The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Why are people against eugenics?

In its true form, eugenics is just self improvement of the human race, as in breeding desirable traits. Therefore, if we advocated eugenics, wouldn't it just lead to an improved human race, and thus, a better human race?
And if not, what are the arguments against it?

Scroll to see replies

I never have been able to understand why people would not want to eliminate disease in the human race via eugenics. I understand that when it comes to ethnicity, intelligence, etc., the practice of eugenics could be catastrophically misused. But if by employing a minimal degree of eugenics we could eliminate cancer, MS, and other diseases we've been unable to cure, why would we not do that?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Daito
In its true form, eugenics is just self improvement of the human race, as in breeding desirable traits. Therefore, if we advocated eugenics, wouldn't it just lead to an improved human race, and thus, a better human race?
And if not, what are the arguments against it?


what are eugenics i don't understand the term?
Reply 3
Avatar for malign
malign
Original post by thefatone
what are eugenics i don't understand the term?


Basically a racist/supremacist way from a German dude to "better" the human race
Only parts of Korea and Japan still judge people by blood type and other stupidness like that
The findings in eugenic theory were done with racist experiments, that "certain" people have "bad blood" or are doomed to be unintelligent based on blood and other genetics.
It's pretty much the only reason Asian countries are racist tbh. The Japanese for example teaming up with Germany at one point for military reasons created an exchange of scientific racism. Most countries eradicated it but Asia can be desperate to get European acceptance and alliance so they continue believing this ****.

It's just a mess.
Reply 4
Avatar for malign
malign
Original post by Daito
In its true form, eugenics is just self improvement of the human race, as in breeding desirable traits. Therefore, if we advocated eugenics, wouldn't it just lead to an improved human race, and thus, a better human race?
And if not, what are the arguments against it?


Look up at my response and that's why I disagree with you and millions would and already do. It washed away with the rubble of the second WW in many countries.
What are considered to be 'desirable traits'?
Reply 6
Avatar for Daito
Daito
OP
6
Eugenics is the practice of setting aims to improve the genetic quality of the human race, so to remove less desirable traits and endorse the more desirable traits. An example of less desirable traits could be, as @kimi1kimi2kimi3 said, having a higher chance of developing cancer, or having ms.
Reply 7
Avatar for Daito
Daito
OP
6
Original post by malign
Basically a racist/supremacist way from a German dude to "better" the human race
Only parts of Korea and Japan still judge people by blood type and other stupidness like that
The findings in eugenic theory were done with racist experiments, that "certain" people have "bad blood" or are doomed to be unintelligent based on blood and other genetics.
It's pretty much the only reason Asian countries are racist tbh. The Japanese for example teaming up with Germany at one point for military reasons created an exchange of scientific racism. Most countries eradicated it but Asia can be desperate to get European acceptance and alliance so they continue believing this ****.

It's just a mess.


I do understand your point, but they're a massive extreme, not to mention the subjective, and unfair eugenics practiced by those examples. If you only focus on eradicating genetic illnesses then surely it could only be a good thing?
Also, eugenics was first thought of by Charles Darwins' cousin, Francis Galton.
It's unfortunate that eugenics is completely dismissed as yet another "racist" plot to eliminate (or at least further oppress) the already oppressed based only on the fact that once upon a time, very bad people exploited the concept for their own evil agenda. There are always going to be bad people who corrupt ideas that could be used to better humanity and use them instead to commit acts against humanity. That's what bad people do. But the REAL evil is that after that happens, no one can see beyond it; so a concept which could be a means to the eventual eradication of human disease is seen as a crazy, white-supremacist, nazi plot to kill minorities.
Original post by malign
Basically a racist/supremacist way from a German dude to "better" the human race.


Not even remotely true. Eugenics goes back to the ancient greeks, while the actual term and general theory came from an Englishman. The concept was to improve the quality of the human race. Of course, racists saw racial supremacy as improving the human race.

Original post by malign
The findings in eugenic theory were done with racist experiments, that "certain" people have "bad blood" or are doomed to be unintelligent based on blood and other genetics.


No, you're thinking of Scientific Racism.
Original post by Daito
And if not, what are the arguments against it?

I have personally never heard a coherent argument against Eugenics.
Reply 10
Avatar for viddy9
viddy9
16
Original post by Daito
And if not, what are the arguments against it?


One argument against it is that it will lead to further social divisions in society, with the so-called "superior" humans believing that they have a right to oppress the "inferior" humans. This is particularly a concern with the genetic engineering of the human germline, and I find it quite persuasive.

Nevertheless, eugenics is already going on in today's society. Whenever a foetus with Down's Syndrome or some other condition is aborted, eugenics is essentially being practiced. This can occur due to the genetic screening of embryos, along with IVF and Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis. I see no problem with enhancing traits such as intelligence using this technology, as well as screening for conditions which could cause people to suffer.

The difference between enhancing the human species with genetic screening and enhancing it with genetic engineering is that genetic screening would select an embryo which could have plausibly come into existence anyway, whereas a genetically engineered human would most likely possess wildly different abilities to some of its peers.
(edited 8 years ago)
every time a lady turns down a gentleman in favor of a more desirable one she is practicing eugenics.
Original post by Mathemagicien
Arguably natural selection

Eugenics is more something that has conscious effort behind it, isn't it? E.g. a campaign to make intelligent men and women more desirable would be eugenics, imo.


I suppose the difference is that if the woman chooses an intelligent man because she thinks it will give her intelligent children, then it's eugenics.
Original post by queen-bee
What are considered to be 'desirable traits'?


This.

Who decides?
genes aren't something we want to mess with. I read somewhere that genes are so intricate and that any modification might result in horrible disease or mutation.
It isn't cool that we think that physical traits are enough to make someone a Superior more valued individual, i believe that our differences are essential, we have to be on different levels , that's what makes us human. it would be boring if we didn't have to work hard anymore and if we were all the same, seriously. I don't think eugenics can make us any less judgmental or any more compassionate. How about we all learn to accept each other regardless of our genes.
Original post by Farm_Ecology
Not even remotely true. Eugenics goes back to the ancient greeks, while the actual term and general theory came from an Englishman. The concept was to improve the quality of the human race. Of course, racists saw racial supremacy as improving the human race.



No, you're thinking of Scientific Racism.

I have personally never heard a coherent argument against Eugenics.


Well consider this your first coherent argument against eugenics.

http://qr.ae/RQzzgg


I'm assuming that saving the species is a worthy goal, I would like to add that since we cannot predict the future or what abilities and physical features it would take to survive, breeding who we think are the "best" people could well end up being our demise as a species, because we would reduce diversity and potentially lose alleles that may turn up to be crucial for survival. The survival and success of our species is in great part due to our social nature, and breeding individualist :dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin:s who think they are the best specimens may end up being hugely detrimental. It could well be that the humble, cooperative, quiet people that end up being sterilized or killed if a eugenics program was implemented, would be exactly who would keep the species alive in a catastrophic situation. This is just a hypothetical example.
(edited 8 years ago)
Which traits are desirable and who decides? How will these traits be made more common? These are the principal concerns.
Original post by Mathemagicien
I have thought about this too, and the obvious solution is to not fully implement eugenics, or keep populations evolving along different paths. It will give us enough diversity in the gene pool to give us a good chance to survive.


That sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. Why don't we just leave things the way they are?
Original post by Mathemagicien
Hopefully a universal panel of top biologists representing all races




The thought of most biologists I know having control over a greenhouse is terrifying yet alone the destiny of the human race.

God save us all from a panel of "Top biologists" - who decides who the top biologists are? The top biologists? The 2nd most toppest biologists?


SS
Original post by Mathemagicien
Why does it?

Intelligently nudging humanity is better than leaving it to chance.

At the moment, human intelligence in developed nations is decreasing, because more educated people are having fewer children than less educated people. Isn't that a disaster waiting to happen?


I don't see the correlation between human intelligence and development of nation.

Human intelligence and level of education are different things.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you