Eugenics

[sass_in_the_pants]

These are some of the responses from the other thread.

So I thought a full response, and a new thread would be in order.

It would seem to me that you let the "evil scientist" type pollute your image of all others who would use the word Eugenics...

...wait, Sass, do you have a kid?

Was it with any old bum off the street?

..OR were you were "picky" when you "chose" a mate?

...you see my point?

I can see you point.....

It is a bit frightening to think of the government having control over what I can & can not do with my body.....

BUT.....We do need to do something about our over population problem.....

& 'culling the herd' so to speak seems like a possible solution.....

Survival of the fittest.....

{Wow.....I sound like a dick}

What them said. Eugenics is basically one of those double-edged sword things that has acquired a bad rep by being espoused by some truly evil people. There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to, say, breed things like diabetes or sickle cell anemia out of the race.

The early birth control advocates (Margaret Sanger et al) were all eugenicists... and the whole birth control thing seems to have worked out pretty well for all concerned.

Godwin's Law

Sass, your problem is equating Eugenics with racism. The problem with past eugenics programs was the lack of information on genetics, and the belief that race meant something. Your posts seem to imply that any attempt at eugenics will automatically try to get rid of any non whites.

We have the proof now that people of differing colours are just as similar genetically as those of the same race.

There is nothing wrong with breeding out possibly harmful traits in humans. Humans have been doing it to plants and animals for thousands of years, why is it so wrong to do it with ourselves?

There is everything wrong with breeding out possibly harmful traits in humans.

1. Tell me what possibly harmful trait you would like to get rid of, and I will tell you someone of greatness who had that trait. Lou Gherig's disease? Good choice. You just got rid of Stephen Hawkings.

What about learning disabilities? Wouldn't it be nice if we bred out learning disabilities? We can get rid of that, but then you just got rid of Alexander Graham Bell, Winston Churchill, Albert Einstein, Walt Disney, Woodrow Wilson and George Washington. What about schizophrenia? You just got rid of john Nash (that's the mathematician A Beautiful Mind was based on) and Jack Kerouac. Epilepsy? Alfred Nobel and Harriet Tubman. The poor? Buh-bye Ghandi, Mother Theresa and Abe Lincoln...who also likely had hereditary cancer syndrome called multiple endocrine neoplasia, type 2B. Uh-oh, TWO strikes against Abe! Say it ain't so! Wow...we're running out of great people...

But here is what you will claim.

You will claim that these people could have been SO much more WITHOUT these disabilities. But you can't prove that, now can you? I can't prove you incorrect, either, but what we DO know is that these people and countless others with various genetically undesirable traits HAVE contributed to society, as they were.

Or you could claim that other people would have come up with the same ideas. Again, speculation.

2. I can't help but notice that the last eugenics movement ended with six million people in the gas chambers. Would a new eugenics movement go so much better? You sure about that? REALLY sure?

3. Who would decide what these standards of greatness would be? Let's take a look at what has historically been selected against by various eugenicists, and, just for fun, let's see how many DGNers would make it in this brave new world.

The 'feeble-minded' - do you take meds for depression or bipolar? Should you? Sorry, you didn't make it.

The poor - here's a hint. If you don't have enough money for gas to get to City Club, you're poor. You also didn't make it.

The uneducated - Not sure how many people here are college graduates. I would guess that if you aren't, you wouldn't make it either.

(Sheesh...this is starting to feel like I'm playing Oregon Trail...)

The immoral - Huh. I'm betting if you weren't swept up in the other categories, this one might take out all of DGN at the knees.

(argh! And all my buffalo just died!)

4. Do you honestly think that there are UNIVERSALLY undesirable traits?

5. We don't know shit about genetics. Except maybe, that we don't know shit. The gene which causes cystic fibrosis, as it turns out, protects against cholera (by the way, 1 in 20 Caucasians is a carrier of that gene. Man this new world just keeps getting smaller and smaller and smaller, eh?). The gene which causes sickle cell anemia protects against malaria. CCR5, the genetic mutation that protects against HIV infection increases the risk of developing clinical West Nile virus. So you see, genetically speaking, genes aren't necessarily 'good' or 'bad'. They simply function. There is ALWAYS a trade-off.

6. We do it with plants and animals and its easy peesy lemony squeezy, so why not people, right? Plants and animals can be quantitatively valued based on a set of universally accepted standards. For example, a plant that was resistant to the potato beetle would be universally hailed as an improvement over the current crops. But that is because we judge the 'goodness' or 'badness' of plants and animals based on their usefulness to us. Should we judge people on the same standards? Should people be judged based on their 'usefulness'?

Oh yeah, and there is HUGE controversy with monoculture plants. Not the least of which is that if a new disease springs up, since we're dealing with plants that are essentially clones of one another, if one plant is susceptible they all are. And all of a sudden, you don't have any corn. And the shit...the shit that you didn't know about from point 4...hits the fan.

7. Eugenics cheapens ALL human life. Once you identify desirable and undesirable traits to breed in or out of a population, you have created an established hierarchy of people. So, you say you want the next generation of people to be, let's say, smarter with an IQ of 140. What happens when that doesn't work? What happens if someone isn't with the program and they have a daughter with an IQ of 110. What happens to her? Society has already determined she is less useful. How do you think she will be treated?

8. Maybe you should ask yourself - why are different life experiences so poorly regarded in this community?

9. Here's an alternate proposal. If you don't want the uneducated to have children, then educate people.

If you don't want the sick to have children, then help them get well.

If you don't want the poor to have children, help them out of poverty.

Rather than destroying future generations, help the current one. Why don't we give that one a shot?

Oh and Rev, I didn't choose Guy because I thought he would be a genetically superior choice. I chose him because he makes me laugh. He has constant ear infections, illnesses, and his teeth are rotting out of his head. I could have done better, genetically speaking. I've had two kids with him...and I'd have a hundred more with him if I could. Your brave new world? I don't even want to visit.

[peelingchrome]

That was one of the most beautiful diatribes I've read in a LONG time! If it was possible to swoon and do the happy dance at the same time without looking like I was a eugenics candidate, I would.

[SaGa]

eugenics will always be around. infact just the notion of race and financial class in choosing your partner is good enough to slightly restrict genetic syndromes to class. and to keep the generations the same class(or in englands case keep them in the higher class) of course this stigma of dating only your kind in race and financial class is being eroded away, nothing wrong with that.

in amarican. choosing the best humans as the only ones to reporduce isnt viable. our avverage birthrate has to be at 2.1 to sustain the population. amarica is at that almost exactly. controlling breeding even more whould lower that ammount to under sustainable population rates

japan is at 1.27. there looking in the next 20 years a crisis in there industry and economy far beyond there major crisis there in now. to few entering the workforce, and to many entering retirement.

now human augmentation, sounds like a mad scientist, or a army of super soldiars type of movies. hehe scientists will wish to play with the idea. but aside from that. it wont happen anytime in your futures

[Msterbeau]

I like peanut butter and banana sammiches. Does that make me bad?

[SaGa]

I like peanut butter and banana sammiches. Does that make me bad?

ahh the peanut butter and jam gene. nope nope. we can only have the "taste for expensive seafood" gene

[Msterbeau]

ahh the peanut butter and jam gene. nope nope. we can only have the "taste for expensive seafood" gene

I didn't say jam. I said bananas. Completely different.

[SaGa]

I didn't say jam. I said bananas. Completely different.

hmm well im sure we dont like that gene to. seems like a POOR MANS GENE to me

[Msterbeau]

hmm well im sure we dont like that gene to. seems like a POOR MANS GENE to me

Not in Japan. Bananas here are freaking expensive!!

[SaGa]

i think i just pointed out how eugenics can get out of hand.

the genetics for obesity is seen as a downside in THIS society. in a society with less food. or times of famine, that gene whould mean survival.

[Nightgaunt]

+1000

I've railed against eugenics elsewhere on DGN, but never so eloquently. Thank you.

These are some of the responses from the other thread.

So I thought a full response, and a new thread would be in order.

There is everything wrong with breeding out possibly harmful traits in humans.

1. Tell me what possibly harmful trait you would like to get rid of, and I will tell you someone of greatness who had that trait. Lou Gherig's disease? Good choice. You just got rid of Stephen Hawkings.

What about learning disabilities? Wouldn't it be nice if we bred out learning disabilities? We can get rid of that, but then you just got rid of Alexander Graham Bell, Winston Churchill, Albert Einstein, Walt Disney, Woodrow Wilson and George Washington. What about schizophrenia? You just got rid of john Nash (that's the mathematician A Beautiful Mind was based on) and Jack Kerouac. Epilepsy? Alfred Nobel and Harriet Tubman. The poor? Buh-bye Ghandi, Mother Theresa and Abe Lincoln...who also likely had hereditary cancer syndrome called multiple endocrine neoplasia, type 2B. Uh-oh, TWO strikes against Abe! Say it ain't so! Wow...we're running out of great people...

But here is what you will claim.

You will claim that these people could have been SO much more WITHOUT these disabilities. But you can't prove that, now can you? I can't prove you incorrect, either, but what we DO know is that these people and countless others with various genetically undesirable traits HAVE contributed to society, as they were.

Or you could claim that other people would have come up with the same ideas. Again, speculation.

2. I can't help but notice that the last eugenics movement ended with six million people in the gas chambers. Would a new eugenics movement go so much better? You sure about that? REALLY sure?

3. Who would decide what these standards of greatness would be? Let's take a look at what has historically been selected against by various eugenicists, and, just for fun, let's see how many DGNers would make it in this brave new world.

The 'feeble-minded' - do you take meds for depression or bipolar? Should you? Sorry, you didn't make it.

The poor - here's a hint. If you don't have enough money for gas to get to City Club, you're poor. You also didn't make it.

The uneducated - Not sure how many people here are college graduates. I would guess that if you aren't, you wouldn't make it either.

(Sheesh...this is starting to feel like I'm playing Oregon Trail...)

The immoral - Huh. I'm betting if you weren't swept up in the other categories, this one might take out all of DGN at the knees.

(argh! And all my buffalo just died!)

4. Do you honestly think that there are UNIVERSALLY undesirable traits?

5. We don't know shit about genetics. Except maybe, that we don't know shit. The gene which causes cystic fibrosis, as it turns out, protects against cholera (by the way, 1 in 20 Caucasians is a carrier of that gene. Man this new world just keeps getting smaller and smaller and smaller, eh?). The gene which causes sickle cell anemia protects against malaria. CCR5, the genetic mutation that protects against HIV infection increases the risk of developing clinical West Nile virus. So you see, genetically speaking, genes aren't necessarily 'good' or 'bad'. They simply function. There is ALWAYS a trade-off.

6. We do it with plants and animals and its easy peesy lemony squeezy, so why not people, right? Plants and animals can be quantitatively valued based on a set of universally accepted standards. For example, a plant that was resistant to the potato beetle would be universally hailed as an improvement over the current crops. But that is because we judge the 'goodness' or 'badness' of plants and animals based on their usefulness to us. Should we judge people on the same standards? Should people be judged based on their 'usefulness'?

Oh yeah, and there is HUGE controversy with monoculture plants. Not the least of which is that if a new disease springs up, since we're dealing with plants that are essentially clones of one another, if one plant is susceptible they all are. And all of a sudden, you don't have any corn. And the shit...the shit that you didn't know about from point 4...hits the fan.

7. Eugenics cheapens ALL human life. Once you identify desirable and undesirable traits to breed in or out of a population, you have created an established hierarchy of people. So, you say you want the next generation of people to be, let's say, smarter with an IQ of 140. What happens when that doesn't work? What happens if someone isn't with the program and they have a daughter with an IQ of 110. What happens to her? Society has already determined she is less useful. How do you think she will be treated?

8. Maybe you should ask yourself - why are different life experiences so poorly regarded in this community?

9. Here's an alternate proposal. If you don't want the uneducated to have children, then educate people.

If you don't want the sick to have children, then help them get well.

If you don't want the poor to have children, help them out of poverty.

Rather than destroying future generations, help the current one. Why don't we give that one a shot?

Oh and Rev, I didn't choose Guy because I thought he would be a genetically superior choice. I chose him because he makes me laugh. He has constant ear infections, illnesses, and his teeth are rotting out of his head. I could have done better, genetically speaking. I've had two kids with him...and I'd have a hundred more with him if I could. Your brave new world? I don't even want to visit.

[TitsMcGee]

(Sheesh...this is starting to feel like I'm playing Oregon Trail...)

[sass_in_the_pants]

Thanks for the nice words.

Mbeau:

If I were in charge, I would selectively breed IN bald men. I might let the peanut butter and banana thing slide...

TMG:

Thank you thank you for appreciating the Oregon Trail reference. I hate when I die of dysentery....

[Oh_My_Goth]

You still seem to be focusing on the Nazi-ish spin on eugenics.....

I don't think anyone was saying that.....

MY point was on sterilizing people, so I don't even know why you quoted Me.....

I also said this.....

I think this is a fabulous idea.....

The girls should receive some counseling fist so they can make an educated decision.....& it shouldn't just be an option for poor people.....It should be easier for all women to do this.....

I do not think what I was saying was discrimination.....

Back to the subject at hand.....

Science is already weeding out certain disorders, it is part of evolving.....It is a slow process to make life better for the people of the future, that is what we as humans do.....We survive.....& modern science will try to allow us to survive in healthy state of body and mind.....

The eugenics I see people speaking of hear has nothing to do with killing people before they were born because they have a disorder, it is taking steps to insure children will not have to be born with these disabilities in the first place.....

Tell Me, please, what is wrong with that?????

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

You still seem to be focusing on the Nazi-ish spin on eugenics.....

Someone has to. Else we forget the past and repeat it.

[Oh_My_Goth]

Someone has to. Else we forget the past and repeat it.

But, Me point is that nobody was supporting that aspect.....

& The Nazi thing is a little hard to forget.....

[sass_in_the_pants]

You still seem to be focusing on the Nazi-ish spin on eugenics.....

I don't think anyone was saying that.....

MY point was on sterilizing people, so I don't even know why you quoted Me.....

I also said this.....

I do not think what I was saying was discrimination.....

Back to the subject at hand.....

Science is already weeding out certain disorders, it is part of evolving.....It is a slow process to make life better for the people of the future, that is what we as humans do.....We survive.....& modern science will try to allow us to survive in healthy state of body and mind.....

The eugenics I see people speaking of hear has nothing to do with killing people before they were born because they have a disorder, it is taking steps to insure children will not have to be born with these disabilities in the first place.....

Tell Me, please, what is wrong with that?????

I abbreviated your quote because this post was getting kind of long. Sorry if you felt I was misrepresenting your views. That was not my intent.

Now, back to the subject at hand.

What steps, EXACTLY are you talking about taking to insure children will not be born with disabilities? Which disabilities?

And what EXACTLY is science already doing to 'weed' out certain disorders?

[TygerLili]

I am against eugenics in the sense of "breeding" and genetically engineering better humans. I think modern science definitely oversteps its boundaries sometimes and the results are quite unsettling to me, and I agree with much of what you have to say as far as "weeding out" undesirable traits.

However eugenics and population control are not the same thing. I am all for population control. There's a big difference between wanting to created a tall, blond-haired, blue-eyed, athletic male child and not wanting to see people have 10 or 12 children when they don't have the time, money and resources to take care of them all.

IMHO, this doesn't just apply to poor people. Even if you're wealthy, how many children can two people, or one person for that matter, really adequately take care of? Maybe 5 or 6? Any more than that and you're going to have trouble giving them the individualized focused attention that all children need. If you have 10 kids and one is really struggling with something and you need to sit down and talk with him, what do you do with the other 9? Plop them down in front of the TV and hope they don't kill each other?

*edited for grammar*

[sass_in_the_pants]

But, Me point is that nobody was supporting that aspect.....

& The Nazi thing is a little hard to forget.....

My point is that supporting one aspect of eugenics will inevitably lead to one certain, and destructive end.

What other end would it lead to?

[Oh_My_Goth]

I abbreviated your quote because this post was getting kind of long. Sorry if you felt I was misrepresenting your views. That was not my intent. {No offense taken}

Now, back to the subject at hand.

What steps, EXACTLY are you talking about taking to insure children will not be born with disabilities? Which disabilities?

And what EXACTLY is science already doing to 'weed' out certain disorders?

I am not being particular about any specific disability.....

But let's say for example > Muscular Dystrophy

A child of a family friend was born with it and he was miserable.....His parents used to take him all over so he could live a 'normal' life, but he never got to run or jump, or interact with other kids.....He cried allot, and could not communicate very well.....It made Me so sad.....If the parents could have prevented that with modern science, perhaps they would have.....

Science is making advances so that potential parents can be tested for many genetic disorders that run in their family, and make an educated decision as to weather or not to have children if there is too much of a risk.....

If we can have the option to eradicate all disorders that would be great.....That is not going to happen over night, but I am big on improving the world for the future.....

It would be naive of Me to think that people would not be corrupt and self serving in any situation such as what we are speaking of.....So I understand the NWO reference.....

I just think eugenics CAN BE a useful tool.....

& yes, I DO think certain people should not breed.....& I also think people should be limited on family size.....

I don't know the "how" on getting this accomplished without things being overly corrupt.....If I did I would be rich.....

People need to make educated decisions when it comes to reproducing, and it needs to be about the child, not

someones desire to reproduce just because they can.....

{can we breed out stupid?????}

[Oh_My_Goth]

My point is that supporting one aspect of eugenics will inevitably lead to one certain, and destructive end.

What other end would it lead to?

I don't necessarily believe that it would.....

[Rev.Reverence]

I don't necessarily believe that it would.....

Logical...I'm so proud...

[Oh_My_Goth]

Logical...I'm so proud...

[sass_in_the_pants]

I am against eugenics in the sense of "breeding" and genetically engineering better humans. I think modern science definitely oversteps its boundaries sometimes and the results are quite unsettling to me, and I agree with much of what you have to say as far as "weeding out" undesirable traits.

However eugenics and population control are not the same thing. I am all for population control. There's a big difference between wanting to created a tall, blond-haired, blue-eyed, athletic male child and not wanting to see people have 10 or 12 children when they don't have the time, money and resources to take care of them all.

IMHO, this doesn't just apply to poor people. Even if you're wealthy, how many children can two people, or one person for that matter, really adequately take care of? Maybe 5 or 6? Any more than that and you're going to have trouble giving them the individualized focused attention that all children need. If you have 10 kids and one is really struggling with something and you need to sit down and talk with him, what do you do with the other 9? Plop them down in front of the TV and hope they don't kill each other?

*edited for grammar*

How do you propose the population would be controlled? Through what mechanism exactly? And doesn't each family make that decision for themselves already? Why would ANYONE but that family need to weigh in on the decision as to how many children they should have?

I don't think you have to worry about large families. In America particularly, people are choosing to have fewer and fewer children, as is the trend in western Europe. A case could equally be made for the troubles of small families where there is less of a built-in social network, less in the way of shared responsibility and so on. The truth is that the dynamics of a large family are simply different than the dynamics of a small one.

I would tell you all how many siblings I had but you'd be horrified. so I'll save that for another day

[sass_in_the_pants]

I don't necessarily believe that it would.....

Since eugenics movements in the past HAVE led to wholesale extermination of a peoples, what makes you think it would be different this time? On what evidence do you base this belief?

[sass_in_the_pants]

I am not being particular about any specific disability.....

But let's say for example > Muscular Dystrophy

A child of a family friend was born with it and he was miserable.....His parents used to take him all over so he could live a 'normal' life, but he never got to run or jump, or interact with other kids.....He cried allot, and could not communicate very well.....It made Me so sad.....If the parents could have prevented that with modern science, perhaps they would have.....

Have you asked them? The parents, I mean, have you asked them?

If you asked them 'Would you prefer that Tommy were perfectly healthy?' they would most certainly say yes. EVERY parent would say that. If you asked them 'Would you prefer Tommy not be here at all, because you could have prevented his birth?' you might be surprised at the answer.

I won't pretend to know what these parents are thinking. Maybe they would say yes, I don't know. But friends of mine who ARE raising children with various disabilities, MD among them, would all say no - they accept and love the child that they have. As he or she is.

The other fatal flaw with this plan, though well intentioned and I can see that, is that you won't catch everything. If you discover that you won't pass on MD to your children, there could a hundred other things you might. I wouldn't want anyone to enter a pregnancy with the mindset that they could control the outcome of it. The fact is, you can possibly do things to improve the chances of a healthy child (taking folic acid for example) but you can't control for everything.

Science is making advances so that potential parents can be tested for many genetic disorders that run in their family, and make an educated decision as to weather or not to have children if there is too much of a risk.....

Well, then let me ask you this. Let's say these parents HAD gotten screened somehow for MD, and they had decided to have a child together anyway. What would you think of that decision?

If we can have the option to eradicate all disorders that would be great.....That is not going to happen over night, but I am big on improving the world for the future.....

It would be naive of Me to think that people would not be corrupt and self serving in any situation such as what we are speaking of.....So I understand the NWO reference.....

I just think eugenics CAN BE a useful tool.....

& yes, I DO think certain people should not breed.....& I also think people should be limited on family size.....

Which people, specifically? And what should be the limit of the family size? On what criteria do you base this? As I said in an earlier post, you all would be horrified to know how many kids were in my family. Horrified. Like, how could two people be so cruel and selfish as to have this many children. Horrified.

I don't know the "how" on getting this accomplished without things being overly corrupt.....If I did I would be rich.....

Ah, and there you have it. You don't know HOW to eradicate disease through eugenics without the accompanying genocide. Maybe it's because there ISN'T a way to do it?