Eugenics

[jimkopelli]

I suggested Eugenics earlier on but no-one took up the ball and ran with it..


*runs*
*realizes that he's the one that got the ball out of the shed in the first place*


Eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics) was discussed in another thread a short time ago... and so as to not derail it any more (actually, it was pretty well on topic, but that's beside the point) let's discuss selective breeding here.


I'm for it... but I know that in today's society people would bitch and moan and try to buck the system. Even though it'd be for the good of humanity.

[Hypnos]

* By what standard would you judge eugenic fitness? Yours (all hail Imperator Kopelli!) or do you have something objective in mind?

* If eugenics are necessary to save humanity, is humanity worth saving? (And, from above, what do you mean by "humanity?")

[Geoff]

OK, let's take some Hitler Ideals.

Are we going to stop the 'lesser mortals' - handicapped etc, from breeding. This must be an easy point to debate. Let's say, do we exclude those with disabilities.

-Geoff

[Helios]

Honestly it isn't "bad" idea, in a detached amoral way, but it would always get outta control, and fast. Such divine direction is far above and beyond mans skills.





edit-Imperator Helios has a much better ring to it

[jimkopelli]

I don't think eugenics are necessary to "save" the human race... we're getting along... but we could be getting better and we're not.

Eugenic fitness... let's see... well, from the article (which everyone should read. it's very helpful) there are two types of eugenics... positive and negative. Positive is encouraging those with desireable genes to reproduce, either through monetary rewards or what have you, and negative eugenics is discouraging those with undesireable genes from passing them on. This is where it got a bad name... because negative eugenics runs from compulusory sterilization to mass genocide.

Positive would be easiest to use, and would cause the least grumbling, but it isn't as effective.

Negative... most of the methods are fairly extreme and threatening to those affected.

Objective... discourage by percentile. If you're below 50th percentile, (in whatever, probably something major like intelligence or health) you'd have to have some other redeeming quality or you get mandatory birth control.
(Easiest way I can think of there is to use implants... but the cons of that are then you'd get someone who's unhappy, wants kids, and or is a fundamentalist nutjob, and get them taken out by a black market doctor, or gouges them out themself)

I'm gonna let more people post instead of monopolizing, eh?

[Hypnos]

OK, let's take some Hitler Ideals.

Are we going to stop the 'lesser mortals' - handicapped etc, from breeding. This must be an easy point to debate. Let's say, do we exclude those with disabilities.

-Geoff
Perhaps, you have to be able to function in society if you want to have kids: no history of multiple violent felonies, can hold down a job and maintain a home, etc. etc. That would be more objective than just pointing and saying "disabled!"

[jimkopelli]

Honestly it isn't "bad" idea, in a detached amoral way, but it would always get outta control, and fast. Such divine direction is far above and beyond mans skills.


edit-Imperator Helios has a much better ring to it

So... to keep it from getting out of hand, how would you go about that? Computer selection?

(and it does have a better ring... but I'm the Imperator of this thread. Turn in your testicles to the Bureau of Breeding.)

[Geoff]

Perhaps, you have to be able to function in society if you want to have kids: no history of multiple violent felonies, can hold down a job and maintain a home, etc. etc. That would be more objective than just pointing and saying "disabled!"

Yes, that makes more sense. Like a qualification test based upon worth to the nation that encourages rather than prevents.

My post was actually a sarcastic take on eugenics - I wasnt expecting you to take it seriously. My wife is a perfectly intelligent woman, but has a disability for which Hitler compulsively sterilised people.

-Geoff

[jimkopelli]

Perhaps, you have to be able to function in society if you want to have kids: no history of multiple violent felonies, can hold down a job and maintain a home, etc. etc. That would be more objective than just pointing and saying "disabled!"


What about having to earn the right to have children?

[Helios]

Ahh to hell with all this limp wristed shit, lets go all out!

At least; 6'0 for males 5'6 for females. IQ 140+,no major defects or family history. No fatties; guy less than 6% fat, girls get 15%. Oh and don't forget the obligatory blond hair and light eyes!






*carefully crafted to include myself in the breeding pool (with a bit of room for error), for both humor and to demo the unavoidable pitfalls human nature would bring to any such program

[Hypnos]

Yes, that makes more sense. Like a qualification test based upon worth to the nation that encourages rather than prevents.
FThe idea would be to reduce the number of displaced children, while making life easier for everyone else; nationalism is the farthest thing from my mind, if that's what you meant.


My post was actually a sarcastic take on eugenics - I wasnt expecting you to take it seriously. My wife is a perfectly intelligent woman, but has a disability for which Hitler compulsively sterilised people.
That's the danger, when you label and restrict without comparisons to yourself, the supposedly superior party.

[CoHo]

I think the problem with introducing Eugenics into a society is you need a bunch of people that probably don't fall into the criteria to be all cool with it.


I would be more prone to accept the single-task concept:

Whatever it takes to develop the technology to convert energy to mass, or nanoassembly, or something equally groundbreaking. Burn the planet like a torch until we get that, we can fix the mess once it is done.

[Hypnos]

Ahh to hell with all this limp wristed shit, lets go all out!

At least; 6'0 for males 5'6 for females. IQ 140+,no major defects or family history. No fatties; guy less than 6% fat, girls get 15%. Oh and don't forget the obligatory blond hair and light eyes!

These would be minimum requirements. (Also, we wouldn't want 6% body fat by starvation -- you still have to have muscle mass.) Combine with a high enough income or fascist state ranking, we might approach JK's model. :rolleyes2

I reject any collectivist project. In a sense, this invalidates eugenics of any sort, and limits fertility prohibitions to those who can't take care of their own damn kids, as I describe above.

[jimkopelli]

Ahh to hell with all this limp wristed shit, lets go all out!

At least; 6'0 for males 5'6 for females. IQ 140+,no major defects or family history. No fatties; guy less than 6% fat, girls get 15%. Oh and don't forget the obligatory blond hair and light eyes!






*carefully crafted to include myself in the breeding pool (with a bit of room for error), for both humor and to demo the unavoidable pitfalls

Downside... Assuming that your population control of nondesrieables is perfect... they're gonna have to produce enough children to make up the difference in death rate/birth rate, or you're going to have a severe population drop..

[Helios]

Good point,you shouldn't be able to puke or starve your genes into tomr!!


this is just classic example of something that seems good, but it beyond the capacity of the human vessel to ever get right.

[SensEye]

Downside... Assuming that your population control of nondesrieables is perfect... they're gonna have to produce enough children to make up the difference in death rate/birth rate, or you're going to have a severe population drop..I don't see this as a problem until we get down to 2 billion or so. Of course, there would be much demographic inequity if we wait for attrition (too many old, not enough young). Shit happens when "every sperm is sacred". Big hole to climb out of now.

[cjs55]

Eugenics is tricky. The only point where I can with surety say it should be enacted is for babies with down syndrome (or similar syndromes). Some people who carry extremely harmful genes should probably not reproduce as well.

Stupid people have a place in society as long as they can work, so I wouldn't breed by IQ. However, I could definitely see a place for government enacted breeding. Maybe we should force the most brilliant scientists/musicians/poets/whatever to hook up. (somewhat tongue-in-cheek...but maybe not!)

[Edmond Zedo]

*Goes on fucking spree* "What great artists the world is gaining!"

[jimkopelli]

Maybe we should force the most brilliant scientists/musicians/poets/whatever to hook up. (somewhat tongue-in-cheek...but maybe not!)

In the article... there was a "genius sperm bank" going for a while. Nobel winners and stuff. Wonder if they had an egg section as well...


EZ... Artists... for cards? I always liked the one with the sombrero (from Unglued) better.



I don't see this as a problem until we get down to 2 billion or so. Of course, there would be much demographic inequity if we wait for attrition (too many old, not enough young). Shit happens when "every sperm is sacred". Big hole to climb out of now.


People would freak the hell out... you'd need a reason to knowingly decrease the population... (like lack of resources, food, etc) and even then, it'd take time for the last generation of pre-eugenics to die out (giving time to ferment rebellion)... and this is all assuming that you have control of the entire world anyway.

Post-plague? But then you'd only be able to get away with eliminating carriers or those susceptible, non-immune.

[crule81]

Today, we essentially have inverted eugenics. It's generally the less intelligent and less educated people who are having kids. On the other hand, the educated intellectual elite are more likely to have fewer kids if any at all. If "stupid" people are precluded from breeding and "smart" people are not willing to have enough kids to keep the population from dwindling to near zero, humanity may just depopulate itself out of existence (See Asimov's Solara). Maybe those who consider themselves elites should "take one (or two or three) for the team." and start making more kids.

[Lee]

How about eugenics on an idividual gene level, instead of selective breeding simply throw load of money into genetic manipulation techniques and individually alter genetic information before the baby is born. Eradicate faulty genes and replace them with productive genes, eugenics on a human level comes with to many complications and does not encourage enough diversity, which is very important.

With individual control over genes we would be in control of our own evolution and create people in the way we please.

Of course INTP's would be behind all this and so all genetically altered humans will be programmed to obey our every command and we can rule the world...mwhahahaha...

[booyalab]

It's preposterous to think that manipulating our genetics to make everyone a genius would be beneficial. Think about it, do you really think the life of a monkey is any worse for them than life is for us?

The bar would simply be raised. Most jobs are mostly manual labor. So the lesser geniuses or the less achievement-oriented geniuses would do the jobs that are currently predominated by those with IQs of a 100.

[Helios]

an IQ of 100 is avg, not low.

However, I think we established the male heigth of 5'9 as "too short"* as well, it is also exactly avg.



But,then again what do I care;I am tall and dumb as a box-o-rocks!



*another thread

[booyalab]

an IQ of 100 is avg, not low.


um, ok....that was my point.

[Lee]

It's preposterous to think that manipulating our genetics to make everyone a genius would be beneficial. Think about it, do you really think the life of a monkey is any worse for them than life is for us?

The bar would simply be raised. Most jobs are mostly manual labor. So the lesser geniuses or the less achievement-oriented geniuses would do the jobs that are currently predominated by those with IQs of a 100.

Yeah I know, I was just throwing in an idea.....and bringing up the topic of genetic manipulation as a way of humans taking control of evolution, which could be used to readicate genetic diseases (or at least some of them).

[booyalab]

Well, health-wise I dont see anything wrong with genetic manipulation...as long as it's been thoroughly tested on some useless animal prior to a human. (or useless human....:whistle: )

[Helios]

can we nominate "volunteers" ?

[jimkopelli]

One thought that occured to me recently, was that genetic screening for insurance purposes could have a quasi-eugenic outcome. If insurance companies resisted insuring people with genetic predispositions for certain serious medical conditions because of high treatment costs, then wouldn't many of these traits disappear in a couple generations? Of course, I am not advocating this by any means.

They kinda do this... premiums are higher if your family has a history of just suddenly dropping dead... but completely refusing to cover? They'd be shooting themselves in the wallet. Just because people aren't healthy isn't a good reason for insurance companies to not want their money.


Useless human... hmm... anyone read Flowers for Algernon? Very good read, raises good questions.

Why would we want to breed for height? In a few (ideal) generations we'd have to redesign doors and cars. What about being even more anal retentive than that, and try to play bonsai with a species. Keep everyone in a normal deviation around average in some respects, and shoot for the moon on others.


Look at other examples of selective breeding. Canines, for example. Granted, we've been working on them for milions of years, but we've sure got quite a variety.

[Hypnos]

It's preposterous to think that manipulating our genetics to make everyone a genius would be beneficial. Think about it, do you really think the life of a monkey is any worse for them than life is for us?
By monkey standards, I'm sure monkeys are quite happy; by human standards, no.

We both have those silly forebrains that can predict and envision -- can never be content until its saturated. Monkeys saturate more easily.

[Hypnos]

One thought that occured to me recently, was that genetic screening for insurance purposes could have a quasi-eugenic outcome. If insurance companies resisted insuring people with genetic predispositions for certain serious medical conditions because of high treatment costs, then wouldn't many of these traits disappear in a couple generations? Of course, I am not advocating this by any means.
Where the rubber really hits the road: deny coverage to couples whose children have a high risk of Huntington's, cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs, etc.

It's against the law right now in most states, I think. What if insurance companies were permitted to do so?

[Boneca]

Do we really want to launch ourselves into a similar disastrous playground as we have created with dogs?

Honestly it's laughable what we've done to dogs. We were looking at vertebrate crania in class yesterday, and they had a bulldog scull there. It had teeth growing in all directions, and the nasal bone was completely distorted...it looked like a bad joke.
If this is what happens when we breed for desirable traits, why do we think it will be better with humans?

[Hypnos]

Do we really want to launch ourselves into a similar disastrous playground as we have created with dogs?

Honestly it's laughable what we've done to dogs. We were looking at vertebrate crania in class yesterday, and they had a bulldog scull there. It had teeth growing in all directions, and the nasal bone was completely distorted...it looked like a bad joke.
If this is what happens when we breed for desirable traits, why do we think it will be better with humans?
This is only possible if the eugenicized humans are treated as an underclass whose breeding is controlled. Even in the fascist models, desirable individuals from this class would be pulled up into the controlling ranks ... maybe they were fooling themselves, or it works if only one person (e.g., Hitler, Mussolini) is the "controlling rank."

I wonder if there were bonafide anthropological studies done on American slaves prior to emancipation, looking for a eugenics effect.

[jimkopelli]

One of the best examples of positive eugenics in literature that I can think of is (suprise!) in a Heinlein book, in Time Enough For Love.

Basicaly, the setup is this.
Rich guy finds out that he's going to die young.
Sets up a trust fund to promote longevity. Puts all of the money he has into it before he dies. It's a lot.
In order to get money from the fund, you have to prove that all four grandparents lived past 100.
You are then given a certain amount of money.
You are also encouraged to reproduce with other recipients of the fund, with the encouragement being well, more money.
Your descendants, upon reaching 18, are also encouraged to marry into the fund.


The fund was kept secret, to prevent people from bitching and trying to falsify records for the money... they did the research about who they wanted in to receive money.

[Limey]

We've practiced Eugenics for more than a thousand years. Take a look at dogs, (including this black one with blond hair (http://www.flickr.com/photos/spancratz/124360119/))

If you're against Eugenics, then you're against cats and dogs and if you're against cats and dogs, then what kind of primate are you?
(you'd probably be included in the first wave of undesirable traits).