Thursday, August 31, 2006

Eugenics

Are Eugenics ever justified?
Would the world be a better place if our mates were chosen for us?
"Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution" ~Slogan for the Second Internation Congress of Eugenics

19 comments:

bre said...

no.. i believe that i like to choose.. and the ablitiy to choose anything tends to be a dividing line between species of higher intelligence vs species of lower intelligence.

devin said...

Removing the option to choose your own mate goes against everything natural that has happened on this earth regarding biological systems. It also removes the emotion of love from the human vocabulary, essentially, and love is a large part of what makes life worthwhile. It encourages reproduction and the enlargement of population, which in turn advances society. Without love, reproduction would turn into just another sperm/egg donation - giving to the good of the community without any personal reward. Sounds like a communist idea to me.

Dmitriy Polyakov said...

This idea reminds me of the novel Anthem by Ayn Rand, where people had to go to mating houses once a year. However, in my opinion this would make the whole world miserable and totally take away the concept of marriage and family. But just out of curiosity, who would decide everybody's mate?

the escape artist. said...

no no no no no no.

Wolf Man Jack said...

Some governing body would decide your mate. You would go before a council when you reached x age, and they would evaluate your case and decide on who you can marry and be, given who is available. The institution of marraige may disentigrate, but so would divorce and all the problems that come with that. It seems a fair trade to me.

Flook said...

So you're saying that you are willing to trade away your happiness in order to stop "all the problems that come with that" and give up any choice? So, would you be able to let someone decide where you are educated, what you will do in life, where you will live, and what you will believe? Sounds like Anthem again to me. Someone might even get to choose who you could talk to, and what you could say. So much for even being alive at that point. You'd be just as good off as a robot!

devin said...

Personally, Wolf, I don't see any problems with divorce. It's a little messy, but it doesn't really harm anyone permanently (in most cases). It is a far better option, therefore, then an autonomous selection process.

Wolf Man Jack said...

as to flook: So what if we give up those few rights, that is the point of eugenics, to breed people that are more suited to a specific job than another.
as for the divorce issue: someone is always hurt when there is a child involved.

Flook said...

well, wolf. just to be a pain, who chooses the people that choose what everyone does in life? And still, would you be able to live without those freedoms? If our society switched to that mode of thinking, would you be able to comply with it starting tomorrow/ And would you be willing to give someone else the right to control your personality? What if you could no longer see your family, and your friends. And yes, maybe you would say that everyone would be your family, and everyone would be your friends, but aside from that, would you be able to live in that way? AND be happy?

Big E said...

Getting back to the original topic, I don't think the concept of eugenics is bad.
That being said, I should explain what I mena by this. If there are certain genes that are a known harm to human society then, technically speaking, it will be good ot remove them. The first problem lies within what the repurcussions might be by removing such a gene, and how can scientist definitivly prove that such a gene is in fact detrimental as a whoel ot human society. The Second problem, of course, is how eugenics is usually carried out. For instance, it obviously wrong (I think) just to go around killing people who have such a gene. Just as bad, and maybe worse, would be sterilizing them. But, in some ways, eugenics are already used. We screen peoples' blood types to make sure that they have an informed decision about whether or nto they want to give birht to children that may have disorders. What are incest laws other than eugenics? Therefore I think there are, at the very least, several different possible scenarios in which Eugenics cna be justified. With that being said, I would like to segueway into the other part by saying: the laws of nature did away with need for eugenics before we put a lifegaurd at the gene pool. I believe that the process of natural selection has made Human beings be attracted to what are the best mates. "Love" is a creation of poets and artists, but it is rooted in subconcious desires we have to choose what we think will be the best mate for our children. Before we invented agriculture and lived in a hunter gatherer society, the strongest beings got the most mates and propagated more of their genes into the next generation. Since agriculture and the institution of marriage this has broken down, thus what I mean by "Posting a lifegaurd on the gene pool". Those who, in nature, would drown are saved. But, to answer the question simply, I know that I have no desire to have my mate chosen for me.

Vvyynn said...

I'm not going to read all of the comments. All I'm going to say is that eugenics are completely unjustified and stupid. It is simply a way to justify genocide. I don't think this will ever be useful, and...is having a mate planned for you in eugenics? Isn't that just arranged marriages? Do I have the full knowledge of Eugenics? Hmm...Well this post is more or less useless. Please, read on.




No appocalyptic theories, sorry.

Shayden said...

Oooh boy...Eugenics...The idea of improving human genetic traits is actually quite appealing, especially if it means the elimination of diseases related to genetics that lead to signficant suffering. However, to get the largest opportunity for knowledge, it is best to have as much diversity as possible, which means eugenics is out of the question. If everyone in the entire world were required to selectively breed and we created something like a super race that virtually had no weaknesses, we'd eventually face a HUGE overpopulation problem (as if that's not already a concern) and probably experience more violence as more able-bodied people fought for power. And people picking our mates?? Eww!! Grody! Sorry--no scientific explanation for that. Nobody knows one better than oneself, so the only truly qualified person to select a suitable mate, at least for emotional well-being and fulfillment, is--surprise!--oneself. In this matter I'm 100% for personal choice. Eugenics has its benefits, but it also presents serious disadvantages. Yeah, blood screening is okay, incest laws fine, but no completely unrestrained eugenics for me. Please.

Big E said...

Oh, I absolutley agree, for emotional well-being and fulfillment.
We're talking about taking one for the team here.
-Evan

Shayden said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Shayden said...

*Thoughtfully strokes non-existent beard.* Hmm...If you're "taking one for the team" by being forced into a relationship you're obviously discontent with, won't your negativity reflect through your behaviour and actually injure the team by your becoming unnesscarily aggressive toward people and being in a nasty mood that leads you to do regrettably evil things to others? That would be a not-so-nice team to be a part of and would not be very beneficial to mankind.

devin said...

I'm gonna have to agree with the "anti-eugenics" side here. Would it really benefit our race to "play God" and improve ourselves artificially (as if we weren't already screwing up this planet's ecosystems enough...), most likely leading to experimentation with plants and animals, creating the earth after our own image of greatness. That is unimaginably scary to me. Does "dystopia" ring a bell?

Mpotterveld said...

I just want to comment on the literary works we are all refering to here, sure anthem's a good choice but has anyone else read The Giver by Lois Lowry. This exact topic is covered in the book. The author presents both sides to this argument to the extreams. Lowry dipicts a world where everything is controled but no one ever has any major conflicts. My question is what could happen if we started to support eugenics? Sure most people who have posted here are anti-eugenics but is eugenics the only issue if we contiuned this line of thought where total control leads to no conflicts.

Big E said...

Ah! Lets play spot the logical falacy! Is it circular logic? No! Red herring? Hardly! Slippery Slope? Yessir!. Just because we're trying to prevent people from having genetic diseases doesn't mean we're gonna turn into an "anthem" society.
-Evan
P.S. What I said about "takign one for the team" was just being the devils advocate.

Vvyynn said...

This post has been removed by the authour...so quit reading. No, this is not the post. This is the message claiming that this is not a post, therefore it is not a post. What? Are you still reading? This post wouldn't have been anything useful anyways, it would just be the insane ramblings of a tired man. Thus, this post has been removed.