Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    What are considered to be 'desirable traits'?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    (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?
    In principle (i.e. assuming we all agree on 'desirable traits' etc.), the only arguments against it are those of individual freedoms: the freedom to have children, even if they will almost certainly be disabled.

    (Original post by kimi1kimi2kimi3)
    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?
    Its an argument of individual freedoms vs. the greater good, and also the rights of the children themselves, which are largely ignored (e.g. the right to a healthy life etc.)

    (Original post by queen-bee)
    What are considered to be 'desirable traits'?
    Intelligence almost certainly, although you'd have complaints that this discriminates against mentally disabled, the poor, etc. - a more interesting dilemma is that some autistic disorders have high average intelligence - e.g. Aspergers. Eugenics to increase intelligence could end up increasing autistic disorders.

    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Not even remotely true. Eugenics goes back to the ancient greeks
    IIRC, Plato talked of it

    (Original post by viddy9)
    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.
    A counter argument would be that the 'inferior' humans would be improved to the level of the 'superior' humans by eugenics... I don't see how eugenics would encourage the creation of an obviously 'inferior' group of humans, rather than seeking to improve them

    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.
    Not really eugenics - it is the recognition that parents can't give the child a good life, with their disability. It is basically the recognition that children have a right to a happy, healthy life - which is often an ignored part of the eugenics discussion.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    every time a lady turns down a gentleman in favor of a more desirable one she is practicing eugenics.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by the bear)
    every time a lady turns down a gentleman in favor of a more desirable one she is practicing eugenics.
    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    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.
    Is it really eugenics, when its on an individual level?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    What are considered to be 'desirable traits'?
    This.

    Who decides?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Supersaps)
    This.

    Who decides?
    Hopefully a universal panel of top biologists representing all races

    (Original post by i want to pass)
    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.
    This is gene modification you speak of, eugenics also encompasses other means of selecting genes, the same method mother nature uses. Selection of the 'fittest'.

    It isn't cool that we think that physical traits are enough to make someone a Superior more valued individual
    You can objectively measure health, happiness. What about the rights of children to a happy, healthy life? Everyone can be treated equally, but some people would avoid having children if they are at significant risk of getting a major disability, and perhaps they would be modified to have 'improved' traits. Not necessarily treating people very differently.

    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.
    Yeah, lets accept all genes, even the ones that cause all diseases, because that is what being human is about. :rolleyes:

    (Original post by ServantOfMorgoth)
    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.
    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.

    Or we could quite easily have a library of genes, or a library of the genomes of people with certain traits, so we could return genes that turn out to be necessary for survival. Its a lot easier to add genes to the entire populace than it is to remove them from the entire populace
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.