Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ps418 · 03-28-2003, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ovazor
It could be eugenics if the abortion was motivated by wish to reduce sicle-cell anemia rather than by personal wish to not to have a sick child.

Ovazor

I'm afraid I don't see any meaningful distinction between my wish to reduce SCA and my wish to have a healthy child. Maybe it would be hepful if you specified what meaning of eugenics you are assuming. As I see it, motivation has absolutely nothing to do with it. Eugenics is simply selectiong for or against some traits or the genes that underly variance in those traits.

Patrick

ps418 · 03-28-2003, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CALDONIA
Aha! The hidden secret word behind Eugenics: "Usefulness."

For whom? Adolf Hitler, come back, come back!

Its somewhat interesting that Hitler and his "racial hygiene" is the only one most people associate with eugenics. For instance, how many people think of Winston Churchill, or Bertrand Russell, or US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, or Teddy Rosevelt? Churchill was an early supporter of eugenics, even endorsing forced sterilization, and OWH was one of the justices the upheld forced sterilization laws in the US. Eugenics was popular not only in Germany, but also in America, Canada, Japan, and France. Japan sterilized almost a million women between 1949 to 1995, about 15,000 of which were involuntary (New York Times, September 1997, p. A12). And even today there are pseudo-eugenic laws in China. They are supposedly voluntary, although it is debatable whether they are truly voluntary.

Ridley, M., 2000. The New Eugenics: Better than the old

American Society of Human Genetics Statement on Eugenics

Chinese scientists back eugenics

Mao, 1998. Chinese Geneticists' Views of Ethical Issues in Genetic Testing and Screening: Evidence for Eugenics in China. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 63:688-695

Patrick

Misso · 03-28-2003, 11:38 AM

Quote:

I'd be willing to wager you don't have a recent medical dictionary.

Why would I have one? In Dutch it's called hazelip, and the translation of that is harelip (says the regular Dutch-English dictionary). It's as simple as that. Sorry if I offended anyone, I never intended to.

Quote:

Misso,
A source would be great.

If you're talking about cleft palate and cleft lip: that would be my mom. I know, not very scientific, but I tend to trust her

Quote:

Hmm, "weak vision". My brother and I are both long sighted. As our parents have normal vision, I assume this is due to a recessive gene inherited from each of them (or something more complicated). We have both worn spectacles from an early age (4 years in his case, 7 months in mine). If such a problem can be remedied with this simple technology, why would it be necessary to prevent either of us from reproducing. (Especially as our children are probably going to be carriers of the recessive gene rather than influenced by it.)

My grandfather has bad vision, my grandmother doesn't, but all of their children have bad vision, and so have all of their grandchildren (despite some of the "new genes" not having weak vision), so personally I wonder how likely it is that children of people will just be carriers and not be influenced. And I never said people with "bad genes" shouldn't procreate, I said it could, in the long term, put a tremendous strain on society and possibly mankind. I wasn't specifically talking about weak vision, that was just an example - and perhaps a weak one, now that I saw Jesse's post.

Quote:

If technology fails us, then we won't have to worry about this stuff anyway, because things will go back to their natural courses with many genetically "weak" people living short and probably painful lives.

I don't think it will be like that. The people dependant on the technology will die, and the genepool will shrink (tremendously?); this could lead to inbreeding with all related issues. Of course this is an extremely far-fetched scenario, and I might be a pessimist, but I do think a situation like this could happen one day in the distant future.

Quote:

Stephen Hawking springs to mind. If there's one thing which the modern world has achieved, it's the widening of our existences beyond simpy our physical genetic endowments.

But how many people with conditions like he has are brilliant? Not very many, I think.
If 75% of society was like Stephen Hawkings, society would probably collapse under the pressure of taking care of all those people, no matter how brilliant they are.

And on the polularity of eugenetics: a couple of years ago there were huge compensations paid by the Swedish government for the sterilization they had been practicing in and, if I remember correctly, shortly after WW2.

CALDONIA · 03-28-2003, 01:15 PM

ps418,

Thanks for the links. Yes, eugenics is and was a popular notion among a diverse crowd. What Hitler did, however, goes beyond the other adherents, namely, that he put theory into practice with horrible and frightening results. It is strange that such people and Russell, Churchill, and Hitler could subscribe roughly to the same belief.

Eugenics can lead to not just the attempt to "improve" the human race but also to "removing" those deemed tainted or not useful, however such judgments are made.

secular-knight 69 · 03-30-2003, 07:27 AM

Would anyone be abject to making humanity healthier and smarter through genetic enginering? Given the question above assume that it is availiable to all be it before or after birth.

I am not talking about weeding out any ethnic group but about making healthier and smarter people as a whole.

MadKally · 03-30-2003, 09:22 AM

Quote:

posted by Misso:
Why would I have one? In Dutch it's called hazelip, and the translation of that is harelip (says the regular Dutch-English dictionary). It's as simple as that. Sorry if I offended anyone, I never intended to.

Sorry, I get overly politically correct when it comes to medical subjects.
The key difference here is regular dictionary vs medical dictionary. You're right, why on the earth would you have one? No offfense ok? I'm a registered nurse and I get a little nitpicky sometimes. It's like someone calling a Down's syndrome child a Mongoloid. Just a personal hangup I guess.

Kally

Treacle Worshipper · 03-30-2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Misso
My grandfather has bad vision, my grandmother doesn't, but all of their children have bad vision, and so have all of their grandchildren (despite some of the "new genes" not having weak vision), so personally I wonder how likely it is that children of people will just be carriers and not be influenced.
Presumably your grandfather has a dominant gene/sequence of genes for bad vision, then. This is more likely to influence his offspring than the situation I find myself in.

And I never said people with "bad genes" shouldn't procreate, I said it could, in the long term, put a tremendous strain on society and possibly mankind. I wasn't specifically talking about weak vision, that was just an example - and perhaps a weak one, now that I saw Jesse's post.
I suppose it could (put a strain on humanity), but there seems to be a balance between "good" & "bad" genes, "good" and "bad" mutations, and so on.

I don't think it will be like that. The people dependant on the technology will die, and the genepool will shrink (tremendously?); this could lead to inbreeding with all related issues. Of course this is an extremely far-fetched scenario, and I might be a pessimist, but I do think a situation like this could happen one day in the distant future.
That's pretty much what I was aiming at - those who couldn't survive without current technology wouldn't. I don't think there are so many people reliant on technology for their lives at the moment that the genepool would shrink massively if the technology went bust. Technology makes a lot of people's lives easier, but they vast majority of them would be able to survive without it, I think.
Sorry for any confusion

TW

ps418 · 03-31-2003, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ovazor:
I meant the race as a biological or genetic entity.

By chance I happened to come across an article on race as a biological concept by Ernst Mayr in the winter 2002 issue of the journal Daedalus. Mayr is one of the most imminent living evolutionary biologists. His article takes a strong race-realism view. I'll include a few quotes from his article:

Quote:

"There is a widespread feeling that that the word 'race' indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of discussions. This leads to such statements as 'there are no human races.'

"Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology." p. 89

"No matter what the cause of the racial difference might be,the fact that species of organisms may have geographic races has been demonstrated so frequently that it can no longer be denied. And the geographic races of the human races-- established before the voyages of European discovery and subsequent rise of a global economy-- agree in most characteristics with the geographic races of animals. Recognizing races is only recognizing a biological fact" p. 90.

"At the same time, nothing could be more meaningless than to evaluate races in terms of their putative 'superiority.' Superiority where, when and under what circustances? During the period of the development of the human races, each one became adapted to the condition of its geographic location. Put a Bushman and an Eskimo in the Kalahari Desert and the Bushman is very much superior; put a Bushman and an Eskimo on the Greenland ice and the Eskimo is by far superior.

. . .

"Presumably each human race consists of individuals who, on average and in certain ways, are demonstrably superior to the average individual of another race. Eskimos, for instance, are superior in their adaptedness to cold. In the last four or five Olympics there were always six to eight contenders of African descent among the ten finalists in the sprinting races, surely not an accidental percentage" p. 91.

"Most importantly, a race is always highly variable: any human race will include a wide variety of extraordinary individuals who excel in very different human abilities." p. 92.

Mayr, E., The Biology of Race and the concept of equality. Daedalus, Winter 2002, 89-94.

abe smith · 04-02-2003, 07:50 AM

Regarding "eugenics" = the desire to eliminate from the human gene-pool certain "undesirable" groups or traits.....
Given the enormous & hidden variability of the stuff packed-up into those 48 chromosomes, it's probably the case (what Hitler & those other killer-selectors never had the information to understand >>>) that it's NOT POSSIBLE to tidy-up humankind to be the sort of SPECIES you-all or anyone else would like to have there be.
Fortunately (in my biassed/biologist's opinion) those life-entities are ALIVE = uncontrollable>>> except by killing them altogether; you *can't* control what's going to pop-up; and if you are one of the speculators about it, who's never dealt w/ biological/genetic realities, maybe you'd better get some real experience before you set about making humankind in your ideal pattern. (They prate that "gawd" made "Man" in His (sic) image ; and look what a fucked-up mess He got/we are .)
Human genetic material is ALIVE, and as long as it's ALIVE, it's ultimately going to be outside any control you'd like to have over it; and it's going to go on throwing-out unforeseeable variants.
HAH HAH HAH to all you ---- GRRRRRRRRRRRRHHHH!

MadKally · 04-02-2003, 11:01 AM

Quote:

posted by Abe Smith:
HAH HAH HAH to all you ---- GRRRRRRRRRRRRHHHH!

Hi Grandpa Abe,
I just complained about PC words.
Are you feeling better now?
I am!

oxoxoxooxo
Your grand daughter,
Kally

04-02-2003, 07:50 AM	#49
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	uh.... Regarding "eugenics" = the desire to eliminate from the human gene-pool certain "undesirable" groups or traits..... Given the enormous & hidden variability of the stuff packed-up into those 48 chromosomes, it's probably the case (what Hitler & those other killer-selectors never had the information to understand >>>) that it's NOT POSSIBLE to tidy-up humankind to be the sort of SPECIES you-all or anyone else would like to have there be. Fortunately (in my biassed/biologist's opinion) those life-entities are ALIVE = uncontrollable>>> except by killing them altogether; you can't control what's going to pop-up; and if you are one of the speculators about it, who's never dealt w/ biological/genetic realities, maybe you'd better get some real experience before you set about making humankind in your ideal pattern. (They prate that "gawd" made "Man" in His (sic) image ; and look what a fucked-up mess He got/we are .) Human genetic material is ALIVE, and as long as it's ALIVE, it's ultimately going to be outside any control you'd like to have over it; and it's going to go on throwing-out unforeseeable variants. HAH HAH HAH to all you ---- GRRRRRRRRRRRRHHHH!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-28-2003, 01:15 PM	#44
CALDONIA Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sunnyvale,CA Posts: 371	ps418, Thanks for the links. Yes, eugenics is and was a popular notion among a diverse crowd. What Hitler did, however, goes beyond the other adherents, namely, that he put theory into practice with horrible and frightening results. It is strange that such people and Russell, Churchill, and Hitler could subscribe roughly to the same belief. Eugenics can lead to not just the attempt to "improve" the human race but also to "removing" those deemed tainted or not useful, however such judgments are made.

03-30-2003, 07:27 AM	#45
secular-knight 69 Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: In a black man's body Posts: 23	Would anyone be abject to making humanity healthier and smarter through genetic enginering? Given the question above assume that it is availiable to all be it before or after birth. I am not talking about weeding out any ethnic group but about making healthier and smarter people as a whole.

03-30-2003, 09:35 AM	#47
Treacle Worshipper Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Wales, UK Posts: 931	Originally posted by Misso My grandfather has bad vision, my grandmother doesn't, but all of their children have bad vision, and so have all of their grandchildren (despite some of the "new genes" not having weak vision), so personally I wonder how likely it is that children of people will just be carriers and not be influenced. Presumably your grandfather has a dominant gene/sequence of genes for bad vision, then. This is more likely to influence his offspring than the situation I find myself in. And I never said people with "bad genes" shouldn't procreate, I said it could, in the long term, put a tremendous strain on society and possibly mankind. I wasn't specifically talking about weak vision, that was just an example - and perhaps a weak one, now that I saw Jesse's post. I suppose it could (put a strain on humanity), but there seems to be a balance between "good" & "bad" genes, "good" and "bad" mutations, and so on. I don't think it will be like that. The people dependant on the technology will die, and the genepool will shrink (tremendously?); this could lead to inbreeding with all related issues. Of course this is an extremely far-fetched scenario, and I might be a pessimist, but I do think a situation like this could happen one day in the distant future. That's pretty much what I was aiming at - those who couldn't survive without current technology wouldn't. I don't think there are so many people reliant on technology for their lives at the moment that the genepool would shrink massively if the technology went bust. Technology makes a lot of people's lives easier, but they vast majority of them would be able to survive without it, I think. Sorry for any confusion TW

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.