Do you support eugenics?

[Deleted_171835]

Do you support eugenics?

For those who don't know what it is...
"Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species. In a historical and broader sense, eugenics can also be a study of "improving human genetic qualities." Eugenics was widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century, but has fallen into disrepute after having become associated with Nazi Germany. Since the postwar period, both the public and the scientific communities have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced racial hygiene, human experimentation, and the extermination of "undesired" population groups. However, developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century have raised many new questions and concerns about the meaning of eugenics and its ethical and moral status in the modern era."

 

[Danny600kill]

I think it should be looked into yes, this could actually solve a lot of problems depending on how you see our species and what you want improved. It could theoretically create humans in which can't be infected of made ill as they are immune to everything, but you never know.

 

[FAST6191]

I guess this will depend how you define things.

Screening in the womb (anything from ultrasound to genetic testing)- absolutely. Naturally not all procedures are safe (ultrasound yes, amniocentesis less so) or that accurate but that is not enough to override any big picture ethical concerns.

Prescreening/selection as it applies to in vitro fertilisation (including partial implantation, growth and screening*)- can not see why not.
*you implant the fertilised embryo, let it develop a bit, slice some cells off and sequence them.

DNA/RNA recoding in live humans- sure as long as some decent medical controls are in place*. Same applies to that mitochondria transplantation I was reading about the other month.

*to answer the question of how does one find it out in the first place that would also mean I am OK with experimenting on fertilised embryos and other such methods.

I have some reservations about inducing/requiring a "defect" (several would be parents who are deaf have attempted to create/ensure a deaf child via medical intervention/similar, an example http://jme.bmj.com/content/28/5/283.extract ) but we allow parents to do far "worse" (possibly going for the flamebait I consider imposing religion on a child to be a horrendous thing to do) so I can not see a reason to outright disallow it and I am sure I could blur the lines as well (even assuming genetics is absolute* there are surely some tradeoffs that might have to be made somewhere).
The flip side of this is also creating a child to cure another- bone marrow/blood type matching and what have you.
Yet another side is a few months back there were calls from some sectors of the maths community for consideration in a scan for autism might set such fields back as many noted persons from it possessed such traits (and often quite far into the deep end of the spectrum).
As amusing as it may be to have these words coming from me it might be a good case (by case) for an ethics board similar to other areas of medicine/science.

*the old nature vs nurture "debate" for starters.

I suppose there will always be fools that believe racial purity* is something that not only can exist at all but is worth pursuing.
*the more I try to define such a term in my head the more it reads like speciation which makes it sound even more silly.

In the end- evolution works on a large scale but is by no means flawless and in many cases is not all that quick. Sure it can have unforeseen negative consequences but so can many things so meddling is fine. My biggest concern is those making/enforcing/interpreting laws (especially intellectual property law- some of the biology patents and their scope in the US I consider horrifically bad for all concerned) do not seem to have a clue or push ahead for short term gain/gain at serious cost the world at large.

 

[_Chaz_]

I voted yes, but I won't say so because I care what people think.

 

[jalaneme]

Do you support eugenics?

For those who don't know what it is...
"Eugenics is the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species. In a historical and broader sense, eugenics can also be a study of "improving human genetic qualities." Eugenics was widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century, but has fallen into disrepute after having become associated with Nazi Germany. Since the postwar period, both the public and the scientific communities have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced racial hygiene, human experimentation, and the extermination of "undesired" population groups. However, developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century have raised many new questions and concerns about the meaning of eugenics and its ethical and moral status in the modern era."

it's already happening and has happened in the past, search for "new world order" "illuminati" and "hitler breeding program" if we like it or not we have been pre bred for 100s if not 1000s of years, it's very deep stuff should interest you.

 

[monkat]

Absolutely not, assuming I understand the proposition correctly.

On the surface, the ethical problem of letting certain people mate with certain other people, and the eradication of "undesirable" population s is astounding, but what's deeper is worse. We have already halted evolution, preferring to adapt our surroundings rather than adapt to them, and to start an intelligent evolution will unbalance the natural balance of things.

A perfect race is imperfect by its perfection. It will run out of resources necessary to survive as a species, and will degrade.

 

[anaxs]

i think its pretty cool if they get it right. but when it goes wrong its pretty sad cuz you could end up with something un expected. but i voted yes

 

[Daizu]

After seeing the movie Gattaca (Which is one of my favorite movies ever, I urge everyone to go watch it. Now.), I'd have to say no. There's no guarantee everything will work out the way you want it to anyway. But, this may end up getting rid of certain diseases and human problems, but that's really the only benefit I can see from it. Assuming there was nothing wrong in the first place, boosting physical and mental stamina can be worked at and shouldn't need genetic engineering.

 

[Golin]

I support a very laxed version of eugenics. The problem, however, is the people will push their own agendas and it'll target the low-income families and minorities. But there is a reason for people to be... neutered... exhibit A... Octomom and exhibit B... all the teenagers on 16 and Pregnant. (or whatever its called)

 

[Cyan]

There's a French movie on that subject (related to Nazism) : The crimson river (2000), adapted from Blood Red Rivers novel (1997)

In the movie/book, it's an old nazi organisation which trains scientific and sportive people over many generations, in order to create the best species.
and I think it's bad, because it can be dangerous if there is not enough blood differences and generations ends to reproduce with their own family's blood.

I'm ok with that subject, as long as it's not a sect, refusing people to leave the group, or include new one etc.
I'm ok if it's only understanding of the genes/chromosome and analyze the results and not a manipulation to modify purposely the human genome.
but, my point of view doesn't have any voice, I'm sure it's already been made many times.


But, finally, it's just what a country is (usually, it tends to change now with modernity and open minds), same people from the same country, same race, reproducing with themselves.
It's conditioned to their environment, and create differences by countries (some people are more resistant to different things, [Japanese] can eat different things without being ill as other would, skin color, etc.)

 

[ChuckBartowski]

If it was like, a volunteer thing, i would be fine with it. No worse than something like a sperm bank when you think about it. However, if we did create an advanced human, that was perfect, i can only think that it would try and take over the world.

 

[Thoob]

What about love?

I guess you folks don't believe in that, though, do you? Besides, evolution is already doing this, just very slowly. :yayscience:

 

[Cyan]

What about love?

I guess you folks don't believe in that, though, do you? Besides, evolution is already doing this, just very slowly. :yayscience:

I don't believe in that

In the movie I talked about, it was all pseudo-conditioned. Living, studying, with everyone in a closed group create links with people automatically and tend to make people stay together instead of going out of the group. it's natural love with control over the group.

 

[murkurie]

After seeing the movie Gattaca (Which is one of my favorite movies ever, I urge everyone to go watch it. Now.), I'd have to say no. There's no guarantee everything will work out the way you want it to anyway. But, this may end up getting rid of certain diseases and human problems, but that's really the only benefit I can see from it. Assuming there was nothing wrong in the first place, boosting physical and mental stamina can be worked at and shouldn't need genetic engineering.

I agree with you, that movie pretty much shows, what could happen with this.

 

[Shinigami357]

scientific advances are neither good or bad. rather, they are a blank slate. it is us humans who have the power to use or (heaven forbid) misuse it.

it is interesting though.

 

[Overlord Nadrian]

On the surface, the ethical problem of letting certain people mate with certain other people, and the eradication of "undesirable" population s is astounding, but what's deeper is worse. We have already halted evolution, preferring to adapt our surroundings rather than adapt to them, and to start an intelligent evolution will unbalance the natural balance of things.

You're missing the point entirely. Eugenics are supposed to make us stronger, more intelligent, etc. Which means that, through eugenics, within a couple of 100 years, you won't need anymore of the things we need right now. We will have grown immune to nearly all diseases, and whenever a new disease pops up, just let the people with the immunity gen breed with eachother (there should still be enough of a chance to mate with someone you like). I don't see a real ethical problem either.

 

[Defiance]

Hell no! If people don't know who the best person would be to marry breed with, what's makes people think the government can?

The best government is that which governs least

-(Most likely) Thomas Jefferson

As long as it is not a family member or relative, people should be able to marry breed with whoever the fuck they want.