(+)Eugenics, Yea or Nay?

[JBeukema]

I did? I thought I rejected your wording of "positive gene therapy" and explained that gene therapy is actual science, so it does not need to be dressed up in pretty words to fool people, unlike eugenics.

I would consider saving women from a breast cancer gene a positive thing wouldn't you?

Spin it, word it however you want the end results are the same. You agree that you would avail yourself of gene therapy if available.

Yes I would, which in no way translates as supporting eugenics in any way, shape, or form.

Except that it is by definition.

 

[FLGoldilocks]

Where eugenics is defined for the sake of this discussion as:

The use of genetic technologies that we possess or shall come to possess to enable parents to determine what genetic traits are passed on to their children, with the stated aims and goals of eliminating genetic disease, improving the human form (eg:restoring the human ability to synthesize our own vitamin C, should it prove possible to repair the damaged pseudogene), prolonging life, and improving the quality of human life.
​

Honestly, I'm kind of torn. The idea of being able to ensure my children would be entirely healthy and not ever have to endure some of the health conditions my family has faced (diabetes, heart disease, etc.) is a very nice thought. They're my kids, and I love them, and naturally want them to be healthy. But...on the other hand, people get sick, they die. It does happen, sad though it may be. And what would happen if people didn't get sick and die? We could end up with an even more grossly overpopulated planet.

People will always get sick. There is no end in sight to viruses and bacteria. There's a case to be made, in fact, that our eliminations of the weaker forms continues to fuel their evolution into more dangerous forms. This seems be be how MRSA came into being.

People will always age. At least that is to say that genetics cannot stop the aging process. That comes to more bizarre technologies, such as 'brain uploading', which are of questionable possibility and feasibility.


Also, the world's not really overpopulated. It can produce enough food and potable water (especially with modern methods) for everyone and its a matter of opinion as to what level of population density in a given area becomes unpleasant/alienating. It's the distribution of people and resources, as well as the inefficient and 'dirty' technologies we now use that are problematic.

And it starts with improving the quality of life...but where does it end? A prospective mom goes in intending nothing more than to ensure her baby won't get diabetes like the baby's grandmother and father did, and walks out having decided she's going to have a blue-eyed, blond-haired girl that will be 5'9" and be thin all her life, and with an IQ higher than Einstein's.

Would that be so horrible? She has given her child the bet form she can, just as the woman who marries a man with the desired traits gives her child the best form she can through the means available to her (that is, through selectively breeding with someone she believes carries the desired attributes). Indeed, natural selection and selective breeding are the same thing; the application of intelligence and awareness of the decision is simply another environmental pressure.

Is there any difference in trying to help your child appear attractive by providing the best form and buying her makeup so she can appear attractive? Either way, you're helping her succeed (1, 2, 3) and also to be happy. [While attractiveness does not guarantee happiness, it increases the chances of success in the social aspect of life, as well as attracting a mate later in life.

What difference, then, is there? I myself carry the alleles for blond hair and blue eyes, though I do not express them. Is it any more wrong for me to choose to marry a blonde woman in the hopes of passing down a trait I believe will help our child be perceived as beautiful and improve her quality of life than it is to buy her, when she is a teen, the hair dye and makeup she wishes to use to appear more beautiful? Is it any more wrong to forgo the roll of the dice and use what methods I have to ensure I pass those alleles along? Is that any different than choosing the blonde partner instead of blindly wondering what alleles my partner might carry?


You are effectively declaring it immoral to know anything about your partner's appearance, lest your views of what is attractive effect your decision to have a child with someone you consider attractive. You are declaring it immoral for a woman to refuse the fat guy who sweats too much and choose the muscular man across the bar because, should they have children in the future, she has actively chosen what traits she wishes to pass to her children.

Truly, your condemnations of a love for one's child and the desire to pass along the best traits and provide one's child with the best possible form are absurd in the highest order.

I'm sorry, you seem to have attached an opinion to my statements that I never made. So let me correct your assumptions. I never said it's immoral to know anything about your partner's appearance, nor did I condemn anyone's love for their children. I have two children of my own that I love very much. My statements NEVER implied either of those things. What I said, and if I wasn't clear about it, then I apologize, was that I think it would be wrong to be able to go in and use science in order to get those specific traits. Choosing a partner because you think they'd help you make beautiful, smart, wonderful babies is one thing. That's the way it's always been done. But to choose your partner, and then go to a doctor or a lab, and say "ok, I want a baby that is..." is just...not right, in my opinion. I can't stop anyone else from doing it, but I don't think it would be right. I mean, think about it. Using gender as the example...often, women want girls, and men want boys. So who gets to decide which gender they pick? Assuming that's been figured out, what happens if most people decide they want girls? Eventually, it gets harder and harder to continue procreating if there aren't enough men to do their part. And vice versa. I think nature does a pretty good job of keeping genders equal enough to continue the species, and if we start playing with that, we could screw it all up. Same with eye color or hair color...eventually, if enough people are picking the same things, we end up with a population like the kids in old "Village of the Damned" movie, where everyone looks alike. I don't think that would be any good either.

Don't put words in my mouth next time, please. If you think you see a meaning behind what I say, ask me. I'll be happy to clarify.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I would consider saving women from a breast cancer gene a positive thing wouldn't you?

Spin it, word it however you want the end results are the same. You agree that you would avail yourself of gene therapy if available.

Yes I would, which in no way translates as supporting eugenics in any way, shape, or form.

Do know who peanut is? I need him to say:


GGGGGEEEEENNNNNNNNNEEEEEETTTTTHHHHHEEEEEAAAAAARRRRPPPPPYYYYYY

And then look at you real dumb with his feathers flying

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Simple challenge for you, show me the universities that offer eugenics as part of its science/medical curriculum.

Simple. Look up genetics and gene theory. Those terms came into play after the 20s when Cold Spring Harbor and others wanted to distance themselves from certain things they'd done. You'd be wise to study your history if you don't want to look like a fool.

Does that mean I am correct, and no university, anywhere, teaches eugenics as a science?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I would consider saving women from a breast cancer gene a positive thing wouldn't you?

Spin it, word it however you want the end results are the same. You agree that you would avail yourself of gene therapy if available.

Yes I would, which in no way translates as supporting eugenics in any way, shape, or form.

Except that it is by definition.

Not in my dictionary.

 

[JBeukema]

Honestly, I'm kind of torn. The idea of being able to ensure my children would be entirely healthy and not ever have to endure some of the health conditions my family has faced (diabetes, heart disease, etc.) is a very nice thought. They're my kids, and I love them, and naturally want them to be healthy. But...on the other hand, people get sick, they die. It does happen, sad though it may be. And what would happen if people didn't get sick and die? We could end up with an even more grossly overpopulated planet.

People will always get sick. There is no end in sight to viruses and bacteria. There's a case to be made, in fact, that our eliminations of the weaker forms continues to fuel their evolution into more dangerous forms. This seems be be how MRSA came into being.

People will always age. At least that is to say that genetics cannot stop the aging process. That comes to more bizarre technologies, such as 'brain uploading', which are of questionable possibility and feasibility.


Also, the world's not really overpopulated. It can produce enough food and potable water (especially with modern methods) for everyone and its a matter of opinion as to what level of population density in a given area becomes unpleasant/alienating. It's the distribution of people and resources, as well as the inefficient and 'dirty' technologies we now use that are problematic.

And it starts with improving the quality of life...but where does it end? A prospective mom goes in intending nothing more than to ensure her baby won't get diabetes like the baby's grandmother and father did, and walks out having decided she's going to have a blue-eyed, blond-haired girl that will be 5'9" and be thin all her life, and with an IQ higher than Einstein's.

Would that be so horrible? She has given her child the bet form she can, just as the woman who marries a man with the desired traits gives her child the best form she can through the means available to her (that is, through selectively breeding with someone she believes carries the desired attributes). Indeed, natural selection and selective breeding are the same thing; the application of intelligence and awareness of the decision is simply another environmental pressure.

Is there any difference in trying to help your child appear attractive by providing the best form and buying her makeup so she can appear attractive? Either way, you're helping her succeed (1, 2, 3) and also to be happy. [While attractiveness does not guarantee happiness, it increases the chances of success in the social aspect of life, as well as attracting a mate later in life.

What difference, then, is there? I myself carry the alleles for blond hair and blue eyes, though I do not express them. Is it any more wrong for me to choose to marry a blonde woman in the hopes of passing down a trait I believe will help our child be perceived as beautiful and improve her quality of life than it is to buy her, when she is a teen, the hair dye and makeup she wishes to use to appear more beautiful? Is it any more wrong to forgo the roll of the dice and use what methods I have to ensure I pass those alleles along? Is that any different than choosing the blonde partner instead of blindly wondering what alleles my partner might carry?


You are effectively declaring it immoral to know anything about your partner's appearance, lest your views of what is attractive effect your decision to have a child with someone you consider attractive. You are declaring it immoral for a woman to refuse the fat guy who sweats too much and choose the muscular man across the bar because, should they have children in the future, she has actively chosen what traits she wishes to pass to her children.

Truly, your condemnations of a love for one's child and the desire to pass along the best traits and provide one's child with the best possible form are absurd in the highest order.

I'm sorry, you seem to have attached an opinion to my statements that I never made. So let me correct your assumptions. I never said it's immoral to know anything about your partner's appearance.

Explain why it is wrong, then, to choose your sexual partner based, in whole or part, on their appearance.

I have two children of my own that I love very much.

If you knew they were going to get sick, and you could prevent it, would you? What if you could make sure they weren't ill or flip a coin to find out?

Choosing a partner because you think they'd help you make beautiful, smart, wonderful babies is one thing. That's the way it's always been done. But to choose your partner, and then go to a doctor or a lab, and say "ok, I want a baby that is..." is just...not right, in my opinion

Why?

. I can't stop anyone else from doing it, but I don't think it would be right. I mean, think about it. Using gender as the example...often, women want girls, and men want boys. So who gets to decide which gender they pick?

Many men want daughters and many women want a son. How is the scenario you present any different than them screwing when Venus is in the sky because of some superstition?

Assuming that's been figured out, what happens if most people decide they want girls? Eventually, it gets harder and harder to continue procreating if there aren't enough men to do their part.

Right... because we live in Communist China and we're all going to suddenly decide to have only children on one gender

Same with eye color or hair color...eventually, if enough people are picking the same things, we end up with a population like the kids in old "Village of the Damned" movie, where everyone looks alike. I don't think that would be any good either.

In that case, you should join William Joyce and the neonazis. You see, as people mix, everyone ends up looking the same- brown eyes, brown or black hair, light brown skin. This is basic stuff.

 

[JBeukema]

Yes I would, which in no way translates as supporting eugenics in any way, shape, or form.

Except that it is by definition.

Not in my dictionary.

Yes, you love to redefine things when you're wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Except that it is by definition.

Not in my dictionary.

Yes, you love to redefine things when you're wrong.

I am not the one that made up a definition and inserted it into the OP.

I am also not the one who has not answered a simple challenge to produce something to prove that I am the one making things up.















just saying

 

[JBeukema]

go click on the links I gave you and learn to read

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Simple challenge for you, show me the universities that offer eugenics as part of its science/medical curriculum.

Not gene therapy, or evolution, or genetics, or anything else you are trying to lump under the heading of eugenics, but eugenics itself. Let me see that I am wrong about eugenics being a science by showing me all the places that teach it.

Prove me wrong.

Simple challenge, or so I thought.

His best answer?

go click on the links I gave you and learn to read

What links?

What is the evidence for evolution?

DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Allele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetic engineering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heritability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A bunch of Wiki links. Is Wikipedia now a university?

It shouldn't be hard to prove me wrong if eugenics is a legitimate science and not the psuedo-science I claim it is. One more time, show me a university that offers eugenics as a medical/science degree study program.

 

[JBeukema]

I gave you wiki because I couldn't find anything at your reading level; wiki was the lowest I could find. You'll just have to learn to read.

 

[JBeukema]

What is the evidence for evolution?

DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Allele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetic engineering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heritability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Prove that they don't follow the scientific method.


Eugenics is an umbrella term applying to the application of a number of fields, much as 'physics' actually refers to a number of fields, from astronomical physics to classical relativity, to quantum mechanics.

But you've gone 13 pages without overcoming your functional illiteracy; why expect you to change now?


You've already admitted that you'd, in all likelihood, come crawling to he doors of the eugenicists when it's your child's well-being we're dealing with.


That you're stupid enough that you can't tell a bullet from penicillin is not my problem.


Hey... what Einstein was doing was it pseudoscience before the schools started quoting him?

 

[JBeukema]

By the 1920s the eugenics movement was so well established that many universities in the United States and Europe offered courses on eugenics.

BTW, if you want to know how eugenics got renamed 'genetics', this book tells you why

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Weak-Eugenics-Americas/dp/1568583214"]Amazon.com: War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race (9781568583211): Edwin Black: Books[/ame]



http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/

 

[JBeukema]

eugenics (genetics) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

 

[FA_Q2]

All quotes taken from your Britannica link cited above JB.

WOW, JB. Did you even READ your Britannica link?!?! That supported windbags assertion quite well.

the selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans.

However, it ultimately failed as a science in the 1930s and ’40s, when the assumptions of eugenicists became heavily criticized and the Nazis used eugenics to support the extermination of entire races.

I would also note JB that your definition is WRONG as cited in your own article:

A language pertaining to reproduction and eugenics developed, leading to terms such as positive eugenics, defined as promoting the proliferation of “good stock,” and negative eugenics, defined as prohibiting marriage and breeding between “defective stock.”

Eugenics = breeding. It is NOT genetics, that is a totally different aspect of controlling the human form. You seem to be operating under 2 separate definitions and are both of you are too hot headed after 13 pages to come to a simple agreement. YES to genetic engineering (what you actually support with your argument JB) and NO to eugenics, the incredible sadistic act of selective breeding. This is rather simple and I am surprised that it has come to 13 pages.

 

[AllieBaba]

go click on the links I gave you and learn to read

Pukeama, you don't understand definitions or even the English language.

 

[FA_Q2]

I suppose so, since it IS rather "negative" to remove the abnormalities from the stock to start with.

But here's a prime example of why I would be in favor of it:

My bro & sis-in-law. He has a condition that is ALWAYS passed on to the progeny, which begins with legal blindness and ends with complete blindness. They had 3 children, and all three carry this gene AND are affected by it.

To my way of thinking, the parents were remiss and could almost be accused of child abuse for their part in the creation of these "malformed" kids, and to allow those children to then go on to procreate, themselves, is an absolute crime against THEIR children.

I would hope that most sterilization would be Voluntary, since the premise is logical, but folks are always going to scream about "their" rights, especially when "their" rights negatively affect others "rights."

UNTIL a solution can be found, to repair the damaged allele(s),

yes, I think it should be mandatory for anyone carrying that/those allele(s) to undergo sterilization.

In one way, it sounds so facist, but looked at from the other side of the coin, it appears to be empathetic/sympathetic to the OTHERs that are involved in protecting THEIR "rights."

MY GOD, you are scary! Do you even understand the position you have put forth and the effect that come out of history from this. I am surprised and vastly disappointed that this has not been fully addressed within this thread exactly HOW terrible this outlook is. It is EXACTLY what the Nazis started with and leads to exactly the same outcome. Forced sterilization is a horrendous act and should NEVER be promoted or tolerated. How can you correlate this belief with what we hold dear as Americans?

 

[AllieBaba]

Progressives know that. But they think THEY'RE more worthy than Nazis, which makes it okay.

 

[FA_Q2]

The fact that the idea you should control not only another's basic rights but the entire direction of humanity like that even exists anymore is downright scary. How 'holier than thou' you would have to be to inflict that on the entire human race is rather arrogant and the repercussions have spoken for themselves.

 

[syrenn]

This is rather simple and I am surprised that it has come to 13 pages.

I tried that and it didn't work

Semantics boys.

How about the term positive gene therapy instead of positive eugenics? That gets rid of QW's bit about breading programs and culling. AND it allows for genetic choices to be made by parents.