Should Eugenics Make People Superior to Yourself?

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

First of all, "superior" is completely subjective, as it is an opinion that can't be measured. Despite that, I understand what you mean, as I'm certain that gene therapy on embryos will become a far more common and accepted practice as technology and education improve. Personally, I'm not threatened at all by the prospect of using genetic screening to ensure greater physical health in our offspring, particularly as this is why sexual selection evolved in the first place.

Another consideration is that with the advancements we've seen in medical technology, we're actually allowing genetically "inferior" people to reproduce, by keeping them alive when they would ordinarily have been selected against by the environment. Through this process, we've unwittingly allowed a great deal of deleterious and undesirable genetic information to not only remain in the population, but to be passed down to future generations and further spread throughout our collective genome.

While I don't think that we should just let these "inferior" people die, I do think that we should feel at least some responsibility to compensate for the "damage" that we've done to ourselves thus far. Obviously, prohibiting "inferior" individual from having families is a violation of their civil rights, so this wouldn't even be a consideration for me. However, I see no harm in allowing people to screen for deleterious genes that correlate with disabling conditions. I don't see this as a moral argument though, because I can't imagine why anyone would honestly want their children to inherit their genetic predisposition to Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, schizophrenia, heart failure, obesity, etc...

As far as Eugenics, I think you're a little bit confused about exactly what that means. Eugenics is the practice of intentionally selecting for specific characteristics that are viewed as more desirable, or "superior." Simply screening for deleterious alleles that are genuinely detrimental to the health of the developing embryo is a completely different matter.

Before I leave however, I have one final point. No individual, or even species can truly be considered superior or inferior to any other, because evolution is simply a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. It expresses no preference for directionality in change, and simply defaults to advantaging whichever phenotype is better adapted to its environment, via metabolic / immuno efficiency, and reproductive capacity. An organism that can produce more offspring, regardless of the reason, is favored simply because it leaves more of its own alleles behind than its competitors. Considering this, one must evaluate which alleles really do constitute a "superior" human, as we are no longer bound by the same evolutionary constraints as other organisms. The most obvious difference is that throughout the entire evolutionary history of man, more conservative phenotypes were favored as they were better adapted to the conditions that our ancestors have been facing over the past few hundred thousand years, as well as the hundreds of millions of generations worth of vestigial genetic information that we've retained from our ancestor species. Very recently (past few generations) however, that phenotype is no longer the successful one, as the metabolic efficiency that used to keep our ancestors from starving to death is now the cause of morbid obesity, from which a string of other health hazards are related. Does this mean that we should suddenly start selecting for faster metabolic processes? If so, this would put us at a great disadvantage if food were for any reason to again become scarce. If this doesn't illustrate the conditionality of "superiority," then I don't know what will.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

Most people have children randomly and often by accident, without choosing a mate from a eugenic standpoint.

While most people certainly don't consider Eugenics when selecting a mate, it's hard to deny to impact that Eugenic philosophy has on sexual selection. Even if you have an accidental child with someone, they still had to meet certain criteria before you decided to have sex with them. Some people are indeed pickier than others, but everyone has standards.

Others are even jealous when their children are more successful than they are in some way.

How many here have parents who are determined to insist that they know better about everything? That suggests the parents don't like the idea of their own offspring being superior.

And I have heard of mothers who are jealous of their daughters for being prettier too!

Parents insist that they know better, because they have more experience and understanding of the consequences and potential long term effects of certain behaviors, and they are trying to implement this higher knowledge to the benefit of their children. That's not quite the same as saying "this is how things are, because I have to be better than you."

Jealousy is a natural human emotional response to a variety of situations, so it shouldn't be expected that we are somehow immune to intrafamilial jealousy. Yes, you can be jealous of your children's success, but that doesn't mean you can't also be happy for them at the same time.

But...this whole thread seems vaguely creepy. Hitler was big on eugenics. I don't think people should consider genetics at all, ever, when choosing a mate (Except with really obvious stuff, like incest...).

All sexual preferences can be interpreted as a Eugenic ideology. If you prefer women with larger breasts, smaller waists, blonder hair, and bluer eyes, how is this any less of a genetic consideration than simply trying to avoid biological relatives? Hell, even personality type has some genetic basis.

suppose you, sir, are ugly, and not very smart, yourself: with the idea of actually improving the world, would it be better you restrain yourself from breeding, or simply regulate your breeding with the guidance of science?

While I see your point and agree with you, I don't imagine that the stupid, ugly people will be the ones trying to regulate the quality of their offspring, partly because they will be, on average, less likely to be able to afford such luxuries, but also because of the inability of many stupid people to recognize that they're the ones whose genes are targeted for deletion by eugeneticists.

Europeans are much smaller and weaker than they were in ancient times. Archeological evidence shows that there were Celts in Britain who wore wrist torques that were as thick as a man's knee joint is nowadays.

Civilisation = domestication and that causes neoteny. Domesticated animals are smaller and weaker than their wild ancestors.

Physical size is not necessarily an indicator of evolutionary success. Larger men are indeed more intimidating in battle, and probably better able to subdue larger game with primitive tools, but as our technology continued to evolve, stature was no longer as necessary as it once was. In some instances, evolution even favors smaller organisms. In fact, many of the world's geographically isolated regions, particularly islands, are full of the fossilized remains of pygmy animals, such as elephants, dinosaurs, and even people.

After wars the height of our populations have been depleated with the tallest and strongest men being taken out of the genepool.

I'd imagine that before modern ballistics technologies were invented the taller, stronger men were better adapted to battle than the shorter weaker men. Considering this, who do you think was more likely to come home and raise a family. Even under the assumption that the taller, stronger men died in battle while the smaller, weaker ones stayed with the village, all those tall, strong guys had sisters who carried nearly all of the same genetic information.

Well hypothetically, it would be much better not to of course there is already enough people on the planet. I wouldn't use science because, scientific enhance while good is unnatural.

Then why are you using the internet?

The "progress" we have now in science is almost exclusively to do with research that is geared towards financial profiteering and weaponry. The kind of science born of curiosity alone has been sidelined. The "progress" we have now is killing the planet.

This isn't true at all. As a psychology / biology student, I can vouch for the new research that's being released almost on a weekly basis. Even my own professors are leaders in some of their fields. One of them does research on cyanobacteria, and another researches the chemical composition of semen. Additionally, she and some of her colleagues have done research that has advanced our knowledge of other physiological sexual processes, and still more are studying brain function and development. Sure, new scientific advancements may not be all the rage in the daily paper, or on the 6 o'clock news, but if you know where to look, there's always something new and exciting going on.

 

[death metal black metal]

While most people certainly don't consider Eugenics when selecting a mate, it's hard to deny to impact that Eugenic philosophy has on sexual selection. Even if you have an accidental child with someone, they still had to meet certain criteria before you decided to have sex with them.

Aesthetics is a summary of what we desire.

As if we wanted to "borrow" traits from the future...

How sensible.

 

[kmik]

Yes, but those are interpreted in different ways, thus are different values even if they have the same names.

What? Medicine and weight-lifting are cross cultural. All cultures value people who have a lot of knowledge over ignorant people, or people with better memory. All cultures value people who keep their word. And I could give many more examples...

 

[death metal black metal]

What? Medicine and weight-lifting are cross cultural. All cultures value people who have a lot of knowledge over ignorant people, or people with better memory. All cultures value people who keep their word. And I could give many more examples...

Words, words, words.

All cultures value knowledge, which is then interpreted differently.

Medicine is radically different. Swedes have massages, Chinese have acupuncture.

I can imagine people superior to myself, but they would be in the same vein as my ancestors and myself.

For a Chinese person, the same would be true, so the superior person would be different.

 

[kmik]

Words, words, words.

All cultures value knowledge, which is then interpreted differently.

Medicine is radically different. Swedes have massages, Chinese have acupuncture.

I can imagine people superior to myself, but they would be in the same vein as my ancestors and myself.

For a Chinese person, the same would be true, so the superior person would be different.

Strengh - well, I'm not familiar with the exact definition, but that's an individual's ability to use FORCE, which is a physical concept. In all cultures man who are PHYSICALLY strong or muscled are more valued than those who aren't. And of course there's different medicine in different cultures, but if you have a broken arm, a doctor from any nationality will do. Biological disease is also a sceintific concept. If you're sick, you're sick both for Chinese and German. I agree with you that some traits are valued more in some cultures, but the idea that no values are universal is absurd.

 

[OldScratch]

Biological disease is also a sceintific concept.

In some parts of the world it is. In other parts of the world it is the work of witches, evil-spirits, curses, etc. That many parts of the world share some values is obvious. That we also do not share all values or place the same emphasis or importance upon any of thes values is equally so.

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

Designer babies is a far more realistic near-term solution if you want to select traits. Like blackmetalwhiteguy said, you're already selecting the traits you'd like to see in your offspring when you choose a mate, so doing it explicitly is not as morally dubious as you would think. I really think that the people here are putting too much faith in genetic determinism, anyone who has spent time with identical twins can see genes only play so big a role. The overall understanding of evolution on this board is weak enough that a thread like this is mostly hot air.

 

[death metal black metal]

Designer babies is a far more realistic near-term solution if you want to select traits.

Unbalanced traits produce empty character.

 

[Blowtus]

Unbalanced traits produce empty character.

Empty statements are created by empty characters.

 

[death metal black metal]

Empty statements are created by empty characters.

Into which of the two categories does the above fit?

 

[Blowtus]

It's an unbalanced trait.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

Unbalanced traits produce empty character.

Their traits aren't unbalanced at all. They still have the same amount of genetic information as any other person, it's just less random, causing them to become physically healthier and potentially "better looking."

 

[death metal black metal]

Their traits aren't unbalanced at all. They still have the same amount of genetic information as any other person, it's just less random, causing them to become physically healthier and potentially "better looking."

Amount of genetic material has no impact on balance of traits, LOL!

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

Please elaborate upon this concept of "balance."

 

[Norsemaiden]

Designer babies (depending on what changes are made) have unbalanced traits because individual traits are being arbitrarily chosen, for the baby, by the parents in a way that would not have naturally occurred. So the parents might select the darkest skin with the fairest straight hair and unnaturally large blue eyes for example.
Temperament and other personality traits have a considerable genetic component and form part of the racial "spirit". So really this spirit should fit with a recognisable physical type as well. Otherwise the natural balance is lost.

It would create some kind of identity crisis in a way also because we need to feel our looks reflect our ancestry - and even those who change themselves radically with plastic surgery at least have the option to stay as they were born, and know what they should be like.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

There is no merit in saying these traits "would not have naturally occurred." It is certainly less probable that certain traits will be expressed along side certain other ones, but they are all traits that already exist in the population and more than likely, came from the parents of that child.

I highly doubt that people would arbitrarily choose such random traits for their offspring anyway, particularly in the case of alleles that aren't present in either parent, because that would not only reduce the amount of genetic relatedness within the family, but would probably be expensive to "import" alleles that aren't already present somewhere within the 92 chromosomes between the two parents.

 

[Norsemaiden]

There is no merit in saying these traits "would not have naturally occurred." It is certainly less probable that certain traits will be expressed along side certain other ones, but they are all traits that already exist in the population and more than likely, came from the parents of that child.

I highly doubt that people would arbitrarily choose such random traits for their offspring anyway, particularly in the case of alleles that aren't present in either parent, because that would not only reduce the amount of genetic relatedness within the family, but would probably be expensive to "import" alleles that aren't already present somewhere within the 92 chromosomes between the two parents.

You never get anyone born who naturally has the darkest complexion, negroid facial structure, and the fairest, straight fine hair . It is impossible.
Also, designer babies could include exaggerated features not found on ANY natural human. Surely it doesn't stretch the imagination all that far?!

 

[Blowtus]

I believe his point was that 'designer babies' does not have to entail freaks of nature, which seems to be the argument against them. Beyond mate selection, the next most 'mundane' form of it would seem to be egg and sperm selection. I think it could be argued that that is no less 'natural' - we use our knowledge and senses to select the best mate, once our knowledge extends further why would we not select the best eggs and sperm? The underlying motivation has not changed.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

You never get anyone born who naturally has the darkest complexion, negroid facial structure, and the fairest, straight fine hair . It is impossible.
Also, designer babies could include exaggerated features not found on ANY natural human. Surely it doesn't stretch the imagination all that far?!

Granted, no one like that may have been born yet, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Just look at all the amazing phenotypic variations we have after only a few hundred generations of canine selective breeding. While the precise genetic mechanisms responsible for this (tandem repeats) aren't as prevalent in the human genome as they are in canines, the principle is the same. We are simply short-cutting, by producing it in one generation rather than a hundred.

Also, like Blowtus pointed out, I think you either missed my point or chose to ignore it. While this would certainly be possible with designer babies, it's unlikely that parents would willingly choose a phenotype for their offspring that they think would have a detrimental impack either physically or socially. Furthermore, how many people would actively seek out alleles that don't exist within their genome, or their spouse's, consequently decreasing their level of genetic relatedness to their own children?

EDIT: Also, to continue Blowtus' point about sperm and egg selection, this is already being done (or at least attempted) by scientists for the treatment of couples with infertility issues.