Wounded King

Don't tell me we're going to finally reach a hard and fast definition of where the border lies between life and non-life. This'll turn into another abiogenesis thread at this rate.

caravelair

admittidly, i haven't read this whole thread. i just wanted to share my thoughts on the original post. i just thought it was rather disturbing that he almost unconciously divided mankind into races that are in competition with one another. why didn't he speak of mankind improving itself, rather than "caucasoids" trying to improve their "race" and "negroids" trying to improve their "race" separately from any other race. can he not see how fucking racist that is? a little biological anthropology is what this guy needs.

AtomSmasher

I'm not sure why he made the distinction of "races" improving "themselves". It is indicative of some underlying misconception he may have as he immediately denounced Nazism, but his alias: "Totalitarianist" makes one think twice.

He does make the point: "Eugenics is unfasionable; it is not unscientific. If anything is hereditable, eugenics can work."

Indeed he is correct. Eugenics is taboo because of the inhumane course it has taken in the past. So perhaps he was just trying to facilitate discussion by disassociating it with totalitarian type eugenics programs which we have seen earlier this century.

AtomSmasher

My idea of eugenics is one that occurs on an individual level through, for example, In-Vitro Fertilizaton (IVF). Which involves parents discriminating amongst many blastocysts for their preferred candidate. We have been able to determine the sex of an embryo for a long time, but now we can test for many genetic illnesses in the pre-implantation period and this is already affecting selection for known genetic diseases such as Down's Syndrome.

I wrote a paper on eugenics some time ago, here is an excerpt:
Many other genetic defects are now tested for and are being selected against, such as cystic fibrosis, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, etc. The number of genetic disorders is increasing rapidly.

Few people would argue that it is inhumane to abort a child that would be predisposed to a short, painfull existence, but this is where genetic testing as a eugenics practice becomes a slippery slope. Would parents, being informed of a gamut of genetic traits present in their pre-implantation blastocysts, make very morally ambiguous decisions about traits that are not related to pathologies?

Would parents begin selecting for: hair color, eye color or skin color? Would that be immoral? Is that the right of a parent -- to decide which of its own genes will be passed on to its offspring, who will forever experience the ramifications of those decisions?

To the furthest logical extent, genetic testing could eventually lead to selection of all types of traits, such as intelligence, or even introducing genes into a human child that are not present in its parents. This conjures up the images of genetic monstrocities or super-men that render "base-line" humans obsolete.

Personally I have no moral problems with eugenics as long as it is done by individuals making informed decisions. But I would be opposed to a third party making those decisions unless someone presented an excellent case that would necessitate it.

abe smith

Well Knight, you broached a wish, I think to "improve the human race as a whole" at your march 30 post: do i have that correct?
No-one in this discussion seems so-far to have discussed/mentioned the fact of the ENORMOUS WASTE of human potential, intelligence, competence, all-that good stuff happening every moment everywhere around us! IF WE (humankind) would help every existing child to develop (to) its full potential = those who are already HERE and talent-bearing, we wouldn't HAVE to "improve' the human genetic stock; the "improvement" which some of you are so eager to bring about would be happening *here & now.*
I am willing to allow that that improvement isn't JUST a matter of MONEY; but money does have something to do withit. IS the BUSH Company going to spend as much money educating the present young of IRAQ Including the young FEMALES (who have been another caste for centuries and kept IGNORANT in order to serve males) ---- Are the BUSH "liberatore" going to spend as much money, OUR money, educatiing the young of Iraq after the war, as they're spending now to destroy their country? Are they?
Please don't prate on about "Improving the human genetic stock" goddamnit, until you're willing to improve the existence & development of the human materials NOW HERE.

ps418

Two false dichotomies. Helping people here and now is not opposed to helping future people as well. Nor is improving the environment, an obviously noble goal, opposed to improving genetics. Unfortunately, money and education are not going to cure many genetic diseases. Its both, not one or the other.

Off-topic, I know. But . . . What money? We're in deficit spending on the war as it is, before Bush further depletes the coffers with the next round of tax cuts. We're not very serious about education in the US, so I wouldn't expect too much in Iraq. Or Afghanistan. We'll be doing well just to prevent a deepening of the already horrid humanitarian conditions in Iraq.

Patrick

Jesse

Some vaguely eugenics-related news:

Is CRACK wack?

I think this isn't really "eugenics" since the idea is not that crack addicts have inferior genes, but just that they'll make bad parents. But the issue of whether it's moral to pay people to be sterilized or use long-term birth control came up earlier in this thread.

AtomSmasher

I think this is a great idea, but I wonder: what if we extend it to other people we consider "poor parents", such as criminals, prostitutes, etc.. I would be in favor of extentions to those specific people.

The difference is that, children of drug addicts are often born with serious birth defects, so preventing that would be considered "humane", this may not be the case in the latter. The children of criminals are unlikely to have inherited these traits, therefore it would probably not be eugenic to reduce their reproductive success. However it would reduce the cost to society of raising parentless children, by eliminating the need for abortions and foster care.

This is another potential "slippery slope" because we have to define exactly what type of criminality should warrent sterilization. I propose that violent, career criminals and perhaps sexual predators should be subject to this option, but it should not be coercive.

Unbeliever

I see no moral problems with eugenics, only possible practical problems that I'm confident could be overcome. As far as "playing God" is concerned, since there is no God, somebody has to take His/Her/Its place, and the only candidate for the position is humanity itself. We should strive to achieve our maximum potential, and that won't happen if we are too afraid of risk to take the necessary action.