Eugenics

[Demiurge]

What is your position on eugenics?

I want to let the topic develop before I give input. I had success with this method on another forum on this same subject, and I want to attempt it again.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I would like the "Superman" to come into existence, but not the "Ultimate Man", and this is the dilemma. The latter may be created by over-regulated eugenics and genetic engineering.

Unlike Nietzsche, I don't see the coming of the Superman as inevitable or that every kind of being gives birth to something beyond itself, higher on the evolutionary scale. We can retrogress. Indeed we are doing just that through the dysgenics caused by allowing those who natural selection would have prevented from surviving to breed. Not only that, but occupying the most healthy or productive people with work and the desire to go on holidays, etc unencumbered by family concerns - added to the fact that contraception is widely available. The poorer and generally less intelligent/healthy people have always had the most offspring since civilisation began. But more so now than ever before.

A reversal of this policy would be the eugenics I advocate, but genetic engineering (and embryo screening) should be used only as much as needed to prevent the dire consequences of a heavy "mutational load" in the population. It should be used for serious diseases, but not to mould minds and bodies into a fashionable (or government approved) artificial model.

 

[Tongue_Ring]

I would like the "Superman" to come into existence, but not the "Ultimate Man", and this is the dilemma. The latter may be created by over-regulated eugenics and genetic engineering.

Unlike Nietzsche, I don't see the coming of the Superman as inevitable or that every kind of being gives birth to something beyond itself, higher on the evolutionary scale. We can retrogress. Indeed we are doing just that through the dysgenics caused by allowing those who natural selection would have prevented from surviving to breed. Not only that, but occupying the most healthy or productive people with work and the desire to go on holidays, etc unencumbered by family concerns - added to the fact that contraception is widely available. The poorer and generally less intelligent/healthy people have always had the most offspring since civilisation began. But more so now than ever before.

A reversal of this policy would be the eugenics I advocate, but genetic engineering (and embryo screening) should be used only as much as needed to prevent the dire consequences of a heavy "mutational load" in the population. It should be used for serious diseases, but not to mould minds and bodies into a fashionable (or government approved) artificial model.

i agree with this
i remember when Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman were still together and a call in radio show had said that "in 40 years" the parents of invitro-fetilization babies would be able to control what their kids looked like and they asked listeners to call in with their thoughts
the 1st one said "if people could control what their kids looked like everyone would look like Tom and Niclole"
i wouldn't want "designer babies" (tv show's phrase, not mine) like every one being the same height, everyone having blue eyes, etc etc etc
a world wide population of "Supermen" would be fantastic, but the apearance any "ultimate men" would be very scary

 

[Demiurge]

There is no reason to expect that blue eyes would be selected by GE, unless blue eyes are the most attractive eye color cross-culturally. I have seen no evidence of this being the case. There is, however, reason to believe that certain characteristics, such neotenous facial features and .7 WHR, are attractive cross-culturally, therefore, we would expect them to predominate if GE become frequently used. I agree with James Watson when he said that some people think it would be bad if all girls were beautiful, but I think it would be great. That is paraphrase from memory, but it's very close to verbatim. However, with that said, I am much more concerned with factors such as g(what IQ tests mostly measure; there is 20% noise on the RAPM) than wast/hip ratio.

 

[Tongue_Ring]

There is no reason to expect that blue eyes would be selected by GE, unless blue eyes are the most attractive eye color cross-culturally. I have seen no evidence of this being the case.
the blue-eyes thing (or something else that's equally vapid) could happen with majority of geniticaly engineered babies if only a limited population of Earth had capability of genetically engineering their children
There is, however, reason to believe that certain characteristics, such neotenous facial features and .7 WHR, are attractive cross-culturally, therefore, we would expect them to predominate if GE become frequently used.
this is assuming that GE would become a global ability, which it prolly won't
I agree with James Watson when he said that some people think it would be bad if all girls were beautiful
the "if all girls looked beautiful" quote was him saying that if everyone on Earth looked identical, then looking at people would become boring because the sameness of human appearance would become repetative to a monotonous degree, "variety is the spice of life" could be aplicable to human appearance, it would be boring and confusing if everyone looked identical, right? However, with that said, I am much more concerned with factors such as g(what IQ tests mostly measure; there is 20% noise on the RAPM) than wast/hip ratio.
i didn't understand this last part

.

 

[Demiurge]

the blue-eyes thing (or something else that's equally vapid) could happen with majority of geniticaly engineered babies if only a limited population of Earth had capability of genetically engineering their children

Obviously, in a population in which people generally have blue eyes, GE would be employed to select mostly blue eye color. I see nothing wrong with this. It is already the state of affairs. Everyone in China has epicanthal folds right now.

this is assuming that GE would become a global ability, which it prolly won't

It assumes nothing. I used "if" to indicate a condition. That is, it became frequently used.

the "if all girls looked beautiful" quote was him saying that if everyone on Earth looked identical, then looking at people would become boring because the sameness of human appearance would become repetative to a monotonous degree, "variety is the spice of life" could be aplicable to human appearance, it would be boring and confusing if everyone looked identical, right?

There are characteristics that are attractive cross-culturally, which is a different thing entirely than there being a single form of the perfect human. For example, two women can have the exact same WHR and look very different. Two women can have neotenous facial features and look very different, and be of different races, even.

i didn't understand this last part

I was saying that attractiveness is less important than cognitive ability.

 

[Tongue_Ring]

Obviously, in a population in which people generally have blue eyes, GE would be employed to select mostly blue eye color. I see nothing wrong with this. It is already the state of affairs. Everyone in China has epicanthal folds right now.
what are "epicanthal folds"?
It assumes nothing. I used "if" to indicate a condition. That is, it became frequently used.
i still say that genetic engineering will never become a global cappability
There are characteristics that are attractive cross-culturally, which is a different thing entirely than there being a single form of the perfect human. For example, two women can have the exact same WHR and look very different. Two women can have neotenous facial features and look very different, and be of different races, even.
what is "WHR"?
I was saying that attractiveness is less important than cognitive ability.
yes i agree, beautiful stupid people are more annoying than ugly smart people

.

 

[Demiurge]

what are "epicanthal folds"?

It's a fold of skin that partially covers the inner corner of the eye. It's characteristic of some Asian populations. It makes the eye appear "slanted."

i still say that genetic engineering will never become a global cappability

I agree.

what is "WHR"?

Waist/hip ratio.

 

[speed]

Demiurge you have returned! And you waste your time arguing with...

 

[Cythraul]

I always feel reluctant to discuss these sorts of topics, mainly because I know next to nothing about genetics. The anthropology professors and students tell me that eugenics is based on bad science and is no longer considered tenable. The anus people tell me that's just liberal propoganda. I don't know what to believe.

Epicanthal folds are sexy.

 

[MURAI]

I'm just curious. Is it possible to calculate the personality of the child accurately through eugenics?

 

[Demiurge]

I'm just curious. Is it possible to calculate the personality of the child accurately through eugenics?

To answer your question as best I can, the big five personality traits are hereditarily influenced.

 

[Demiurge]

I always feel reluctant to discuss these sorts of topics, mainly because I know next to nothing about genetics. The anthropology professors and students tell me that eugenics is based on bad science and is no longer considered tenable. The anus people tell me that's just liberal propoganda. I don't know what to believe.

It is not based on bad science as anyone with a passing knowledge of the hereditary influence on psychometrically measured traits knows. The g factor is hereditarily influenced and that is a fact. People who say it is "bad science" are either ignorant or dishonest.

Epicanthal folds are sexy.

I am glad you found the picture I posted sexy, but that was not my intention.

Demiurge you have returned! And you waste your time arguing with...

Greetings, Speed.

 

[derek]

Interestingly, a UK team recently made it able to test unborn embryo's for over 6000 diseases. Predicatably the tabloid newspapers have initiated a one dimensional ethical debate, but nonetheless various genetic traits could (eventually) I believe be manipulated to create "designer" babies.

IMO, eugenics is certainly a good thing, but the vulgar possibility that parents could choose a blonde child to match their big brother puts me off slightly. Furthermore, I'm totally unconvinced that it is unnatural to eradicate disease and deformity.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Many Asian women have operations to make their eyes look more European, so we can assume they would use genetic engineering for this. The "designer baby" idea is more popular amongst Asians than it is amongst Europeans. Hindus also would prefer their children to look more Aryan as it is a part of their religion (although disputed by some) that if you live a virtuous life you are reborn in a more Aryan form and if you live a bad life you are reborn in a lower form such as an animal or even plant. (Once they have seen what scum some white people lke chavs can be they must get disillusioned). Arab sheiks like to have European women in their harems, and plenty of other non-European men seem to prefer fair hair and blue eyes in women. I'm not exactly sure why - is it natural, or is it fashion, or is it some kind of desire to take the white man's woman from him out of nastiness? (I only say the latter because I have heard a black man say that he thought it was good to take a white woman away from her potential of having white babies). Uh oh - I just remembered Consuming Impulse - yes I know, "everyone should race-mix to get rid of racism- blah blah" - but that can't happen anyway if the mulattos prefer to be whiter rather than blacker and have the choice to have a whiter " designer baby". We'd better not make this go into any kind of argument about race though.
The first creatures all this designer gene technology would be used on would be animals , such as introducing human genes into pigs to produce blood and organs useable for transplants. Also desiner race horse, for eg.

 

[Demiurge]

I support GE research and methods to reduce the breeding of people with undesirable traits. One possibility is socializing birth control. People in the lower classes, who also happen to have the lowest IQs, have by far the greatest percentage of unintended births. I suggest reducing this by making birth control readily available to them. Granted, they would still have unintended children, but fewer. Furthermore, instead of reinforcing their breeding, reinforce their not-breeding. Stop subsidizing the births of people to the left of center on the bell curve. Instead, pay them to submit to sterilization. This would be entirely voluntary. Another proposal is the sterilization of convicted felons, who are undesirable in many ways, not the least of which is their low IQ. Moreover, socialize daycare. Highly intelligent people aren't breeding because they are constrained by their occupations and educations. They should be given free daycare of the highest quality.

 

[Demiurge]

Please prove that males prefer lighter eye color by citing a relevant study. While not explicitly relevant to the thread, I am quite curious.

 

[Cythraul]

It is not based on bad science as anyone with a passing knowledge of the hereditary influence on psychometrically measured traits knows. The g factor is hereditarily influenced and that is a fact. People who say it is "bad science" are either ignorant or dishonest.

If it's not too much trouble, could you recommend some websites or books where I can find some reliable research on the topic?

 

[Demiurge]

If it's not too much trouble, could you recommend some websites or books where I can find some reliable research on the topic?

A book that is pretty good about psychometrics and heritability is called These Hidden Truths by Mark Henshaw. It's fairly comphrensive and it makes reference to many studies. Another book I definitely recommend is Jensen's The g Factor, which is about just that. Richard Lynn's Eugenics and Dysgenics are interesting, also. The Limits of Family Influence: Genes, Experience, and Behavior by David Rowe is a relevant book about behavioural genetics. Lastly, The Psychology of Politics by Han Eysenck, which is about personality psychometrics, mostly. The first books I'd get are the Henshaw and the Jensen.

You might also want to look into the writings of Raymond B. Cattell on Beyondism. This is something of a eugenic philosophy. I have personally only read bits and pieces, but I own a copy and plan to read it in its entirety soon.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Please prove that males prefer lighter eye color by citing a relevant study. While not explicitly relevant to the thread, I am quite curious.

I don't think all men prefer blonde and/or blue eyed women and I never said they did. I only said that Arab sheiks and other non-European men(from my anecdotal evidence) seem to have a fascination with these characteristics. There often seem to be references to this in the media, and in books but I doubt anyone has gone so far as to make a scientific study of it. I know one girl who was in Turkey and a man offered her father money to buy her. Are there any studies proving that such assumptions are unfounded? I would also site the fact that brown eyed people choosing blue contact lenses, wheras there is far less demand for brown contact lenses, and that there is all this stuff about "blondes have more fun" and dark haired women dying their hair blonde, but blondes are not as likely to dye their hair brown. I think it is all a stupid fashion more than anything, but that is enough to make people want to possess those characteristics.