in what way was the eugenics movement in the 1920-1930s wrong? It seems like the modern welfare state and modern medicine simply encourages those less intelligent and with genetic flaws to breed more.
Why shouldn't we try to improve the general genetic health and intelligence of the human race by say sterilizing the bottom 1-2% every year?
Because black people and liberals have rights too. Also we always need burger flippers.
bullshit, that is what robots are for.
>in what way was the eugenics movement in the 1920-1930s wrong
>much of the original movement was not aimed at African-Americans. According to Leon, the system of racial segregation in the U.S. was such that most eugenics advocates did not perceive a "threat." Rather, it was aimed largely at the immigrants from southern and eastern Europe who came to the U.S. in great numbers between about 1880 and 1924. These were largely Italians, Poles and Slavic peoples.
Scientifically there is no error with the idea of eugenics but it is objectively morally wrong
> Objective morals
Genetics don't work like that.
Genetic diversity is always biologically superior because you have no idea what factors may arise in the future that lead to extinction. Sexual reproduction is more advantageous than asexual reproduction for this reason because even though it has its fair share of issues such as relying on another organism to reproduce, it will produce more diverse organisms that can adapt to changing environmental conditions. A bacterial colony can be wiped out completely by antibacterial soap, but just one genetic mutation in a single cell that gives resilience to it allows the species as a collective to live on. You might be thinking: "but user there's no way something like intelligence can be detrimental to the survival of our species so surely we can eliminate all the retards right?" The thing is that we have no idea of what situations might arise in the future that give them an advantage so that the human race may survive. Hell, climate change and superbugs are proving to be two issues threatening our survival as a species and they were caused because of our intelligence allowing us to burn fossil fuels and develop antibacterial soap.
Source?
Shitty metrics and analysis, mostly.
We found out that most of those "congenital" conditions were actually caused by a shitty environment.
what is the point in eugenics?
Ethics only really serves to hold science back. Imagine if scientists thought the use of HeLa cells as unethical.
It's something that starts off as an idea of ridding society of the undesirables by genetic exclusion. Then it goes full slippery slope when the next generation realizes that among the desirables, there are still a couple undesirable traits. Then you end up with everyone getting genocided outside of one bloodline. Then that bloodline genocides itself whenever a mutation occurs. Then natural selection wipes them out because they aren't built to handle multiple situations as a species. They are no longer diverse.
Scientifically there's plenty wrong with the idea of eugenics, and any argument against it can easily start and end right there. It's completely unfeasible because the 'desired traits' are arbitrary qualities that are both impossible to measure quantitatively and massively affected by environment on top of any heritable effects. Additionally, human generational times are far too long to have any noticeable effect in time periods measured in less than millennia even in comparatively small populations - when scaled to current population sizes (or even feasible sizes after the fabled 'purge') it would be statistically pretty much impossible to completely eliminate ANY given (recessive) gene from the gene pool, let alone genes so obviously complex as those that govern human behaviour - and all this requiring, in addition, a government or authority with the capacity to force the entire population into this scheme and maintain that power structure for longer than any specific civilization has ever existed on Earth by several orders of magnitude.
If we encourage people like Physics PhD and other people in STEM field to have an above replacement fertility rate, and people in low skilled jobs to have a below replacement fertility rate, it can preserve genetic diversity to a much greater extent and by each generation population would also get smarter.
>arbitrary qualities
Some people are clearly more intelligent and stronger than others. Maybe not objectively, but in most practical senses.
>undesirable genes are impossible to completely eliminate
Just because it might be difficult to completely eliminate these genes doesn't mean we can't minimize their frequency.
A holocaust.
Because of two things:
Nature vs Nurture Argument
and
Individual rights
These are Russian domesticated Silver Foxes.
They were bred and domesticated by the Soviet Union over decades to create foxes suitable for the fur trade. They bred them for qualities to make them docile and tame for humans, qualities similar to those of dogs.
The problem is the genes for behavior, to make them get along well with their human handlers, also made their coats mottled. This made them completely useless for the fur trade. All that's left is to try and sell them as pets.
This is what we got for trying to breed one simple trait, to make foxes docile and easy to handle.
The problem is that genes are associated. Turn one on and you turn multiple ones on. It's not as easy as saying 'let's breed humans for intelligence or strength' because you are certainly breeding into people undesirable traits as well. There's no way around it.
Except there IS a way around it, called genetic engineering. Where we pull apart and put together genes artificially instead of guessing and checking. So please explain why Eugenics has any place whatsoever in a world where any benefits will come with hazards and the practice itself will become completely obsolete within 200 years?
>hmmm, think ill create a eugenics thread
Roflmao, I love you Veeky Forums
Because if you jump straight to genetic engineering, we can't claim one race is superior and deserves to be the breeding stock and we have to skip the genocide. Plus you can bring the good qualities of one group of people to another without changing how they look on the outside. It's no fair! You're making us skip the only part /pol/tards would get to enioy!
Exactly.
But using genetic engineering to "improve" people along whatever desires lines IS eugenics.
Eugenics is the improvement of the population through genetic engineering. The fact that previous attempts were done by hamfisted morons is irrelevant. We don't need to use mass sterilization or genocide or incentives when we can use more direct methods of genetic engineering.
You're like the people who say there's some difference between selective breeding and GMO crops that makes GMO crops give you cancer. Both are genetic engineering, you're just going about it through different methods.
Monoculture that's developed as a result of agriculture is still a massive issue for the overall fitness of plant life regardless of it being done by GMO technology or not. Now apply that same idea of monoculture whether through GMO technology or selective breeding to humans and you can see where the good intentions fall apart. Any threat that targets the specific trait we deemed important enough to spread among the entire population could easily wipe our entire species out.
Eugenics pretty much contradict with human rights if it were to be implemented on any large scale, the Nazis soured the concept to most by showing what eugenics look like when taken to its logical conclusion. Genetic engineering is a much more humane and less problematic way of improving the species.
>Why shouldn't we try to improve the general genetic health and intelligence of the human race by say sterilizing the bottom 1-2% every year?
Harry Laughlin was trying to do this, but everybody hated the Nazis so he never got much stateside traction. Most of the objections are regarding things like "How do you decide who doesn't make the cut?" "Who gets to decide the value of another's life?" etc.
>tldr muh ethics
I agree with you for the most part, but
basically sums it up. You should find a different way to word your argument.