I have some pretty strong feelings about eugenics (it's a good and necessary practice), but I find it very, VERY difficult to talk about it with anyone since I'm instantly labeled a Nazi for supporting it. I'm hoping the folks on Think Atheist will be more inclined to intellectual discussion than name-calling and dismissal.
The start off, some disclaimers: genocide is wrong; taking human rights away from people of a race/religion/hairstyle you don't like is wrong; concentration camps are wrong; violence in wrong.
There. Now to the actual discussion.
When I talk about eugenics, I'm talking about the practice of systematically removing debilitating genetic traits and defects from a population by means of regulating the reproduction of its citizens. Do you have Schizophrenia? Did you know that this ailment is genetic and very easy to pass on to you children? Please, do not punish an innocent child with this problem. Are you genetically healthy, intelligent, and talented? Do you have special immunities that make you less likely to get sick? By all means, spread these traits to future generations, either by having children yourself or donating to a sperm or egg bank. Do you want children but should not carry your genetic problems onto them? Adopt. Adoption will always be available no matter what the society (just because someone has good genetic material does NOT mean they would make a good parent). Do you say that adoption is not the same? Then I suppose you care more about satisfying your selfish desires than the well being of a child.
Eugenics is, at its base, very simple - think about the future first.
I'm leaving this post now for what I'm hoping will be thoughtful and anti-inflammatory discussion.
For two people who want to hand pick each other for the genetics, it doesn't have to be involuntary. However I don't think that the widespread scale scenario is realistic voluntarily(sorry to have not been clear on that).
As I mentioned before though, genetic improvements on par with embryo screening can't really be reached with just two consenting people(well it can, but there's a small chance, and why let chance get involved when you can have a direct science instead?) In fact, it wouldn't be realistic to think that genetic improvements on par with embryo screening could be achieved by an entire generation of the world breeding only through good genetic matches.
Of coarse, you're absolutely rite. There could be some cultural revolution where everyone becomes really interested in eugenics and achieves selective breeding on a worldwide scale... That sounds incredibly unrealistic to me though, where as embryo screening... even if it was only done by a small community of rich people, they would rapidly become genetically superior in a few generations, and be able to pick partners for more convenient reasons.
Ok, so what if there were a publicly funded program that offered free tubal-ligation/vasectomy as well as storage of your eggs/sperm for later use? Upon deciding to reclaim your 'donation' you could also have the publicly funded option of screening for genetic markers for a limited set diseases. There could even be an option for "if my genes contain those markers, please substitute with similar material sans those markers and don't tell me". Then, of course, publicly funded in vitro fertilization for those who take part in the program.
Now, don't you think a lot of people would be rather eager to take part to at least some degree? Don't you think a lot of parents would be interested in encouraging their children to take part? Wouldn't cutting back on thousands of unplanned pregnancies in and of itself be a good start to better foundations for parenting environments? Even if only 1/3rd of people screened for the markers, that could cut back on occurrences of those childhood diseases by 30% each generation - which would get us moving in the correct direction.
Does this sound incredibly unrealistic?
I'm sorry, I'm having trouble understanding the proposed program. The eggs and sperm are collected and them matched together and then given back on demand?
"does this sound incredibly unrealistic?"
"Now, don't you think a lot of people would be rather eager to take part to at least some degree? Don't you think a lot of parents would be interested in encouraging their children to take part?"
I wouldn't doubt for a second that a large number of people would participate. There are a lot of people in the world. But in ratio to the world population I don't think that any eugenics program will be used prevalently because many people want children with someone that they're attached to in some monogomous relationship.
"Wouldn't cutting back on thousands of unplanned pregnancies in and of itself be a good start to better foundations for parenting environments?"
"Even if only 1/3rd of people screened for the markers, that could cut back on occurrences of those childhood diseases by 30% each generation - which would get us moving in the correct direction."
I think that your right that this would be a move in the right direction. 30% may even be better than natural selection before humans. However, it's interesting that the example of the "program" you proposed is very similar to embryo screening, other than that in your proposed program, the materials that make the embryo are screened, rather than embryos themselves. I find this interesting specifically because our proposed programs are really only one step apart from being the same thing, and that that one step defines the difference between eugenics and transhumanism.
I'm really not as familiar with genetics as I'd like to be to give you a good arguement, but my figures and understands of it could be wrong. But lets compare and contrast our two proposed programs. Assuming your figure of 30% per generation is accurate, the 30% per generation is good. However, why not just skip screening for the sperm and eggs, and just screen the embryos for a 100% elimination of predispositions for diseases?
In addition to that, biology is just so slow, which is entirely why the Huxley family dropped their defense on eugenics and replaced it with transhumanism. 30% per generation is good in comparison to other biological methods, but to say that it's slow in comparison to technological progression would be an extremely dramatic understatement. While there has only been one man made living cell, and it's incredibly simple, even if moors law caps off when computers are near atom sized, amino acids, being atom sized and all, won't really be as expensive to assemble as they are now. I mention this because artificial amino acid assembly will probably be realistic in less than a few generations(or maybe just one) making both eugenics and even embryo screening obsolete.
Check this video out. In many ways it's an overview of our current state in transhumanism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovV7v2XYJAI
I'll check the vid when I get home from work - I don't have 20 minutes to spare in my morning routine today. Anyway, all I'm suggesting for a program is an system that will empower people to truly control their own reproduction. You can go off to a publicly funded clinic, deposit your sperm or eggs, and have your tubes tied or get a vasectomy. You can still meet the person you want to have children with, go together to the clinic and get invitro fertilization with your own material on demand. This simply empowers many more people to take part in planned parenthood. I think that sort of program would get a very high percentage of people interested in participation.
Now the 'eugenics' part is inserted by giving them the option of screening their genetics when they plan to have children - with the option of swapping for genetic material free of particular flaws, if they so choose. Perhaps anti-dysgenics is a better term for it.
What I feel is most powerful about this system is that it would be very appealing to a very wide range of people. You can still preach abstinence if you are religious, but realistically you can also prevent unplanned pregnancies from 'sinful moments'. :D
So when you say "swap" genetic material, you don't mean matching to a different partner? You mean switching the specific sperm and egg from the same partners?
To be honest, I don't have the knowledge of genetics that would be required to agree or contest the practicality of that. I've been given the impression from a few biologists that the methods I learned in public school to asses the probability of passing genetic traits(pundit squares) are complete bullshit.
So a question comes to mind. If you know all the genetic details of the sperm and egg, are there probabilities in deciding which of those traits(be they dominant or otherwise) pass onto the embryo, or is it a direct science, independant of any chance(I actually don't believe chance is likely to exist but that's a completely different convo). However, I'd like to emphasize that even if the genetic traits of an embryo could be certainly determined by learning the traits of the sperm and egg that make that embryo, screening the genetic traits of the embryo would still be superior to screening the sperm and egg, if nothing else than from the fact that you would have to screen 1/2 as many times(in that situation, that would seriously be the only difference rite?)
I may try to look that up later, but if you beat me to it then much appreciated :)
I think I should also really emphasize that I never meant to say that your idea what was bad idea. I think it's a great idea! I merely meant to say that as far as the end result, there's a better alternative that makes it obsolete.
:You can still preach abstinence if you are religious, but realistically you can also prevent unplanned pregnancies from 'sinful moments"
you seem to think that just because your idea is a good idea, people are likely to accept it. Keep in mind the reaction of the abstinence preachers to the HPV vaccine(a situation that I believe closely parallels the preventative effects that your plan could provide). I think that were talking about something that matters, and while I think you understand what I'm saying, and I think that I understand what you're saying, I wouldn't think that many religious people who propose abstinence will actually even understand very much of our conversation. And we've been given so many reasons to believe that the bulk of theist population doesn't understand genetics. I really think you've been overly optimistic about people.
It would help me understand your train of thought if I knew where you were from.
Either screening the sperm/egg to the end of swapping the sperm/egg if one doesn't like the probability offered of passing problematic genetic traits or screening the ebryo for invitro fertilization. The key, I feel, is to give people the option.
I realize many theists may not go for it, but after a generation of those who are rational enough to make the choice ending up with healthier children, aren't we already moving in the right direction?
"Either screening the sperm/egg to the end of swapping the sperm/egg if one doesn't like the probability offered of passing problematic genetic traits or screening the ebryo for invitro fertilization."
Ok but out of the two why would you want to pick screening the sperm/egg rather than screening the embryo if there is an element of probability rather than certainty is the genetic outcome of the sperm/egg scenario. Keep in mind that I'm agreeing with embryo screening as an alternative to sperm/egg screening.
"The key, I feel, is to give people the option."
Well I've been holding back on expressing my opinion on that until I got to know where your from, because you mentioned a lot of this as being publicly payed for. In the united states anything that resembles socialized health care is going to be hated, and of coarse there's the christian hate to it as well. In order to be provided publicly provided(most research is payed for by government grants too isn't it?) you'll need theists to agree with it.
"I realize many theists may not go for it, but after a generation of those who are rational enough to make the choice ending up with healthier children, aren't we already moving in the right direction?"
Yes, but if there's a better option that can be accomplished then why not go for that?
I think you'll like this link.
There is a phrase going around molecular bio-engineering circles, "Eugenics Paradox" which is that if one believes Eugenics to be a good solution, one is a candidate for such solution
Kind of like the guy who invented the Brass Bull (at the request of a king) and was promptly asked to be the first 'subject'.
1. It is impossible to estimate the value of any given human being. Not with science, religion, mathematics, metrics, not unless you follow the cause/effect chain to infinity.
2. It is the height of human arrogance and ignorance, in their current infantile brain-state/intelligence level to suggest they have the capability to decide who lives or dies.
3. See the historical eugenics experiments, carried out by ugly, freakish looking doctors, and sociopaths with no speck of decency of humanity. Injecting en masse, children with syphillis etc. etc. (wikipedia unethical human experimentation)
4. Diseases in many cases are mutations that ultimately lead to an improved survival trait - but in the tiny, silver of nothingness that we see, (a single human life) we see an inconvenience that we don't like.
5. Ten of the best geneticists in the world wouldn't be able to tell you what genes are beneficial for what and when and why because nobody can predict the future environment.
There you have a systematic and complete rebuke of Eugenics, and let us hope now the subject is well understood, and that having 'strong feelings' in favor of it is likely the sign of a mental disorder, racism, profound ignorance, self-destruction or parental influence.
You make valid points, the best one is number 4 IMO.
The fact is that the medical/pharmaceutical/military/industrial complex practice anti-eugenics. We are accomplishing anti-eugenics by practising the religious doctrine of "Human Life is Precious" and the misread Hippocrates Oath of "Do No Harm" which gets re-interpreted in modern society as "Life At All Costs"... probably due the long domination of Christian morality in Western Civilisation. Asians take death more in stride, generally.
So back to no.4, yes in the long term, diseases are good for the human species, for diseases are the natural eugenics programme, without discrimination. Various fitness characteristics provide various ethnicities, with various susceptibilities... a diverse Homo sapiens population, like a diverse market portfolio. But because of our misguided efforts of saving ALL lives at ALL costs, we have created a society of sick people. One third overall of Western society are entirely dependent on regular medical/pharmaceutical interventions. And in seniors, the ratio is reversed.
With our mighty technology and know how, we don't really "live longer"... we die longer, we live sicker, and congenitally deficient people are encouraged to breed, creating yet more sick offspring for the medical/pharmaceutical machine.
So eugenics can erroneously be confused with natural selection and survival of the fittest. But as you say, we humans really only see ourselves, that is the extent of our life experience, we have deeply flawed perception capacities, we constantly are misinterpreting our senses, and misinterpreting our ability to predict the future, we are nice to others because we want them to be nice to us, and we fear death, cuz we still live in a superstitious society which has difficulty contemplating nothingness.
Yes, I'm saying eugenics is bad and it's being practiced at this very moment on a grand scale by people who have no comprehension of what they are doing. Google the Codex Allimentarius (2009)
Eugenics can be defined as the sanctioned or approved killing or sterilizing of a part of a population deemed 'unfit'. Have you seen the restaurants available in the ghetto? Poison factories. Big cities are built to kill people. Irradiated cookies. All a nasty experiment with no real 'science' behind it other than paranoia.
Health Care has become a sophisticated extermination system. System labels 'drug seeker' routes crazy person to mental hospital, kills with shock therapy. And the pathetic, sad thing is that criminality, insanity and many diseases are not genetic but caused by radiation, early development, and do not disqualify said human's genes from the pool
Once you start flagging humans and saying 'these genes are bad', 'these genes are good', nature will laugh in your face. You'll never, ever, ever, know who's genes were what, not for thousands of years.
It is human beings superimposing pseudo-god powers on a preexisting universal determinism system they couldn't begin to understand.
Eugenics is shameful ignorance to put it lightly, and especially if you happen to be a Doctor who swore the oath "To help and the very least, do no harm."
You seem to be mixing the terms Eugenics and Genocide.