Eugenics- For or Against?

[Paranormal Inquirer]

I'm a bit ignorant in this field of science (eugenics), so I was wondering if any of you guys could tell me what exactly it would involve and if you believe it should be implemented on the human race.

 

[Zep]

It involves the weeding from the human race anyone whom we think asks too many questions about that very process.

 

[athon]

Eugenics, today, has two slightly different meanings. Historically eugenics simply means the production and raising of a generation superior to the last in terms of behaviour, biology (and significantly, morality). I've got a textbook at work on Eugenics published in 1915 which details how to raise children in a world full of risks, bad influences and various social evils. It's basically a 'how to raise kids' guide.

Eugenics took on a Darwinian engineering cast under the influence of Third Reich policies. Today, the term is synonymous with the creation of a superior race through biological selection. It pays to keep in mind that prior to that, biology played a very minor role.

Athon

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Some applications of eugenics meant to "purify" humanity have lead to mass-murder of those deemed undesireable. Some applications are meant to "weed out" people thought to have undesireable heritable traits (usually via forced sterilization). These are universally considered vile and reprehensible acts by nations and states.

One could make the argument that parents who do genetic testing in utero are engaging in eugenics as well, but the ethical landscape of this application isn't as clear cut.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Eugenics took on a Darwinian engineering cast under the influence of Third Reich policies. Today, the term is synonymous with the creation of a superior race through biological selection. It pays to keep in mind that prior to that, biology played a very minor role.

That's not entirely the case in the States unfortunately where Eugenics programs were a matter of state enforcement long before Hitler even gained the Chancellorship. It was based on biology, but more on Mendel's ideas than Darwin's per se. I had to do some digging but it was the infamous Buck v. Bell case where Justice Holmes states "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Buck v. Bell was the Dred Scott case of Eugenics in America.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Historically, the problem with eugenics programs was twofold: Ignorance and immorality.
Specifically, ignorance of the detailed interplay between genes and environment .
The immorality was the general type- the assumption that my bright idea overcomes your human rights.

Positive results have been achieved by careful monitoring of marriage (I don't know how they track infidelity!) within small populations where known recessive genes cause disease. Here's an example- http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E0D81E3AF93BA25751C0A9659C8B63

The critical thing here is the voluntary , self regulated nature of the project.

Like any tool which becomes a political ideal, eugenics can have good and bad results.
Nuclear power may save the planet yet.

 

[athon]

That's not entirely the case in the States unfortunately where Eugenics programs were a matter of state enforcement long before Hitler even gained the Chancellorship. It was based on biology, but more on Mendel's ideas than Darwin's per se. I had to do some digging but it was the infamous Buck v. Bell case where Justice Holmes states "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Buck v. Bell was the Dred Scott case of Eugenics in America.

Good point. I stand corrected on that - most late 19th, early 20thC texts I've read on the matter have been more on child raising and how to have healthy offspring.

Athon

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Good point. I stand corrected on that - most late 19th, early 20thC texts I've read on the matter have been more on child raising and how to have healthy offspring.

Less a correction than my suspicion that you were reading British texts on the subject and not American ones. If I'm wrong please correct me, but from my cursery review of the subject from, say, the 1890s to the 1930s, Americans were really on the cutting edge of Mendelian "weed out" strain of Eugenicist thought and we'd had lesser forms like miscegination laws on the books in some states almost since our founding.

I've been under the impression that most British texts (and for that matter, a lot of quite a number of American texts) were about "hygine" and raising a moral, upstanding, tall, mentally forthright or stable or whatever children and improving the human race through selective "breeding" rather than elimination of bad seeds via sterilization and extermination.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

I am for one form of eugenics..

I have autism, and i have a great life, don't get me wrong, but if i could, i would still test in utero and try to get a kid without it.

 

[Paranormal Inquirer]

So after reading your responses, it seems that ethics really stands in the way of current eugenics thought now, right? Coincidentally, there was a big argument about this in science class today and the opposing side kept citing Hitler's application of social Darwinism and how it was such a terrible act and that would be similar to applying eugenics on our lives today. I guess they're basically saying that we would be committing a subtle form of a Holocaust upon ourselves, except this time we are willing to destroy ourselves for an Elite or something like that.

 

[godless dave]

Partly it's a freedom thing. The idea of the state deciding who can reproduce isn't palatable to anyone who values individual liberty.

 

[athon]

Less a correction than my suspicion that you were reading British texts on the subject and not American ones. If I'm wrong please correct me, but from my cursery review of the subject from, say, the 1890s to the 1930s, Americans were really on the cutting edge of Mendelian "weed out" strain of Eugenicist thought and we'd had lesser forms like miscegination laws on the books in some states almost since our founding.

I've been under the impression that most British texts (and for that matter, a lot of quite a number of American texts) were about "hygine" and raising a moral, upstanding, tall, mentally forthright or stable or whatever children and improving the human race through selective "breeding" rather than elimination of bad seeds via sterilization and extermination.

My colleague is more the eugenics expert than I am. I'd need to ask her (and she's on holidays this week). Interestingly, the book I've got in front of me now, titled simply 'Eugenics', was written by 'Professor T.W.Shannon - international lecturer; editor of the Eugenics department Uplift Magazine; President Single Standard Eugenic Movement; Author of Self Knowledge, Perfect Manhood, Perfect Womanhood, Hereditary Explained, Guide to Sex Instruction etc.', and published in Ohio 1919. There's nothing in it remotely on the topic of genetic fitness. However, this is but one book on the matter, and there could well be a range of fields covered by other texts.

I'll ask my coworker when she returns for some enlightenment on this matter.

Athon

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

So after reading your responses, it seems that ethics really stands in the way of current eugenics thought now, right? Coincidentally, there was a big argument about this in science class today and the opposing side kept citing Hitler's application of social Darwinism and how it was such a terrible act and that would be similar to applying eugenics on our lives today. I guess they're basically saying that we would be committing a subtle form of a Holocaust upon ourselves, except this time we are willing to destroy ourselves for an Elite or something like that.

Did those making that argument happen to be religious? I notice that on this topic, they tend to be the first to Godwin the discussion.

If you check out the Wikipedia article, you'll notice there's a differentiation between postive eugenics (basically "selective breeding" for humans and part of the "hygine" aspects Athon's texts were referring to) and negative eugenics which have a spectrum from the innocuous (genetic screening) to the monstrous (genocide).

 

[athon]

So after reading your responses, it seems that ethics really stands in the way of current eugenics thought now, right? Coincidentally, there was a big argument about this in science class today and the opposing side kept citing Hitler's application of social Darwinism and how it was such a terrible act and that would be similar to applying eugenics on our lives today. I guess they're basically saying that we would be committing a subtle form of a Holocaust upon ourselves, except this time we are willing to destroy ourselves for an Elite or something like that.

The main problem with all forms of eugenics is declaring outright what forms of biology, value and behaviour make for a 'good' society. Social engineering of such magnitude echoes genetic engineering the 'perfect' human - it would take phenomenal amounts of good modelling using extensive amounts of data to successfully create a society (or genotype) which suits what you would declare to be 'perfect'. Even then, the overall question is 'who decides on what perfect means?'

Like a population of organisms, society's strength comes from its diversity of values, behaviours and attitudes. Even if morals were of no issue, practically eugenics isn't workable.

Athon

 

[godless dave]

Selective breeding in animals has led the creation of subspecies and breeds that can't survive in the wild and are prone to specific health problems. There's something to be said for hybrid vigor. Selective breeding is fine if you want an animal to be really good at one thing (producing milk, bearing burdens, or flushing prey), but not if you want a versatile, adaptable animal.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

John, if the topic of Hitler comes up again, you might toss Dor Yeshorim back at them.

My colleague is more the eugenics expert than I am. I'd need to ask her (and she's on holidays this week). Interestingly, the book I've got in front of me now, titled simply 'Eugenics', was written by 'Professor T.W.Shannon - international lecturer; editor of the Eugenics department Uplift Magazine; President Single Standard Eugenic Movement; Author of Self Knowledge, Perfect Manhood, Perfect Womanhood, Hereditary Explained, Guide to Sex Instruction etc.', and published in Ohio 1919. There's nothing in it remotely on the topic of genetic fitness. However, this is but one book on the matter, and there could well be a range of fields covered by other texts.

I'll ask my coworker when she returns for some enlightenment on this matter.

Athon

There's some web presence of Shannon's work, but I'll have to wait until I get home before I start clicking on links and checking it out. Thanks for providing the title.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Partly it's a freedom thing. The idea of the state deciding who can reproduce isn't palatable to anyone who values individual liberty.

Private decisions like having more or less children, having a sterilization proceedure or genetically testing in utero are examples of eugenics too... just not enforced by the state in those cases.

 

[Gate2501]

I'm a bit ignorant in this field of science (eugenics), so I was wondering if any of you guys could tell me what exactly it would involve and if you believe it should be implemented on the human race.

My 5 dollars says that this is Jerome on a different IP!

 

[Wolfman]

I think that, at a basic level, arguing against eugenics is impossible, and pointless. Humans are always looking to improve themselves. Give a double-amputee the choice of having their limbs back, and there are very few who'd say no. Find ways to prevent physical or mental defects, and by far the majority of people would welcome them.

To me, the question lays in where we draw the line. Its easy to give absolute answers like "yes" or "no", that either accept it entirely, or reject it entirely. It is much more difficult if you argue for somewhere in between the two extremes, as nobody will ever be able to really agree on where that point is.

For example, if we take a basic 'norm' of human life -- having two fully functional arms and legs, average intelligence, etc. -- and define eugenics as being used exclusively for those who come somewhere 'under' that norm, (ie. they will be born with physical birth defects, or limited mental capacity, or genetic conditions that could cause insanity or onset of other genetic diseases later in life) (and here, I mean eugenics in the form of preventing or fixing genetic flaws, not of preventing the births of such individuals), I think most people would have little difficulty with it. We're not trying to create a 'super-race'...we are just trying to give everyone an opportunity for essentially an equal 'starting point' in life.

But I have much bigger concerns when we start talking about it purely for cosmetic reasons (choosing eye color, skin color, or other such traits), or to create 'superior' humans who are significantly above the 'norm'.

And I absolutely disagree with eugenics if it is applied in such things as determining who can or cannot have children, or choosing who should live or die.

So, as others have mentioned, much of it depends on how you define "eugenics", and at what point you decide "it is not acceptable".

 

[Paranormal Inquirer]

Did those making that argument happen to be religious? I notice that on this topic, they tend to be the first to Godwin the discussion.

Yup, they were. And that sort of "strengthened" their argument that darwinism and atheism is a disease to humanity. Those ignant theists!