Could ethical eugenics be a solution to some of mankind's problems?

Question

What system would it take, and are there too many dilemmas? Could artificially selecting favourable traits for fitness boost our chances, but who selects what's the optimal human design? Give your thoughts!

Answer 1

Nature has its own system of eugenics - natural selection.

The implementation of neo-socialist policies throughout most of the world has created a great surplus of non producers who nevertheless consume both the resources of the planet and those produced by the efforts of Man.

Answer 2

The US was practicing this before World War II.  Some key points:

1) first state eugenics law in Indiana in 1907

2) sterilization laws had authorized the neutering of more than 40,000 people classed as insane or feebleminded in 30 states by 1944 (keep in mind the psychological assessments going on then.....anyone could be considered insane)

3) 22,000 underwent sterilization between mid 1940s and 1963 DESPITE weakening public support and revelations of n**i atrocities.

4) Forced sterilization was once legal in 18 states and most states allowed people to be sterilized without their consent.

5)....and a quote from the highly esteemed New England Journal of Medicine in 1935...."Germany is perhaps the most progressive nation in restricting fecundity among the unfit"

Dont we already choose, or attempt, to choose characteristics of our offspring now that the human genome as been mapped? We can at least prevent certain diseases that may or may not occur based on knowing the potential genetic makeup of the child.

Personally....We're rolling the dice on stuff like this and we should leave it to nature.

Answer 3

Upon who's ethics would you be relying?

I figure, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Answer 4

This proposition was put forth by the n**i's many years ago.  You say "ethical eugenics", but who is to decide what is ethical?  We cannot even decide within our own country what ethical behaviour is, so how can we ever expect to be able to "ethically" decide what an "optimal human design" would be?

Your question reeks of a homogenious world where variations are eliminated before they occur.  This sounds not only like a very boring place to me, but also a repressive place with a stagnant populous.

Is fitness the goal of humanity?  It's not obvious to me.  Humans are very different from each other, and we need to continue to embrace the differences and appreciate what we have.

Answer 5

Unfortunately judging by certain replies it does seem to be the solution. Perhaps it depends if you have a place in the queue. From the comments of one of your contributors it looks I would.

Answer 6

I think you are fixated on science fiction.

Answer 7

Yes, but it would need to center more on philosophy, which spawns deeds, both good and evil.

Gassing the liberals, socialists, and humanists would be a good start.

Answer 8

You'd never get agreement about whose ethics should apply.  So, No, basically.

Answer 9

We have begun this process and  we are more and more the melting pot and  the genes bank is changeing   our races and colors, and way of thinking.

Answer 10

Eugenics is a problematic concept, since it crosses a few major ethical lines.  People following its precepts will attempt to control who reproduces, and perhaps even with whom, or how much.

Attempting to impose control over what is rightfully taken to be a fundamental human right would result in chaos.  I know I'd rebel against anyone who tried to say I could never have kids so that others they approve of could.  I'd kill to protect that right.  And if many others would, too, then the system would be quickly overthrown.

Worse, the results desired by the people who would implement such a system are far from guaranteed.  Without even getting into the muck of who will be the judge of desirable vs. undesirable, two great, fit parents can still have a child with severe defects.  Two great, fit parents can have a perfectly healthy kid who becomes a fanatical suicide bomber.

The good news is that our own basic urge to discriminate when choosing a mate is, for the most part, producing the very kind of future that we seek.  (slowly.)  We choose mates who are successful, kind, attractive, healthy, intelligent, etc. because they will ensure the success of our own children and because we want to see these traits propagated, and in doing so, we guarantee that they will be.

Something that could become acceptable in the areana of designer children is gamete screening or genetic modification of an embryo, for the purposes of screening out or correcting a known genetic defect.  That might be palatable enough to the public to be approved in our system of law.  But trampling people's rights isn't likely to get that approval.

There are other ways of creating a better world that promise to pan out if we could just agree to seriously commit to them.

Answer 11

Bad genes are the cause of all of the evils of mankind, and almost all

of the other problems of mankind. Bad genes cause stupidity,

short-sightedness, self-centeredness, and worst of all, the desire to

disrupt truth in one's mind, which causes wrongful fundamental beliefs

and ideals such as theocracy and ethical subjectivism.

Forced eugenics is not politically viable though, nor is it necessary.

Forced eugenics is very prone to abuse, and should therefore be used

very conservatively, if at all. Forced genetic testing and the threat of

sterilization can be good though, because it violates peoples' sense of

dominance. The military can then slaughter the many dominant-tempered

people that resist, thus improving the gene pool without having to

wait for people to die naturally.

Private eugenics is the best method, because it acts through true

natural selection, such that people that practice private eugenics

survive better than the people that do not, as well as the blind fanatics

that practice pseudo-eugenics.

Forced eugenics poses some danger because it can actually have a

dysgenic effect. That can happen if the forced eugenics is

pseudo-eugenics that positively selects traits that are socially tauted

but dysgenic. Another possible dysgenic effect of forced eugenics is

that it would only positively select for genes of intelligence and other

abilities, while ignoring the genes of the character traits that cause

true eugenic breeding behavior, such that such forced eugenics would

serve only to prolong the existence of dysgenic character traits in the

gene pool.

Actually, western society IS currently practicing dysgenic

pseudo-eugenics. The sperm banks are positively selecting for

traits that are socially tauted but dysgenic. The whole

educational-economic setup of the status quo has a dysgenic effect,

because it rewards wasteful fanatical ritual behavior, and it also

rewards unfair selfishness.

The people that oppose any kind of eugenics (private or otherwise)

are genetic egalitarians. Genetic egalitarianism is caused by the

psychological desire to disrupt the fundamental truth that different

entities are not necessarily the same. The sensation of disrupting that

truth is a sensation of crude blind seeping oneness. That same desire

also causes subjectivism and political ultra-leftism.

Answer 12

call me a fascist but yes i do.

Answer 13

I'm thinking unethical eugenics can be a solution to our problems too.  h**l, we can kill ten birds with one stone here.  Just tell me when the next sheep herding's gonna take place, I'll break out my grandfather's old wehrmacht uniform and join in the fun

Answer 14

Was it "The Solution" when Hitler tried to enforce it?  No.  History has a nasty way of repeating itself; the human race lacks the ability to "learn from history".  

No, eugenics is not an "ethical issue".  It is a perceived *moral* issue.

Answer 15

NO!

Answer 16

Could eugenics solve some of our problems? Sure.

Could it solve all of our problems (assuming we have a list somewhere)? No.

Would using eugenics cause more problems than it solved? Probably, and history gives us precedent to that.

The problem with eugenics is that it seeks to impose a false order on a system that does not require such order. It's too goal oriented, and disregards the method it tries to emulate. Kind of like not seeing the trees for the forest, if you will.

All this is beside the fact that about every method of eugenics that has ever been practiced has been morally reprehensible and should never be repeated.

Answer 17

not really genetics doesn't play a very big part with people if people are unfit is mainly because they are lazy not some physiological defect. plus if this idea worked then people with multiple children they would all end up having identical children however this is generally not the case so the quality of the parents is irrelevant because the outcome can be different even between members of the same brood.

Human problems are cause by our enviroment

Answer 18

Survival was always supposed to be for the fittest this isn't the case in the UK today.

You only need to look on the streets of our inner-cities and council estates to see how bad it has become dragged up ASBO wannabe's that are 2nd & 3rd generation of spongers, knowing nothing more about education and career choice then signing on or going on the sick, only to produce more of the same.

So yes as a species unless we want to devolve into thick unhealthy drug/alcohol dependant wasters then eugenics has it's place in mankinds future.

Breeding should be limited and only the most healthy intelligent individuals should be allowed to breed make it so exams and physcials are required for a breeding license and a base income level to be attained to ensure the child will be provided for without suppliments from the state.

Considering our planets finite resources producing a child should be a earned right not a given.

Advances in human medicine over the past 50-100 years has weakened mankinds genepool by allowing the suvival of millions of individuals that previously would not have had the chance to breed.

This is clearly not a pure eugenic solution but it would be a great start to securing our races survival and provide a healthier baseline population to work with.

Answer 19

No, education is.

As you point out, there are serious problems in the question of who's to have say over such a program.

Besides, there's no way to control people to the extent of deciding who breeds and with whom, and it's wrong to try.

We know enough to greatly decrease  our problems; we need that knowledge more widely disseminated.

Draconian and morally repugnant "solutions" are neither right nor do-able.