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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This discussion (as well as the global discussion) of eugenics has veered off into one of gene manipulation; these two things are not (or at least they shouldn't be) related. Eugenics was conceived as a means to elevate humankind by eliminating or "breeding out" the scourges of our species (i.e. physical and mental disease) that we were (and still are) unable to eliminate by medical means. I think we can all agree that disease sucks and the world would be better off (albeit far more populated) without it. Eugenics as originally conceived (long before anyone even knew genes were a thing) was thought to be a viable way to increase the odds that your childrens' childrens' childrens' children would be spared the suffering brought by incurable illnesses. It was not conceived as a means to ensure one's offspring would have a 'desirable' eye color, hair color or any other physical trait . . . those things are achieved through genetic manipulation (which I agree could very well lead to a complete breakdown of society as we know it). First the Nazis and now science have gone and mucked up a perfectly decent concept that could improve the quality of life of each coming generation over that of the preceding generation. It's not about whether people prefer blue eyes over brown eyes; it's about whether people prefer to have cancer or not to have cancer.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kimi1kimi2kimi3)
    This discussion (as well as the global discussion) of eugenics has veered off into one of gene manipulation; these two things are not (or at least they shouldn't be) related. Eugenics was conceived as a means to elevate humankind by eliminating or "breeding out" the scourges of our species (i.e. physical and mental disease) that we were (and still are) unable to eliminate by medical means. I think we can all agree that disease sucks and the world would be better off (albeit far more populated) without it. Eugenics as originally conceived (long before anyone even knew genes were a thing) was thought to be a viable way to increase the odds that your childrens' childrens' childrens' children would be spared the suffering brought by incurable illnesses. It was not conceived as a means to ensure one's offspring would have a 'desirable' eye color, hair color or any other physical trait . . . those things are achieved through genetic manipulation (which I agree could very well lead to a complete breakdown of society as we know it). First the Nazis and now science have gone and mucked up a perfectly decent concept that could improve the quality of life of each coming generation over that of the preceding generation. It's not about whether people prefer blue eyes over brown eyes; it's about whether people prefer to have cancer or not to have cancer.
    The two concepts may not be tied originally however over the last century developments have made it possible to use genetic manipulation to reach eugenics ends.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kimi1kimi2kimi3)
    This discussion (as well as the global discussion) of eugenics has veered off into one of gene manipulation; these two things are not (or at least they shouldn't be) related. Eugenics was conceived as a means to elevate humankind by eliminating or "breeding out" the scourges of our species (i.e. physical and mental disease) that we were (and still are) unable to eliminate by medical means. I think we can all agree that disease sucks and the world would be better off (albeit far more populated) without it. Eugenics as originally conceived (long before anyone even knew genes were a thing) was thought to be a viable way to increase the odds that your childrens' childrens' childrens' children would be spared the suffering brought by incurable illnesses. It was not conceived as a means to ensure one's offspring would have a 'desirable' eye color, hair color or any other physical trait . . . those things are achieved through genetic manipulation (which I agree could very well lead to a complete breakdown of society as we know it). First the Nazis and now science have gone and mucked up a perfectly decent concept that could improve the quality of life of each coming generation over that of the preceding generation. It's not about whether people prefer blue eyes over brown eyes; it's about whether people prefer to have cancer or not to have cancer.
    So maybe you didn't read this the first time...

    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
    ReputationRep:
    1) Who determines who is "stupid"? Someone has to be put in charge. Meaning a select group will exercise power over many. If history is any indication, then rest assured we will end up with favoritism and implied slavery.

    2) Lots of <insert desirable trait> people had parents who weren't acknowledged as <insert the said deseriable trait>. Whilst I can agree intelligence is important, but I won't even claim it is the most essential characteristic in a human.

    Eugenics for all i care is discrimination.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TaintedLight)
    1) Who determines who is "stupid"? Someone has to be put in charge. Meaning a select group will exercise power over many. If history is any indication, then rest assured we will end up with favoritism and implied slavery.

    2) Lots of <insert desirable trait> people had parents who weren't acknowledged as <insert the said deseriable trait>. Whilst I can agree intelligence is important, but I won't even claim it is the most essential characteristic in a human.

    Eugenics for all i care is discrimination.
    Eugenics is discrimination but not all discrimination is bad.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    The two concepts may not be tied originally however over the last century developments have made it possible to use genetic manipulation to reach eugenics ends.
    The Nazis tried it with cows as well to bring Aurochs back from extinction.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heck_cattle

    They resembled them a bit in appearance but not genetically.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    People will always underestimate the damage caused by eugenics until they take a look at each gene in detail.

    For example:

    I hear a lot of "let's eradicate autism" whenever people talk about eugenics, which is indescribably stupid since autism is the reason why the modern world has what it has. When people think of autism they imagine a severely disabled person drooling down his/her shirt. They don't realise that Einstein had autism, Lincoln had autism, Bill Gates has autism, the guy who invented the Internet had autism, Newton is thought to have had autism and that's an insignificant fraction of the most successful and/or important people who have lived/are living who have autism. What enabled these people to be so successful is autism. That's remarkably different from the stereotype people think of. Autism has in fact been found to be the main cause of genius in people!
    The real irony is that while normal people associate autism with stupidity, people with high functioning autism tend to think of normal people as weird and stupid. Technically they're correct to as well, their IQs are way above those of normal people.

    Eradicate autism... such a thing would take us back to the dark ages.

    Point is, if you eradicate a particular gene you'd actually cause more harm than good. All 'bad' genes such as the 'warrior gene' (which is responsible for psychopathy) have both beneficial and adverse effects. This is true of the 'good' genes as well.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ServantOfMorgoth)
    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.
    This is a good point. The biggest issue being a potential lack of diversity, unless you include diversity into a eugenics programme.
    (Original post by ServantOfMorgoth)
    Why? How do you measure it? This leads to the question, how do they know who to cross off the list? They can overthrow their best genes, mistaking them for sour grapes. That's my point, and that's why eugenics is bad.
    What you're arguing against is a lack of knowledge, not eugenics. If we had certainty, would you argue the same?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    This is a good point. The biggest issue being a potential lack of diversity, unless you include diversity into a eugenics programme.
    What you're arguing against is a lack of knowledge, not eugenics. If we had certainty, would you argue the same?
    If you have to factor in diversity in eugenics, then it wouldn't be eugenics since you would be allowing "unfit" genes to reproduce.

    And yes, I'll still be against it as per the diversity arguement.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ServantOfMorgoth)
    So maybe you didn't read this the first time...

    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.

    Your post has nothing to do with mine. I'm saying that the "outbreeding" of disease has nothing to do with the designation of certain traits or abilities as being more desirable than others, or with the extermination or sterilization of people who don't possess those desirable traits (whatever they might be deemed to be by whomever might deem them so). And I fully acknowledge that human beings' corruptible nature would make it impossible for us to implement a morally sound eugenics program at this juncture of our existence. I'm just saying that the intent of the eugenics movement as originally conceived was simply to eliminate suffering caused by disease, not to pick and choose the attributes of our offspring.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kimi1kimi2kimi3)
    Your post has nothing to do with mine. I'm saying that the "outbreeding" of disease has nothing to do with the designation of certain traits or abilities as being more desirable than others, or with the extermination or sterilization of people who don't possess those desirable traits (whatever they might be deemed to be by whomever might deem them so). And I fully acknowledge that human beings' corruptible nature would make it impossible for us to implement a morally sound eugenics program at this juncture of our existence. I'm just saying that the intent of the eugenics movement as originally conceived was simply to eliminate suffering caused by disease, not to pick and choose the attributes of our offspring.
    My post has everything to do with yours as it focues on the overcoming external stimuli such as diseases.
    Say you went ahead with the eugenics and you got rid of all diseases known to man and then 10 years after your "successful" program a new disease pops up and wipes away 90% of your very little diverse population, what happens then? Extinction of the human race?
    Offline

    18
    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?
    A better human race is a social construct. What is better? How far do we go? How many people should be discriminated against in order to reach the goal?
    Say we wanted to eliminated an illness.
    So we begin by not letting those with the gene have children.
    Then we do the same to those with risk factors.
    Then we do the same for those who have any risk.
    Eugenics is a risky game.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    You know a really good way of eliminating genetic diseases?

    Kill everyone who carries them.

    Wooo, eugenics, right?

    I would be concerned at how some people would define 'desirable'.

    And what happens after we cure all the diseases? Then obviously we look at 'improvements' for recreational use.

    Then, of course, there's a market for it. And only the rich could afford 'designer babies', with hugely improved traits.

    Then you've got two classes of humans - the 'improved', and the 'unimproved'.

    Inequality at its finest.

    That's why I'm not sold on eugenics.

    Eugenics could be used to perform effective genocide really.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ServantOfMorgoth)
    My post has everything to do with yours as it focues on the overcoming external stimuli such as diseases.
    Say you went ahead with the eugenics and you got rid of all diseases known to man and then 10 years after your "successful" program a new disease pops up and wipes away 90% of your very little diverse population, what happens then? Extinction of the human race?
    It's impossible for a new disease to wipe out 90% of a population that employs eugenics. A virus could do it, but that's a different topic. Disease can only wipe out 90% of a population that continues the practice of non-infected people breeding with infected people. That's how disease propagates.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kimi1kimi2kimi3)
    It's impossible for a new disease to wipe out 90% of a population that employs eugenics. A virus could do it, but that's a different topic. Disease can only wipe out 90% of a population that continues the practice of non-infected people breeding with infected people. That's how disease propagates.
    Death by virus or disease, it doesn't matter, the end result would be the same. By the way, disease by a virus is called viral diseases so it falls under the umbrella of diseases.
    Offline

    20
    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 have never needed any improvements :smug: so cannot comment
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ServantOfMorgoth)
    If you have to factor in diversity in eugenics, then it wouldn't be eugenics since you would be allowing "unfit" genes to reproduce.

    And yes, I'll still be against it as per the diversity arguement.
    It's a fair point, but Eugenics is still Eugenics if you allow "unfit" genes to reproduce. Eugenics is only the aim of improving the "stock" of the human race, not the exclusive selection of specific genes. Genes and traits arent divided into "good" and "bad genes", usually they will be a mix based on situation.
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    Then, of course, there's a market for it. And only the rich could afford 'designer babies', with hugely improved traits.Then you've got two classes of humans - the 'improved', and the 'unimproved'.Inequality at its finest.That's why I'm not sold on eugenics.
    Wouldn't this just be an argument against literally anything? "Dont invent TVs, poor people wont get them" etc.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    I hear a lot of "let's eradicate autism" whenever people talk about eugenics, which is indescribably stupid since autism is the reason why the modern world has what it has. When people think of autism they imagine a severely disabled person drooling down his/her shirt. They don't realise that Einstein had autism, Lincoln had autism, Bill Gates has autism, the guy who invented the Internet had autism, Newton is thought to have had autism and that's an insignificant fraction of the most successful and/or important people who have lived/are living who have autism. What enabled these people to be so successful is autism. That's remarkably different from the stereotype people think of. Autism has in fact been found to be the main cause of genius in people!
    The real irony is that while normal people associate autism with stupidity, people with high functioning autism tend to think of normal people as weird and stupid. Technically they're correct to as well, their IQs are way above those of normal people.
    The type of autistic disorder matters. But I agree, eugenics should be focused on physical health and intelligence, to avoid problems like this

    Point is, if you eradicate a particular gene you'd actually cause more harm than good.
    No, it depends on the gene

    All 'bad' genes such as the 'warrior gene' (which is responsible for psychopathy) have both beneficial and adverse effects. This is true of the 'good' genes as well.
    It is naive to think that there is a single gene 'responsible' for psychopathy. It is associated with it, perhaps, but there are many many many other genes which contribute to any given mental trait, because the human brain is so complex.

    (Original post by ServantOfMorgoth)
    So maybe you didn't read this the first time...

    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've already provided a counter argument to this, which you have not really countered.

    "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."
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by the bear)
    i have never needed any improvements :smug: so cannot comment
    A better example would, I guess, be the banning of inbreeding via incest, which I think is partly due to religious reasons, and also to do with the problem of children being born with disabilities.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    To those commenting about genocide ect.. all we really need do is provide incentives for some not to breed and wait for them to die. We don't have to go around killing the undesirables.

    Abstract, while i can imagine the NHS making certain improvements free i see little harm to allowing the rich to purchase other improvements at a cost. Think about the jobs and growth.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    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.