Are there any scientific reasons that speak against eugenics?

farquit
farquit

Are there any scientific reasons that speak against eugenics?

askme
askme

@farquit
By 'against' you mean a qualitative judgement that belongs to the field of ethics, not science.

likme
likme

@askme
No, I mean like risk of death is a reason that speaks against drinking poison.

SniperWish
SniperWish

@likme
You mean like how humans will get their feelings hurt when they eventually make gentically superior beings to them?

WebTool
WebTool

@farquit
muh freedoms. also this @askme
. Pure science doesn't make value judgements.

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

@SniperWish
No, I mean like how medicine researches how to avoid premature death. If you can't come up with any answer just stop replying instead of trying to desconstruct the question in a desperate attempt to make it look like you're not a brainlet.
@WebTool
I didn't ask for value judgments. A scientific reason would be a researched effect of eugenic practices that would counteract the goals of those practices in the long run, for example.

Supergrass
Supergrass

@farquit
Eugenics is, as far as I understand, trying to make a "better" human. Genetics is complicated, and "better" just doesn't really exist in science. For example, the adaptation that resists Malaria, sickle-cell anemia has drawbacks, but generally lower ones than getting Malaria. Do you want sickle-cell?

Booteefool
Booteefool

@Supergrass
What "better" is doesn't really matter for a scientific approach to eugenics, that's an idea that comes before considering how to realize it scientifically. You decide you want to avoid certain clearly defined heritable defects and science can to a hopefully increasing degree answer whether and how that's possible.

Boy_vs_Girl
Boy_vs_Girl

@farquit
Yes. Genetics don't work that way.
"Pure" as in "without defects" human gene pools don't exist because variation is part of the dna resilience.

farquit
farquit

@Boy_vs_Girl
The idea of eugenics would be to engineer resilience.

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

@Boy_vs_Girl
But if you know what desired traits you want, you can make a subjective assessment of what gene pool is "superior".

If tallness is desired, gene pools with genes that increase height are desired over gene pools with genes that decrease height.

If blue eyes are desired, etc. etc.

cum2soon
cum2soon

@farquit
None. This is where ethics takes the lead to decide what is wrong.

Snarelure
Snarelure

@cum2soon
Ethically, perhaps the world would be better with more whites, because blacks are over-represented in crime statistics.

SniperGod
SniperGod

@Snarelure
Especially in Africa.

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

@Snarelure
No. Ethically, you shouldn`t judge other people based on their skin color

JunkTop
JunkTop

@TurtleCat
Following this moral guideline demonstrates a preference for western-originated ethics, which is clearly an unethical bias.

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

@Snarelure
All the major wars were committed by wh*T, wh*T subhuman should be EXTERMINATED.

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

@haveahappyday
You'd have to think about more than just that though. You'd have to start with varied groups and not only breed the traits you want, but also enough variations involving the traits you want that it helps defend against any one illness killing everyone. That's probably possible after more study into what is beneficial evolutionary and with CRISPR editing though.

whereismyname
whereismyname

@JunkTop
are you one of those guys who thinks there wouldn't be science without europeans?

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

@whereismyname
No?

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

@whereismyname
Well, seeing as Europe was the center of the renaissance, it's probably fair to say that without Europeans there would certainly be less science.

happy_sad
happy_sad

@Garbage Can Lid
But we wouldn't have discovered radioactivity if women weren't allowed to do science!

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

@GoogleCat
@Boy_vs_Girl
Eugenics for specific traits works fine. We've done it with pretty much every domestic animal with great success, and the only times it goes badly is when people try to out-meme each other and make the most disgustingly deformed creature possible for purely aesthetic reasons (see: English Bulldogs).

Animals have been successfully breed for intelligence, strength, speed, muscle mass, color, friendliness, ability to learn, etc. Human eugenics has seen success when it has been attempted, such as making extremely tall basketball players.

The real problem with eugenics, and the reason it's feared, is because the fear that people practicing eugenics by preventing certain people from breeding. Nobody wants to be prevented from breeding because it makes them feel tfw no gf. Eugenics can be performed just positively by matching up people with positive traits and not trying to actively castrate retards

cum2soon
cum2soon

@happy_sad
Well, seeing as a woman discovered radioactivity, it's probably fair to say that without women there would be less radioactivity.

kizzmybutt
kizzmybutt

@SomethingNew
Eugenics can be performed just positively by matching up people with positive traits
This is how Robert Heinlein explains the Howard Family, a group that achieves extended human life (150-250 years) by providing a cash incentive for people with long-lived ancestry to marry and produce progeny. Those progeny are then matched with other Howard Family progeny, over and over again.

In the book (Methuselah's Children) I think it takes about 100 years, so about 5-6 generations to achieve noticeably extended human life. It's ethical because no one is forced to do anything. They just have a very strong incentive (big $$$) to marry an eligible candidate and have babies.

What we need is a white-person breeding program.

hairygrape
hairygrape

@cum2soon
That wasn't the point you were making though. You bounded morality to europeans

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

@hairygrape
No, I bounded the survival + perpetuation of science with Europeans.

Firespawn
Firespawn

@kizzmybutt
just glossing over what new incentives this creates and how it changes the socio-economic dynamics of the whole planet
ignores the growing speciation this will cause
again STEMlords are really smart aren’t they?

RavySnake
RavySnake

@kizzmybutt
If it works in a fiction novel, it will work in reality
The state of Veeky Forums today.

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

@farquit
The only arguments against it I can really think of are the methods, implementation, potential goals and the performance of the people who pursue it. In other words not with the idea itself.

We're a long way from eugenics. As a society we still haven't debated whether or not the ability to rear children is a right, at least in public. There's people who still resent applications of biology whether that be cloning or printing organs.

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

@Firespawn
just glossing over what new incentives this creates and how it changes the socio-economic dynamics of the whole planet
Well it's really ad-hoc at first, probably no more instability than any system of arranged marriage would cause. As the group grows larger (not just in progeny but new recruits of long-lived ancestry being inducted) the Howards effectively go into hiding, concealing their real age, moving location when their curiously slowed aging would become noticed and using plastic surgery and cosmetics to mask their actual aged appearance.

They also map the genetics of every member and make sure they are matched with someone from the Family that will improve genetic fitness. To prevent undesirable genetic traits being reinforced through incest.

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page