The ends of eugenics

[ribozyme]

I do not think that eugenics is inherently evil, but one can argue that it is not the concept of eugenics that is evil but rather humanity’s inability to pursue eugenics wisely or ethically.

I suppose one can argue that eliminating socio-economical inequality is a magnanimous end for eugenics though. I find this a powerful way to pursue equality of outcome.

I’ll discuss this topic in detail in this thread later. Any preliminary thoughts? I do not seek to justify the means of eugenics (embryo selection is my preferred means as it is extremely efficient in providing noticable gains in desirable traits in a short period of time) in this thread. I find it hard to resist the opportunity to pursue equality of outcome. Equality of outcome is not possible if people significantly differ in innate ability and eliminating most of this disparity will yield equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity is NOT equality. We should pursue equality of outcome.

 

[djrakowski]

I do not think that eugenics is inherently evil, but one can argue that it is not the concept of eugenics that is evil but rather humanity’s inability to pursue eugenics wisely or ethically.

I suppose one can argue that eliminating socio-economical inequality is a magnanimous end for eugenics though. I find this a powerful way to pursue equality of outcome.

I’ll discuss this topic in detail in this thread later. Any preliminary thoughts? I do not seek to justify the means of eugenics (embryo selection is my preferred means as it is extremely efficient in providing noticable gains in desirable traits in a short period of time) in this thread. I find it hard to resist the opportunity to pursue equality of outcome. Equality of outcome is not possible if people significantly differ in innate ability and eliminating most of this disparity will yield equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity is NOT equality. We should pursue equality of outcome.

There was no way to determine that my oldest child would develop autism. Thus far, there hasn’t been any major breakthrough in identifying genetic causes of this disorder. It is difficult to say for certain right now, but most observers (including the professionals who’ve evaluated him) believe that he will be dependent on other people for the rest of his life. Therefore, he will not have that equality of outcome you seem to desire, and yet, with no idenitifiable characteristics, you wouldn’t have been able to eliminate him through embryo selection. What do you do with such individuals in your ethical framework?

You’re saying that some people have characteristics that render them unworthy of life, and the only criteria you’ve used is some subjective standard of what constitutes equality of outcome. I’ve seen you use the term, but I’ve never seen you define what constitutes an equality of outcome. What are your cutoff points - what IQ levels, degrees of physical incapacity, etc. determine who is worthy of life iin your schema?

Indeed, since the aim of eugenics is to determine, by arbitrary standards, who is worthy of being permitted to live, it is undoubtedly an inherent evil, and you’re going to have an uphill battle of proving otherwise in a forum mostly populated by serious Catholics.

 

[djrakowski]

I have some additional thoughts on this matter:

1. What constitutes equality of outcome?
2. What standard are you applying in stating that the elimination of socieconomic disparity is a magnanimous goal for eugenics? There are most certainly other ways to work toward socioeconomic justice that have nothing to do with killing those unlikely to achieve it without significant assistance.
3. How would you guarantee that those who are permitted to live after having been screened to eliminate undesirable characteristics wouldn’t simply end up lazy, and thus not achieve the outcome level you set in your arbitrary standard?

 

[jman507]

Even taking out moral reasoning, I don’t see how it’s going to lead to nearly equal outcomes. The theory that it would work seems difficult enough to engineer with precision. The actual application of a theory usually always seems to stray from 100% effectiveness.

 

[PapaSquash]

Why is equality of outcome a good?

 

[ribozyme]

Why is equality of outcome a good?

Because it sickens me that people cannot become scientists because they possess too many defective genes. It also sickens me that people cannot understand this because they inherited a bad set of genes and they did nothing to deserve this. They cannot experience the pleasure of understanding Molecular Biology of the Cell through no fault of their own. :crying: :crying:

I supposed it would be best to eliminate these deleterious genes.

The Bell Curve argues that the United States has become a society of hereditary privilege (under the guise of a “meritocracy”) and ranking is based on ones’ cognitive ability. If we eliminate these differences, perhaps a classless society will emerge. Or maybe class structure will be organized in a different way that is not based on an innate characteristic.

 

[JimG]

I do think that human genetics cannot help but be inherently evil, because it treats persons as products.

I inherited bad eyesight and high cholesterol from my mother and her forbears. That prevents me from being a commercial pilot, among other things, and closes off equality of opportunity in some respects. Does that mean my line should have been bred out of existence? I mean, we don’t want just smart people, but smart people who can see, and who also have great hearing, looks, social skills, and a few other things.

 

[jman507]

Because it sickens me that people cannot become scientists because they possess too many defective genes. It also sickens me that people cannot understand this because they inherited a bad set of genes and they did nothing to deserve this. They cannot experience the pleasure of understanding Molecular Biology of the Cell through no fault of their own. :crying: :crying:

I supposed it would be best to eliminate these deleterious genes.

The Bell Curve argues that the United States has become a society of hereditary privilege (under the guise of a “meritocracy”) and ranking is based on ones’ cognitive ability. If we eliminate these differences, perhaps a classless society will emerge. Or maybe class structure will be organized in a different way that is not based on an innate characteristic.

A lot of people do not have the pleasure of understanding Molecular Biology of the Cell, because they don’t care to and also I’m sure some find no pleasure in the material at all.

I’m sure there are a vast number of people who’ve helped brought you this Internet and don’t have no clue. Might very well to be happy to say, “I don’t care, but I’m sure glad you do. I’m sure you might not understand all the details of the Internet, but I know my part, and I help bring it to you. Know go take your knowledge in molecular biology of the cell and put it to something that is of some use to me.”

Perhaps you can fancy this to me, what is the advantages and the disadvantages to a species when it comes to diversity of different DNA expressions or having relatively few differences?

 

[ribozyme]

A lot of people do not have the pleasure of understanding Molecular Biology of the Cell, because they don’t care to and also I’m sure some find no pleasure in the material at all.

I’m sure there are a vast number of people who’ve helped brought you this Internet and don’t have no clue. Might very well to be happy to say, “I don’t care, but I’m sure glad you do. I’m sure you might not understand all the details of the Internet, but I know my part, and I help bring it to you. Know go take your knowledge in molecular biology of the cell and put it to something that is of some use to me.”

Perhaps you can fancy this to me, what is the advantages and the disadvantages to a species when it comes to diversity of different DNA expressions or having relatively few differences?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/34/Two_Curve_Bell_with_Jobs.jpg/420px-

So do you like that type of diversity? I find it absolutely disgusting… Not everyone can be a chemist, attorney, or an excutive because they are inherently inferior (according to Linda Gottfredson). Biochemistry is fun!! Working as an assembler, in food service, or as a bank teller isn’t as intellectually satisfying but drudgery!

 

[Holly3278]

Eugenics is evil. There is no getting around that.

 

[PapaSquash]

So do you like that type of diversity? I find it absolutely disgusting… Not everyone can be a chemist, attorney, or an excutive because they are inherently inferior (according to Linda Gottfredson). Biochemistry is fun!! Working as an assembler, in food service, or as a bank teller isn’t as intellectually satisfying but drudgery!

Not everyone can be a chemist or an attorney or an executive because no society could function if everybody were.

Your way would just have smarter janitors. Maybe Linda has other motives.

 

[jman507]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/34/Two_Curve_Bell_with_Jobs.jpg/420px-

So do you like that type of diversity? I find it absolutely disgusting… Not everyone can be a chemist, attorney, or an excutive because they are inherently inferior (according to Linda Gottfredson). Biochemistry is fun!! Working as an assembler, in food service, or as a bank teller isn’t as intellectually satisfying but drudgery!

I’d rather have a lower IQ and not be a snob. Just joking, but the possible offending point intended is the point I actually want to highlight, though I have no intention of offending you.

If a bank teller, assembler, or food server, does a fine job, I say hold your head up high. There are more things to life than your job. And if we don’t have those around, your going to be too busy doing farming and animal husbandry. I know you think those are drudgery, I wouldn’t actually want you to do them, stick to your biochem, kid. Your getting into ecology and you have no idea of the effects that whole thing could have. In lab do you always achieve a 100% yeild? Those labs are much much less complicated and more controled than your proposed idea.

The problem I have with the study, is that how IQ in adults and application of effective and effecient work are too complex for me to hold a lot of stock in her model. It’s so complex I doubt one could ever come out with an accurate idea of what contributes to how much. I think how the variables effect one person to the next is too hard to nail down. I doubt their going to have any better idea on how the aggragate works out.

 

[ribozyme]

I’d rather have a lower IQ and not be a snob. Just joking, but the possible offending point intended is the point I actually want to highlight, though I have no intention of offending you.

If a bank teller, assembler, or food server, does a fine job, I say hold your head up high. There are more things to life than your job. And if we don’t have those around, your going to be too busy doing farming and animal husbandry. I know you think those are drudgery, I wouldn’t actually want you to do them, stick to your biochem, kid. Your getting into ecology and you have no idea of the effects that whole thing could have. In lab do you always achieve a 100% yeild? Those labs are much much less complicated and more controled than your proposed idea.

One does not obtain a 100% yield. I haven’t done any real organic chemistry, but from what I do know much has to planned out (the work up in organic chemistry requires assiduous diligence). You do not get 100% of a given product and it is usually accompanied with other products. I suppose one can seperate the products using chromatography.

 

[aurora77]

So do you like that type of diversity? I find it absolutely disgusting… Not everyone can be a chemist, attorney, or an excutive because they are inherently inferior (according to Linda Gottfredson). Biochemistry is fun!! Working as an assembler, in food service, or as a bank teller isn’t as intellectually satisfying but drudgery!

You do realize that if the entire world were composed of biochemists, it would grind to a screeching halt, don’t you? Or are we each going to grow our own food, make our own clothes, manufacture our own cars, and on and on and on?

A perfect example of the beauty of God’s creation as it is (lower IQ or not) can be found in a family that goes to my church. The parents are in their 80s, they have 10 children. Their youngest has some sort of retardation; severe enough that he can’t live on his own, yet not enough that he’s not a functioning part of society. He is in his 40s, I’d guess. His parents were telling me that when he was young, they were told to put him away in an institution, he’d never amount to anything (or in your vision, put him to death). They ignored the “experts” and, with the help of their other children, raised him to be as self sufficient as possible. He works in a restaurant several days a week, and helps out at the church a lot. No, he can never be a biochemist, but he can be a blessing to those he meets and an inspiration to us all. Which is more important?

 

[catholicbuckeye]

I do not think that eugenics is inherently evil, but one can argue that it is not the concept of eugenics that is evil but rather humanity’s inability to pursue eugenics wisely or ethically.

I suppose one can argue that eliminating socio-economical inequality is a magnanimous end for eugenics though. I find this a powerful way to pursue equality of outcome.

I’ll discuss this topic in detail in this thread later. Any preliminary thoughts? I do not seek to justify the means of eugenics (embryo selection is my preferred means as it is extremely efficient in providing noticable gains in desirable traits in a short period of time) in this thread. I find it hard to resist the opportunity to pursue equality of outcome. Equality of outcome is not possible if people significantly differ in innate ability and eliminating most of this disparity will yield equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity is NOT equality. We should pursue equality of outcome.

Preliminary thoughts? Besides the thought that you managed to combine the warmest and fuzziest traits of Nazis and Communists in a 3 paragraph post? Keeping it quick and working backwards from your last thought: Outcome based society. You will never be able to create a society where all are economically equal. Period. It has been tried and each time it has been tried it has been a colossal failure. The empire that was the USSR collapsed in 70 years. Not to mention Cuba, North Korea, China (before they adopted more of a free market)…basically, giving peole no incentive at all to produce will leave you with exactly that type of economy. One that doesn’t produce.

Eugenics. I am an actuary, do I deserve to live, or will I never have all the fun and fulfillment of a bio-chemist? As long as you only kill off those predestined to be bank tellers and hamburger flippers and spare the actuaries, gee I’ll vote for eugenics. Actually, wait. That reminds me of something my grandfather, a wise man who worked two hard labor (non bio-chemist) jobs to send my dad to Catholic schools said. “All work is noble.” Not everybody is going to be a lawyer, but everybody deserves respect and human life in all it’s forms is sacred. Guess I won’t vote for eugenics either.

 

[st_lucy]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/34/Two_Curve_Bell_with_Jobs.jpg/420px-

So do you like that type of diversity? I find it absolutely disgusting… Not everyone can be a chemist, attorney, or an excutive because they are inherently inferior (according to Linda Gottfredson). Biochemistry is fun!! Working as an assembler, in food service, or as a bank teller isn’t as intellectually satisfying but drudgery!

Please, Please, PPPLLLLEEEEEAAAAAZZZZZZZZZZZZEEE tell me you are not serious.

I would really hate being a Biochemist but I am very appreciative to those who are for they hold up there part in our society(at least those who don’t use their talents for evil) But I also appericate those who are food servers for they hold up their part in our society also. Now if we were to really think about this in a more down to earth fashion, who is more important, the biochemist or the food server. Well, I would have to say the food server, since eating is more important then finding out how our DNA works.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

ribozyme:

I do not think that eugenics is inherently evil, but one can argue that it is not the concept of eugenics that is evil but rather humanity’s inability to pursue eugenics wisely or ethically.

Well exactly. And where does one derive Wisdom?

 

[djrakowski]

Because it sickens me that people cannot become scientists because they possess too many defective genes. It also sickens me that people cannot understand this because they inherited a bad set of genes and they did nothing to deserve this. They cannot experience the pleasure of understanding Molecular Biology of the Cell through no fault of their own. :crying: :crying:

I supposed it would be best to eliminate these deleterious genes.

Would it be best to eliminate my son, who is now 8 years old, and fails every socioeconomic test you’ve put forth thus far? He’ll likely never understand scientific concepts to the level of my former college roommate, who has a PhD in cellular and molecular biology and is employed by Harvard Medical. He’ll not likely understand how to work with computers the way I do, and will earn significantly less income than I have. Because my wife and I have to spend so much of our time caring for him, and have had to spend tens of thousands of dollars to pay for therapists, I don’t have the time or money to pursue a master’s degree as I had intended.

You see, in your definition, my son has exerted a deleterious effect on the quality of life in our household - that is, if we’re to apply your standard. But, if you’re to apply my standard (and God’s), there’s a world of good he’s already done in his short life. He’s brought joy into the hearts of everyone he’s met, he’s led my wife and I out of the selfish ways in which we lived prior to his birth, and most importantly, he’s a bearer of the image of God, regardless of his deficits in certain abilities you seem to value above all others.

Perhaps my son is here to teach those who would value their own satisfcation and intellectual stimulation above all else how to develop a real sense of compassion. And real compassion doesn’t involve murder (yes, murder) - or, as you put it in such cold, clinical language, equality of outcome through eugenics and embryo selection.

 

[jman507]

One does not obtain a 100% yield. I haven’t done any real organic chemistry, but from what I do know much has to planned out (the work up in organic chemistry requires assiduous diligence). You do not get 100% of a given product and it is usually accompanied with other products. I suppose one can seperate the products using chromatography.

Yeah, that part of the problem, it’s tough a lot of time to have a lot of accuracy with simple enough processes, much less a process you don’t have a lot of chances of practise hone your technique before it’s role out. I think if your going to try to engineer IQ even on a small scale your going to have a hard time of getting the planned results. (For those of you that might not be following my posts in this thread, I’m not including the moral reasoning into the argument, because I don’t think the process would even prove to provide results true and accurate to the theoretical ideal.)

I certainly must say I always enjoy replying to you. If your always ready to hone your ideas, I’ll say I’ll always respect you.

 

[BioCatholic]

Humans are the result of Eugenics by Nature Herself. Some people just can’t accept that we are the result of Natural Selection. God wrote the law of physics just the right and perfect way for us Humans to appear. We are still evolving right now. look at our appendix, which produces powerful Proteases, which are needed to break down raw meat. It is disappearing because almost no human eats raw meat.

The same could be done for any computer simulation if you write the rules and parameters just right.

Every married couple practices mild eugenics too. I always could not resist a very athletic woman. I didn’t need the prim and priss, and loved girls who played soccer, lacrosse ect. I selected a mate based on that preference, which assuming that I didnt have a vasectomy, my offspring would have received her and mine athletic abilities.

Things go very wrong when you start selecting what offspring will survive based on an arbitrary societal desire ect.