Eugenics

[Demiurge]

Oh, I would not be surprised if someone made a study of it. There are so many studies of traits and their cross-cultural attractiveness that one could write a book about it. One could write a book about neotenous characteristics alone. However, for whatever reason, I wasn't able to locate studies on eye color and attractiveness. Frankly, though, I'd be surprised if there weren't any.

By the way, you are becoming unduly defensive. You ask me for studies proving you wrong when neither of us has seen any studies indicating that you're right. Your sample of "one girl" cannot be said to be representative. Moreover, I stated my earnest curiosity because research into human attractiveness is interesting to me. I suspect that you are mistaken, but I am open to persuasion.

Wouldn't you expect that blue lenses would be more demanded? After all, there are far more people with brown eyes than blue eyes. How many people are there who could potentially desire blue eyes? How many people who could desire brown? Most people already have brown.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I tried to find a study on google and couldn't find one. Some of them mentioned that a study had found men prefered blue eyed women, but not by a huge majority or anything. Another mentioned a study that women prefered dark haired men with blue eyes. Regarding the contact lenses, I think that if you randomly took ten women with brown eyes and ten with blue that the brown eyed ones would be more likely to want to change to the other colour - for whatever reason. Often women say or resentfully think about another woman "you are so lucky to be a natural blonde and blue eyes", but do the blonde blue eyed women ever say "oh you're so lucky to be have brown hair and brown eyes" the fact that it is rarer and more exotic must be relevant at least. I'm not arguing about it being racially superior, please note!

While most women, myself included, still are attracted to men who they like for various reasons regardless of them having our prefered eye/hair colour, there is strong evidence that people choose a certain type of sperm when they are using a donor.

"A donor’s physical attributes, education, and interests are included on a profile that’s used by customers to select a donor.

Customers can choose a donor based on race, ethnicity, hair color, eye color, height, weight, and other personal information such as hobbies and favorite activities. “Most people want 6-foot-1, 6-foot-2 with blonde hair and blue eyes,” he says. “But really it varies as much as people do.”
http://www.spokanejournal.com/index.php?id=article&sub=2027&keyword=

"Why don't Indians understand that brown is beautiful? White people spend hours on the beach and put on a hundred creams to get tanned. And in winter they even artificially lie under infrared lamps in beauty parlors to get brown! Why this obsession for the Indian woman to have white skin?
How come the two most popular actors in India have fair skin and nearly blue eyes? Why this craze for 'fair' brides?"
http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/may/20franc.htm

"Black women have gone as far as to dye their hair blonde, get long hair extensions and wear coloured contact lenses just to feel beautiful enough to attract that Black man that they have their heart set on. I mean, why else would you sit at the hairdresser for six hours getting fake hair stitched into your natural curly locks-for pleasure? "
http://www.blackvoice.com/events/default.asp?aID=770

 

[Tongue_Ring]

Epicanthal folds are sexy.

please tell me you're being sarcastic

 

[Demilich]

Well, I'll be blunt and state that the advocates of eugenics whose ideas I have encountered seem to fall into the category of those who are deluded into subjectivist stratification (particularly pertaining to the characteristics of certain ethnic groups) of their surroundings in attempt to construct a reality in which they are secure. (as discussed by Justin S. in the thread on whether philosophy should be mandatory) I do not have time to delve further into this fascinating issue, but this may provide a starting point for some kind of rebuttal to which I can offer some more details if anyone wants.

 

[Demiurge]

I do not recognize your rebuttal as being at all persuasive.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Russia and other European countries (like France and Germany) are offering cash incentives to their population to reproduce, due to a demographic crisis which even mass immigration seems insufficient to avert. They are not making these cash incentives dependent upon socio-economic group however. There are more factors than money alone in the decision to have a baby - and it is harder to bribe comfortably well off people to reproduce than the poorer people. Housing is a factor. Richer people demand a lot of space, but poorer people are far more willing to cram into a house and not be so bothered. There are not the same expectations of luxury. A poor person can take the money and profit from it. The rich parents would want all the luxury expensive baby equipment, and the bribe won't cover it. They don't need it and it cramps their style.

Eugenics has been practiced for a very long time. Plato depicted an ideal society brought about by selective breeding. http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=957103

The first eugenics was the very ancient practice of killing deformed infants at birth, something that was regularly practiced right up to very recently in soviet Russian hospitals. A bucket of water was kept by the bedside to drown defective children. This practice may possibly still exist in places like North Korea as it is hard enough to rear a healthy child and the state doesn't want to be burdened with disabled people. The sanctity of life is not perceived there as it is in the west. Here we agonise over whether to use embryo screening to identify babies to be aborted. There is debate over whether it is more humane that a seriously disabled child with no quality of life should be helped to live as long as possible, or whether it would be better for all concerned that the child is either never born or allowed to die.

 

[Demilich]

I do not recognize your rebuttal as being at all persuasive.

In essence, the few pro-eugenics arguments proposed on this forum (other threads) in the past have relied on creating a system of inferior/superior characteristics and attempting to pass this off as something unwaveringily scientific or universal. Such attempts, in my eyes, fail to adequately consider the diversity of life experiences on this planet in that they so commonly view human characteristics in a limited functional light. Saying that one group posesses "superior" characteristics implies a monolithic, implicit heirarchy of characteristics that I do not believe can be demonstrated as relevant to the population of this planet as a whole. Presuming as I do that the diverse groups which make up the 6,000,000,000 humans on this planet were not brought into existence to serve any singular evolutionary purpose, I cannot come to any conclusion that attempts to romanticize a particular image of the "Superman." We, as humans, are not always aware of whether out attributes will serve us or hinder us over the course of our lives, and the prediliction to overreaching in our attempts to advance our species bear this as their cost: some will attempt to create a group of "Supermen" through selective genetic engineering, eliminating possibilities of all sorts and restricting the course of evolution to the path they think is best. I cannot hope to convince anyone who does advocate such foolishness, but I believe strongly that any serious, large-scale attempt at eugenics would be disastrous.

 

[Demiurge]

A trait such as intelligence is negatively correlated with criminality, welfare recipience, and poverty(even when the SES one is born into is controlled for statistically) and positively correlated with job performance and academic achievement. I don't know about you, but I think that poverty, welfare recipience, and criminality are bad things for my society, and increased job performance and academic achievement are good for it. I'm being somewhat facetious, but I'm sure you catch my drift.

 

[Demilich]

That's the thing. I completely understand how eugenics could and would benefit society. My criticisms stem from the negative aspects of effectively removing certain types of people through such a subjectivized selective process. Essentially, under a different system and different circumstances, I believe that many people who would be deemed unsuitable for selection by an institution of eugenics would perform satisfactorily and lead relatively productive lives. Furthermore, I take exception to the notion that we as humans should make such large-scale decisions with potentially devastating effects on the future of humanity. I know this is simply a strong conviction and may not be completely tenable as a response to other posts in this thread, but I do believe that I have something here. I may not be putting it into words very well either.

edit: I think my criticisms are fairly well reflected in this article I just looked up in case you don't follow me very well.

 

[Demiurge]

That's the thing. I completely understand how eugenics could and would benefit society.

It absolutely would.

My criticisms stem from the negative aspects of effectively removing certain types of people through such a subjectivized selective process. Essentially, under a different system and different circumstances, I believe that many people who would be deemed unsuitable for selection by an institution of eugenics would perform satisfactorily and lead relatively productive lives.

Technology is out of the box, friend. The need for people to perform menial tasks is decreasing, not increasing. One man can do the work of 50 now, or more. The last thing we need is more unintelligent people unsuited to the world we live in. Furthermore, the bottom 10%-15% is at best capable of little more than locating the expiration date on their driver's licenses and at worst, absolutely nothing. Nothing is going to make them the beacons of light for civilization.

Furthermore, I take exception to the notion that we as humans should make such large-scale decisions with potentially devastating effects on the future of humanity. I know this is simply a strong conviction and may not be completely tenable as a response to other posts in this thread, but I do believe that I have something here. I may not be putting it into words very well either.

Humans have already done it. Through technological innovation, man has all but eliminated the selective pressures of the natural world. People who would die in the wild are living to reproductive age now. We are already spitting in the face of nature; I suggest we do so in a way that is more conducive to human flourishing...or we could move to a savannah or jungle somewhere and forget any of this ever happened, and just see what happens.

 

[Justin S.]

In essence, the few pro-eugenics arguments proposed on this forum (other threads) in the past have relied on creating a system of inferior/superior characteristics and attempting to pass this off as something unwaveringily scientific or universal. Such attempts, in my eyes, fail to adequately consider the diversity of life experiences on this planet in that they so commonly view human characteristics in a limited functional light. Saying that one group posesses "superior" characteristics implies a monolithic, implicit heirarchy of characteristics that I do not believe can be demonstrated as relevant to the population of this planet as a whole. Presuming as I do that the diverse groups which make up the 6,000,000,000 humans on this planet were not brought into existence to serve any singular evolutionary purpose, I cannot come to any conclusion that attempts to romanticize a particular image of the "Superman." We, as humans, are not always aware of whether out attributes will serve us or hinder us over the course of our lives, and the prediliction to overreaching in our attempts to advance our species bear this as their cost: some will attempt to create a group of "Supermen" through selective genetic engineering, eliminating possibilities of all sorts and restricting the course of evolution to the path they think is best. I cannot hope to convince anyone who does advocate such foolishness, but I believe strongly that any serious, large-scale attempt at eugenics would be disastrous.

An important post that cautions against the reductionist, metaphysical thinking (purposiveness, linear scales, progress, supermen) behind elaborate eugenics programs. Well done, Demilich.

I also fear that this stance will be misunderstood do to cultural obsession with binary logic (true or false!)- If I understand Demilich correctly, he is critical of systematic attempts at eugenics that are not contextualized, that stem from ideals rather than first-hand, experienced practicality. As Demilich already mentioned, this echoes themes from the thread, "Should Philosophy be Required" (although, nearly any discussion would).

I think the key is to distinguish between rhetoric filled and imposing "top down" systems that do not adequately account for the complexity of biology (especially the randomness and unpredictability of evolution) and those that concern limited, specific issues that can be demonstrated to be unfavorable (Down syndrome/retardation, crippling mutations, etc).

 

[Demilich]

Thank you for the help, Justin! You've put into words many things that were on my mind but didn't make it into the post.

 

[Demiurge]

I also fear that this stance will be misunderstood do to cultural obsession with binary logic (true or false!)- If I understand Demilich correctly, he is critical of systematic attempts at eugenics that are not contextualized, that stem from ideals rather than first-hand, experienced practicality. As Demilich already mentioned, this echoes themes from the thread, "Should Philosophy be Required" (although, nearly any discussion would).

They are contextualized. Needs might have been different before the machine became astronomically more efficient starting with the Industrial Revolution, which has increased the need for intelligence and decreased the need for people suited only to menial labor. This trend has continued, rendering the underclass less and less useful. The same machine has also allowed us to support the least intelligent members of society, who, predictably, are breeding very rapidly, and overwhelming the population.

Additionally, I do not support eugenics out of an attempt to breed the Superman, who conforms as much as possible to the form of Man. My approach to the matter is basically pragmatic.

 

[Norsemaiden]

There's a BIG misunderstanding about the Superman here. It is the "Ultimate Man" that may be created by an over-use of genetic engineering and eugenics based on Man's idea of the ideal person. The Superman cannot be created by Man, any more than our ape ancestors could have envisaged how Man should be. Just as we think it a somewhat embarrassing fact that apes used to be our ancestors, so the Superman would be embarrassed by having evolved from Man.

A clue to how different the Superman is from the Ultimate Man is this: Happiness for the Ultimate Man = the easy life, happiness for the Superman = striving. The Ultimate man does not see his faults and he will not give birth to the Superman - he can have no such aspiration. The Ultimate Man may have a perfectly engineered, healthy body - but he has not had bred into him the spirit of the Superman.

That is the danger of eugenics. That is why it should only be used to eliminate diseases - not for cosmetic purposes and not to mold the personality.

"It is time for man to fix his goal. It is time for man to plant the seed of his highest hope. His soil is still rich enough for it. But this soil will one day be poor and weak; no longer will a high tree be able to grow from it." Nietzsche

 

[Demiurge]

To clarify, I am not referring to the Nietzschean ubermensch when I use the word "superman" in this thread.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I am.

 

[Justin S.]

They are contextualized. Needs might have been different before the machine became astronomically more efficient starting with the Industrial Revolution, which has increased the need for intelligence and decreased the need for people suited only to menial labor. This trend has continued, rendering the underclass less and less useful. The same machine has also allowed us to support the least intelligent members of society, who, predictably, are breeding very rapidly, and overwhelming the population.

I know you are generalizing for the sake of brevity, but I disagree with this reading of history and social/class interaction. Also, why do you seem to simply presuppose embracement of technology? If anything, "intelligence" is lost under the dominance of computation and rationalizing logic. It goes to limits of nothing.

Additionally, I do not support eugenics out of an attempt to breed the Superman, who conforms as much as possible to the form of Man. My approach to the matter is basically pragmatic.

Pragmatism guided by what criteria? This is my main concern with your argument.

 

[Justin S.]

To clarify, I am not referring to the Nietzschean ubermensch when I use the word "superman" in this thread.

Same here.

Nonetheless, thanks for the clarification Norsemaiden.

 

[Demiurge]

I know you are generalizing for the sake of brevity, but I disagree with this reading of history and social/class interaction.

Right, I am definitely generalizing. The underlying theme, though, is that the advent of modern technology has allowed a reduced number of laborers to perform a task that in past times would require more. As such, we are seeing a reduced need for people who have little more than a strong back to offer.

Also, why do you seem to simply presuppose embracement of technology? If anything, "intelligence" is lost under the dominance of computation and rationalizing logic. It goes to limits of nothing.

I'm not exactly a technocrat, but I am not a Luddite, either. The way that technology is employed determines its worth. Further, I consider it basically inevitable. The cognitive ability that humans have evolved in combination with a great enough period of time engenders technological innovation. It can be hindered somewhat by religious traditions, but it breaks through, ever slowly. I also think that its employment is all but inevitable. Once the capability to cure a disease is discovered, people will use it. It is unproductive to try to put a lid on technology; this will only lead to frustration. The only possiblity to direct it as well as we can.

Pragmatism guided by what criteria? This is my main concern with your argument.

The goal is to bring the human element into harmony with his tools(really, his condition). Of course, I am presupposing that the person I am speaking to cares about his society or the human condition in general. That is a subject for another thread, though. It is possible for an individual to favor retreat from society and its governance, and live a life of serene solitude. In truth, I am sympathetic to this myself, but I am discussing this issue from the perspective of a person who wants to meliorate Western civilization.

 

[MURAI]

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.

I do not think its that easy to shape a population with eugenics. But, I agree with the solution of reducing human population in general and it is a good idea to implement plans to do so for the lower classes of society. Another big motive that those in higher classes try not to have children is simply money. They know that children will eat up money and time which they will rather use it for themselves. But like you said, they will put options like marriage and children behind for education and jobs.

Have you heard that the general trend is that populations make more children in third world countries and it is the opposite in the case of first world ones?

After the Industrial age, the human population exploded. And yes, we have to face its problems sooner or later.