Eugenics: Green Arrow vs. Cthulhu

[Green Arrow]

@Cthulhu, let's begin. First, I'll establish the definition of eugenics.

Eugenics is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of the genetic "pool" of humanity. At its foundation, eugenics improves the gene pool simply by encouraging those with good genes to reproduce, and discouraging those with bad genes from reproducing. There have been many different eugenic methods over the course of the philosophy's existence, the most extreme example being the twisted and corrupted ideal of eugenics used by the Nazis, which completely forgoes the concept of improving the human gene pool and instead seeks to completely eliminate non-Aryan races. It is a $#@!ization of eugenics and will not come into this discussion.

Cthulhu, the opening statement is yours.

[Cthulhu]

Okay. We know what eugenics is by your definition. My question is this:

Those who will be involved in its practice - the Jane and Joe population at large, will they have freedom of choice as to whether they participate in its implementation or is it a state based mandate with no individual choice in the matter?

...also, am I the pro eugenics or the anti eugenics party?

[Green Arrow]

Okay. We know what eugenics is by your definition. My question is this:

Those who will be involved in its practice - the Jane and Joe population at large, will they have freedom of choice as to whether they participate in its implementation or is it a state based mandate with no individual choice in the matter?

If I were in charge, yes, they would. In the past, there have been proponents of eugenics that were proponents of state-mandated eugenics, however.

...also, am I the pro eugenics or the anti eugenics party?

You are whatever you wish to be. I'm arguing in favor, though.

[Cthulhu]

If I were in charge, yes, they would. In the past, there have been proponents of eugenics that were proponents of state-mandated eugenics, however.



You are whatever you wish to be. I'm arguing in favor, though.

I'll go anti then, for opposition's sake.

The reason I am going anti eugenics is because it is typically instituted by a government, a collectivist beast that only nominally cares about the wants and needs of the people it siphons resources from.

In America (other countries as well I believe), eugenics has been done without consent by those who were deemed 'unfit' and they were sterilized at youth or at another point in time. However the practice was done away with, the time period I don't remember though.

In the opening definition:

At its foundation, eugenics improves the gene pool simply by encouraging those with good genes to reproduce, and discouraging those with bad genes from reproducing.

This is based upon the free will model because of the key word "discouraging", implying there is free will to disregard it. Government typically doesn't respond well to rebellion of its mandates, often with violence. I bring up government because I know of no other instance in which eugenics is institutionalized en masse to a population.

That aside, the goal is to improve humanity with superior genes no? What is the determining factor for that which is superior versus the inferior stock? Also, what is the mechanism for discouraging 'inferior' genes to spread?

[Green Arrow]

I think the definition of "inferior" and "superior" in this case is pretty objective. If I am an Einstein-level genius, and you are mentally retarded, is there really a question of which of us has superior genes? At least, where intelligence is concerned. Now, it might get a little murkier if I'm a genius and you're mentally retarded, but I carry a hereditary disease like gout or Huntington's Chorea. In that case, I have the superior mental genes, but inferior physical genes.

*EDIT* Not sure what you mean by the second question.

[Cthulhu]

I think the definition of "inferior" and "superior" in this case is pretty objective.

Not so. It is utterly geographically and technologically based with regards to the society, with social factors as well. Fitness of genes can rapidly change over the course of a single generation - without genetic drift taking place.

If I am an Einstein-level genius, and you are mentally retarded, is there really a question of which of us has superior genes?

On this point I agree. Intellect is a good thing to have. But intellect is only useful at certain times. Likewise with speed and muscle mass. Utterly contingent on the pressure at hand. If I'm being chased by a tiger, I don't care how smart I am, I care how fast I am. If I am cramming for say...chemistry finals. I could live in an iron lung for all I care. Superiority is based upon the pressure at hand. Which can change from one moment to the next. That being said, trends typically follow a pattern.

At least, where intelligence is concerned. Now, it might get a little murkier if I'm a genius and you're mentally retarded, but I carry a hereditary disease like gout or Huntington's Chorea. In that case, I have the superior mental genes, but inferior physical genes.

Good point you bring up. However it also hinges upon the pressure at hand. Sickle cell anemia. Doesn't really do anybody any favors here in the good old U S of A. But in Africa it is a mutation which render malaria a moot point to those that have the trait. Not a boon here where we have technology to make up the difference of a lagging immune system, but in Africa where technology is spotty at best in certain regions, a single mosquito bite can spell doom upon you if you don't have that trait, and your whole tribe as well.

One man's priceless is another man's worthless. Which is why a rubric of what is superior must be codified for eugenics to be get off the ground. There is no point in reaching to perfection with selective breeding if we haven't agreed on what is superior and what is inferior.

*EDIT* Not sure what you mean by the second question.

Clarification on this:

Also, what is the mechanism for discouraging 'inferior' genes to spread?

Say X gene has been identified to produce what is deemed a negative trait. And certain people have it. How will you discourage them from spreading it? Abortions, or abortions pending genetic profile of fetus? Sterilizations(because what is the point of birth control if you have been deemed to have bad genes)? Economic incentive? Euthanize violators offspring...or the violators themselves?

[Chris]

I think Cthulhu's question end of post #4 Won the debate: "That aside, the goal is to improve humanity with superior genes no? What is the determining factor for that which is superior versus the inferior stock?"

We just don't know this, not scientifically, not at all.

Pretending we do, and trying to design humans, is pretty darned scary.

[donttread]

One way we circumvent natural selection in this country is by unduly protecting stupid people with warning labels for example. Subway plastic bags actually say "do not allow babies and small children to play with this bag" No $#@!! Who could possibly be old enough to be in charge of a child and NOT know that? And if they did what chance does their child have anyway? Or the expensive warnings on metal ladders about how they can be fallen from and conduct electricity

[PolWatch]

There are some people who should never have children...for the sake of the children as well as society. Even knowing that, I just can't see interference in this issue except to make the options to childbearing available. I knew someone who believed that everyone should be sterilized at birth...and could have it reversed upon proof of (emotional, financial, etc) ability to rear children. I thought he was a nut... sometimes I wonder...but I still can't support it.

Thanks for an interesting debate on a controversial subject.

gee, no screaming or cussing or snarking...very enjoyable!

[Polecat]

There are some people who should never have children...for the sake of the children as well as society. Even knowing that, I just can't see interference in this issue except to make the options to childbearing available. I knew someone who believed that everyone should be sterilized at birth...and could have it reversed upon proof of (emotional, financial, etc) ability to rear children. I thought he was a nut... sometimes I wonder...but I still can't support it.

Thanks for an interesting debate on a controversial subject.

gee, no screaming or cussing or snarking...very enjoyable!

While this approach would have most apparent advantages in the production of "trash" people being reduced the underlying issue of "who" gets to set the criteria would make it impossible to enact outside of a tyrannical dictatorship.