away free vasectomies, why not just start with any man with an IQ less than 100?

Free vasectomies to fat people? Interesting concept, but if they're giving away free vasectomies, why not just start with any man with an IQ less than 100?
Yeah it would probably make more sense to weed out stupid people-- Stupid people do stupid things like have unprotected sex and bastard children because they are stupid, meanwhile fat people have a tough time having sex at all becasue they are less attractive. But then again it is highly questionable whether or not intelligence is an inherited characteristic.

I think the "forced" use of eugenics is quite obviously wrong, and totally indefensable. Still, I do find myself in agreement with the statements of two Nobel prize winners- John Sulston ("I don't think one ought to bring a clearly disabled child into the world") and James D. Watson ("Once you have a way in which you can improve our children, no one can stop it.").
In this vein, it is easy to argue that "designer babies" are little different from eugenics, and that begs the question of whether that practice (genetically engineering children) is wrong.

Genetic engineering to remove disease would be no problem. And in a few decades when we get there, I think it will become accepted practice.

Genetic engineering for "designer babies" I think *would* be a problem. First of all, it would lead to too much homogeneity, and the pretty much the entire human race would drop off the face of the earth at the next epidemic. But mostly because it would harmful for the children that came out of it. A parent would have their baby "designed" to be the next great football player, and then would psychologically try and force the child into playing football. But what if the kid, though very strong, would actually rather do something else?

Obviously, there isn't a lot of interest in the ethics involved- I think that eugenicsis practically and ethically unworkable because different people have different standards of what an ideal person is, and it would be impossible to find common ground, to say nothing of the potential for misuse by the government.

Genetic engineering to remove disease would be no problem. And in a few decades when we get there, I think it will become accepted practice.

Genetic engineering for "designer babies" I think *would* be a problem. First of all, it would lead to too much homogeneity, and the pretty much the entire human race would drop off the face of the earth at the next epidemic. But mostly because it would harmful for the children that came out of it. A parent would have their baby "designed" to be the next great football player, and then would psychologically try and force the child into playing football. But what if the kid, though very strong, would actually rather do something else?

I tend to agree. To quote Spiderman (sorry, I think there should be a law against stupid pop-culture references in scientific or ethical discussions, and now I'm violating my own rule) "with great power comes great responsibility". In an age where people don't have enough responsibility to drive a car, I think it highly unethical to put the genetic makeup of another human in their hands.

"The half retarded crack addict isn't as likely to breed as the brilliant tennis champ doctor."

I dunno...a lot of the people I know who choose not to breed (or choose to breed fewer offspring) seem to be smart (in my admittedly arbitrary estimation). A lot of the mouthbreathers I see are making babies left and right.

Clearly, this kind of observation (the one I'm making) is at best anecdotal, and doesn't constitute a scientific set of data, or any kind of statistical inference. That said, in order to measure whether smart people or dumb people have more kids and whether we should force the trend, wouldn't we have to first agree on a definition of cognitive aptitude, and then define desireable cognitive aptitude, then remove whatever social or cultural or economic pressures might affect the fair application of the test...I think if those things could be done, eugenics as an agreed up social contract could be benificial. If/when population density grows to the point where procreation may have to be regulated anyway, why not collectively choose to pass on the best?

I'm not having kids because I don't want to pass on some of my traits, but thats voluntary, so I guess it falls outside this discussion. I'm not sure if I should be insulted that my wife accepts the decision...