Primal

I am against the idea of coercive eugenics but what about a voluntary neo-eugenics type program? I honestly cannot see what is wrong with this. Note that I am not arguing from the viewpoint of genetic determinism but from the fact that behavioral practices, both biological and cultural are passed on to offspring as well. Comments?

echidna

Every voluntary planned parenthood since Adam essentially already represents a degree of eugenics, that we are often subconsciously or otherwise attracted to seek a partner which can optimise certain characteristics for our ankle-biters. Can you be more specific ?

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

I think he's referring to positive eugenics, i.e., selective breeding to attain more perfect human beings. Like in Plato's republic.

Glory

What about the intentional eradication of perceived negative traits such as dwarfism?

Glory

Tom Sawyer

In fertility clinics where women go if they want to get artificially inseminated, the donor list tells the race, height, IQ, job, etc of the donor so the woman can choose what traits she wants to have for her baby.

This is a volunatry eugenics program that is happening today, and I don't think anyone has any real problem with it.

tronvillain

As far as I can tell, very little prevents people from voluntarily practicing eugenics now. What else would you propose?

Primal

I'm talking about offering to pay known fellons and otherwise unwanted ppl in society to not have kids i.e. become sterilized. And genetic engineering of chidlren from already respectable ppl in society. That's mainly my idea.

The Other Michael

I believe there was a group in the last few years that was paying women who were drug addicts to get sterilized.

There was a fair bit of outcry against this by some people.

But I see that as different from targeting "unwanted people" - say gypsies in Europe or other minority groups - basically on cultural/racial group status. With the drug addicts you've got people who've proven to have significant problems, as well as posing a physical risk that any children they conceive might be born addicted.

cheers,
Michael

Sarpedon

Your policy would appear to discriminate against poor people. A person with little money and a lot of expenses, perhaps a person with a disease or injury, would be more likely to accept the money for sterilization than a similar, wealthy person. I believe that that was one of the problems with previous programs, whatever their purpose, the effect was that they mainly targeted the lower class and the uneducated (who are often minorities). In short, a person with bad genes but lots of money would be less likely to accept this treatment than someone with fine genes, no money, and some kind of serious injury. In conclusion, your system would end up selecting for poor economic status, rather than poor genes, as its elimination criterion. And don't try to tell me that rich people tend to be more "desirable" or capable than the poor, just look at President Bush.

Primal

A poor person that really wanted kids would not be willing to accept this. Also I'd rather the undeducated not have kids. If you had read my post carefully you will see that I am saying this not because I think they would have worse genes but worse cultural practies they pass one. Though I agree, the rich can be just as bad at raising kids as the poor, perhaps short-term greed would egg them on though or another incentive for rich undesirables. The system is supposed to select for poor genetic and/or conditioned behavioral practice. Perhaps the money based incentive for voluntary sterilization but that would only be a means to an end. Other means would be acceptable.