Eugenics

Beneath the Shadows · 02-18-2009, 10:06 PM

So, we (or at least, many of us) know what eugenics is: the controlled breeding of individuals to discourage detrimental traits and/or encourage positive traits. In other words, selective breeding. Eugenics has lead to some wonderful things. For example, bananas. Dogs, too.

But I'm not interesting in talking about Hand Banana. This topic is about human eugenics.

So, the topic question: How do you feel about eugenics programs concerning humans?

I personally see nothing wrong with it, so long as two specific goals are met: 1) The eugenics programs are designed to encourage positive traits (my preference would be intelligence), and 2) people of all racial/ethnic/religious/etc backgrounds are included in the programs. If those two criteria are not met, we may very well end up with another American sterilization project, or another Lebensborn.

Of course, it's entirely possible for such things to occur, regardless.

I have no idea how to go about such a project. I'm more interested in the concept, and people's reactions to it.

Despanan · 02-18-2009, 10:39 PM

No.

Blacktext

jack_the_knife · 02-18-2009, 11:04 PM

I would actually be in favor of this. I mean stupid people seem to be breeding like rabbits. I think it's only right to restore some balance to this.

Tralis · 02-19-2009, 12:01 AM

Ever see Idiocracy? Yeah, that's where we are heading...

Godslayer Jillian · 02-19-2009, 12:01 AM

I mildly agree with some form of eugenics. The best apology for eugenics is the beginning of the movie Idiocracy.
However, state-controlled eugenics? Or a weird form of private enterprise revolving around eugenics? That would pretty much end up being like Brave New World.

Eugenics should only go as far as ancient Spartans did. Those who were more 'virtuous' or healthier were encouraged to have more children.
BUT, how can we rationalize what kind of human is better and why another human is less deserving of procreating. That's pretty much why eugenics can't possibly be serious.

Drake Dun · 02-19-2009, 12:25 AM

I understand the motivation, but I really don't think we need to go there, for a whole range of reasons. Anyway, we're very close to full blown genetic engineering now, and that will render it a moot point, forever. No point screwing around with clumsy and inhumane artificial selection mechanisms when you can just monkey with the code. Hebert Spencer, eat your heart out.

Beneath the Shadows · 02-19-2009, 12:37 AM

Well, with our level of knowledge in the field of genetics, the definition of eugenics will most likely be expanded to include genetic manipulation. But there's still a lot we don't know. We can't even produce a viable human clone yet, and that's not even "monkeying with the code," as you put it.

Jillian: I'm not suggesting that we prohibit certain individuals/groups from procreating. But if we can use eugenics to increase the average intelligence (as per my earlier stated preference) in spite of random breeding, then so much the better.

Drake Dun · 02-19-2009, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

Jillian: I'm not suggesting that we prohibit certain individuals/groups from procreating. But if we can use eugenics to increase the average intelligence (as per my earlier stated preference) in spite of random breeding, then so much the better.

Huh? That's what eugenics is. How do you affect allele frequencies except by artificial selection or direct engineering?

Beneath the Shadows · 02-19-2009, 04:13 AM

I think you may be misunderstanding what I'm saying. Say we have two groups: Group A, who have been enhanced by eugenics, and Group B, who have not been enhanced. Being human, individuals of both groups will seek to procreate with whom they wish. Chances are, that means, in many cases, procreation between the two groups.

If Group A is selectively bred to be more intelligent, and then they go and breed with Group B, offspring of Group B will eventually begin to show signs of higher-than-average intelligence. Unless, of course, Group B somehow managed to breed in a really stupid gene.

Drake Dun · 02-19-2009, 04:55 AM

I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing, but I have a pretty strong hunch that the science behind it is wrong. You can't change the frequencies simply by shuffling things around. Sooner or later you have to control reproduction rates. That much is dictated by mathematics.

Beneath the Shadows · 02-19-2009, 05:13 AM

I'm not proposing anything.

As for the examples I've put forth, let me rephrase: Continuing with the groups outlined above, Group B is, basically, what we as a species are now. Our intelligence is average. Some individuals are highly intelligent, some are extremely stupid. But overall, average. Group A, on the other hand, is average at the lowest. In other words, what we consider average, they consider poor. If Group A interbreeds with Group B, overall, the average intelligence of the whole (groups A and B combined) increases.

It's possible that Group B was suddenly start aiming for an all-time low, but since our evolution and breeding has almost always achieved an equilibrium, I see no reason to assume the Group B will go stupid(er).

JCC · 02-19-2009, 05:32 AM

Holy shit, I agree with Despanan.

Beneath the Shadows · 02-19-2009, 05:39 AM

Oh, really? And what, exactly, are you agreeing with? Other than "no?"

Surely you have an opinion (of your own) that's expressed in more than two letters.

JCC · 02-19-2009, 05:42 AM

I don't agree with a pragmatic approach to human breeding, especially when the trait in question isn't even uniformly genetic, like intelligence.

Beneath the Shadows · 02-19-2009, 05:52 AM

If intelligence was uniformly genetic, there'd be no need to eugenically encourage it.

JCC · 02-19-2009, 05:58 AM

Yes it would, because if intelligence was uniformly genetic, you would choose the intelligent to breed with one another, as the only possible outcome of an intelligent-intelligent pairing would be an intelligent child. Obviously, this isn't the case, so encouraging people to breed on the basis that they are both intelligent and therefore will create an intelligent child is a waste of time.

Drake Dun · 02-19-2009, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

As for the examples I've put forth, let me rephrase: Continuing with the groups outlined above, Group B is, basically, what we as a species are now. Our intelligence is average. Some individuals are highly intelligent, some are extremely stupid.

Hang on. If Group B is what we have now, where did Group A come from?

Beneath the Shadows · 02-19-2009, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCC

Yes it would, because if intelligence was uniformly genetic, you would choose the intelligent to breed with one another, as the only possible outcome of an intelligent-intelligent pairing would be an intelligent child.

Well, this statement is easily the best argument against uniform intelligence that I've ever seen.

Quote:

Obviously, this isn't the case, so encouraging people to breed on the basis that they are both intelligent and therefore will create an intelligent child is a waste of time.

If everyone was equally intelligent, no one would be encouraging anyone else to breed for the purpose of creating more intelligent children.

Beneath the Shadows · 02-19-2009, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Hang on. If Group B is what we have now, where did Group A come from?

Read back a bit. I stated that in this hypothetical, Group A is the result of selective breeding.

Drake Dun · 02-19-2009, 06:20 AM

...using what? People from another planet?

Beneath the Shadows · 02-19-2009, 06:22 AM

What the hell are you talking about? Where are you getting extraterrestrials from?

Drake Dun · 02-19-2009, 06:27 AM

It was a joke. The point is, if Group B is what we have now, where did the people in Group A come from? Eugenics is not the science of conjuring human beings out of thin air.

JCC · 02-19-2009, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

Well, this statement is easily the best argument against uniform intelligence that I've ever seen.

Are you really this dim? The point is that since intelligence isn't uniformly genetic (I guess I have to explain that this means that intelligent parents sometimes have really fucking stupid kids, and really fucking stupid parents sometimes have intelligent kids, since I can't trust you to understand this, it seems), eugenically engineering intelligence WON'T WORK. It's like taking a person that got a scar from being scolded with hot water, breeding them with someone who wasn't and expecting the child to be half-scarred. Intelligence isn't genetic, you're trying to manufacture something environmental.

Drake Dun · 02-19-2009, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCC

Intelligence isn't genetic, you're trying to manufacture something environmental.

Intelligence seems to be largely genetic. As always, Wikipedia is a good place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

JCC · 02-19-2009, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Intelligence seems to be largely genetic. As always, Wikipedia is a good place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

Bah, nonsense. Admittedly, I've never come across these statistics before, but I have a plan of action in place. I am going to read up on the heritability of IQ, as I was making a conclusion only upon observations, and I will construct a counter-argument so dazzingly brilliant that you and Wikipedia will run tails-between-legs as myself, Pavlov and the rest of the Behaviourism Brigadiers drink pineapple juice from golden chalices. Or I'll admit defeat.