So leading from another thread....Eugenics? Yay or Nay?
Discussion
After following this thread for a while (The John Venables one) someone mentioned Eugenics and now it is rapidly developing into Gowdin's territory and name calling but it does raise a couple of serious questions for me.
The first is the hypothetical one and covers all humans on the planet.
Would Eugenics be helpful for the advancement of the human race?
The second is the one that is joked about in pubs and mentioned on internet threads.
Would Eugenics be helpful to the advancement of the UK?
I will answer both as best i can but would be interested to see how others feel.
Would Eugenics be helpful for the advancement of the human race?
I can see no way that humanity will survive unless something is done at some point, as a race we are getting larger, lazier, possibly stupider and we are stagnating. From a Natural selection stand point at some time in the future we will have to cull the herd or die.
This is before we get to the lack of resources and space on Earth for our current population let alone the projections for 20, 50 and 100 years time.
Would Eugenics be helpful to the advancement of the UK?
Most of us will have thought about it, i know i often joke about it (i refer to eugenics and involuntary euthanasia very regularly after dealing with idiots at work) but would you be happy with the idea that the State (especially one with politicians as useless as ours can be) had a say in who could have children?
We could stop the 5th generation of dolescum who will never have a job and just sponge from us hard working PHers in one swoop!
We could greatly reduce some genetic conditions.
But would all this turn us into a Gattaca style society where genetics controlled status or would it be something better/worse?
For all the logical arguments i can provide regarding the reason for eugenics to be carried out in the UK they never quite convince me it would be worth the moral and social cost. So although i feel the UK would benefit from a well organised Eugenics program i would definitely protest against it.
The first is the hypothetical one and covers all humans on the planet.
Would Eugenics be helpful for the advancement of the human race?
The second is the one that is joked about in pubs and mentioned on internet threads.
Would Eugenics be helpful to the advancement of the UK?
I will answer both as best i can but would be interested to see how others feel.
Would Eugenics be helpful for the advancement of the human race?
I can see no way that humanity will survive unless something is done at some point, as a race we are getting larger, lazier, possibly stupider and we are stagnating. From a Natural selection stand point at some time in the future we will have to cull the herd or die.
This is before we get to the lack of resources and space on Earth for our current population let alone the projections for 20, 50 and 100 years time.
Would Eugenics be helpful to the advancement of the UK?
Most of us will have thought about it, i know i often joke about it (i refer to eugenics and involuntary euthanasia very regularly after dealing with idiots at work) but would you be happy with the idea that the State (especially one with politicians as useless as ours can be) had a say in who could have children?
We could stop the 5th generation of dolescum who will never have a job and just sponge from us hard working PHers in one swoop!
We could greatly reduce some genetic conditions.
But would all this turn us into a Gattaca style society where genetics controlled status or would it be something better/worse?
For all the logical arguments i can provide regarding the reason for eugenics to be carried out in the UK they never quite convince me it would be worth the moral and social cost. So although i feel the UK would benefit from a well organised Eugenics program i would definitely protest against it.
Perhaps the problem is that our current benefit-ridden 'society' has allowed certain sectors of the population to expand beyond the natural state. The UK would be far better off and a nicer place to live if the population was selectively reduced, but it's not going to happen so the situation will continue, and no doubt get worse until something happens. What that something will be I don't know; choose from war, civil war, pestilience, famine, revolution.
For an answer I turn to Professor Albert Einstein, who was propositioned by a film actress, who said they should make babies as they would have his brains and her beauty. Einstein was a bit of an old goat, so credit to him when he said no, answering, "What a disaster if they had your brains and my beauty?"
In the random selection of genes that is reproduction, "Regression to the mean" is a feature. This implies that two randomly selected parents (as parents usually are) who are tall are more likely to have children shorter than they are, or less intelligent if they are bright. Good examples are the Darwin and Huxley families, in which several relatives weer prominent scientost in the 19th century, but of whose modern scions we hear nothing.
Only in the very artificial situation of [u]selecting[/u] parents and in-breeding thier offspring can traits be brought into prominence in a family line, which is the eugenics way. Somehow, whatever benefits, and in the light of the probable future of the Arranged Marriage in ASina communities where it is disappearing fast, I don't think that humans will put up with it, even if it is useful for dogs and cattle.
But omgus, the "eugenics" policies you mention are nothing to do with selection. Population control is a completely different subject, which you may have noticed has the support of David Attenborough. Neither is forcible sterilisation of the "unfit", rightly an enormously sensitive subject, even when it is considered for 'severe learning difficulty' people, let alone NRS social class E long-term unemployed.
So, not only would full blown eugenics not work, it would be unworkable.
John
John
In the random selection of genes that is reproduction, "Regression to the mean" is a feature. This implies that two randomly selected parents (as parents usually are) who are tall are more likely to have children shorter than they are, or less intelligent if they are bright. Good examples are the Darwin and Huxley families, in which several relatives weer prominent scientost in the 19th century, but of whose modern scions we hear nothing.
Only in the very artificial situation of [u]selecting[/u] parents and in-breeding thier offspring can traits be brought into prominence in a family line, which is the eugenics way. Somehow, whatever benefits, and in the light of the probable future of the Arranged Marriage in ASina communities where it is disappearing fast, I don't think that humans will put up with it, even if it is useful for dogs and cattle.
But omgus, the "eugenics" policies you mention are nothing to do with selection. Population control is a completely different subject, which you may have noticed has the support of David Attenborough. Neither is forcible sterilisation of the "unfit", rightly an enormously sensitive subject, even when it is considered for 'severe learning difficulty' people, let alone NRS social class E long-term unemployed.
So, not only would full blown eugenics not work, it would be unworkable.
John
John
Edited by tapkaJohnD on Wednesday 20th February 16:29
tapkaJohnD said:
For an answer I turn to Professor Albert Einstein, who was propositioned by a film actress, who said they should make babies as they would have his brains and her beauty. Einstein was a bit of an old goat, so credit to him when he said no, answering, "What a disaster if they had your brains and my beauty?"
In the random selection of genes that is reproduction, "Regression to the mean" is a feature. This implies that two randomly selected parents (as parents usually are) who are tall are more likely to have children shorter than they are, or less intelligent if they are bright. Good examples are the Darwin and Huxley families, in which several relatives weer prominent scientost in the 19th century, but of whose modern scions we hear nothing.
Only in the very artificial situation of [u]selecting[/u] parents and in-breeding thier offspring can traits be brought into prominence in a family line, which is the eugenics way. Somehow, whatever benefits, and in the light of the probable future of the Arranged Marriage in ASina communities where it is disappearing fast, I don't think that humans will put up with it, even if it is useful for dogs and cattle.
But omgus, the "eugenics" policies you mention are nothing to do with selection. Population control is a completely different subject, which you may have noticed has the support of David Attenborough. Neither is forcible sterilisation of the "unfit", rightly an enormously sensitive subject, even when it is considered for 'severe learning difficulty' people, let alone NRS social class E long-term unemployed.
So, not only would full blown eugenics not work, it would be unworkable.
John
John
You don't know about Sir Andrew Huxley who won the Nobel for the nerve action potential? Had smart family all round...In the random selection of genes that is reproduction, "Regression to the mean" is a feature. This implies that two randomly selected parents (as parents usually are) who are tall are more likely to have children shorter than they are, or less intelligent if they are bright. Good examples are the Darwin and Huxley families, in which several relatives weer prominent scientost in the 19th century, but of whose modern scions we hear nothing.
Only in the very artificial situation of [u]selecting[/u] parents and in-breeding thier offspring can traits be brought into prominence in a family line, which is the eugenics way. Somehow, whatever benefits, and in the light of the probable future of the Arranged Marriage in ASina communities where it is disappearing fast, I don't think that humans will put up with it, even if it is useful for dogs and cattle.
But omgus, the "eugenics" policies you mention are nothing to do with selection. Population control is a completely different subject, which you may have noticed has the support of David Attenborough. Neither is forcible sterilisation of the "unfit", rightly an enormously sensitive subject, even when it is considered for 'severe learning difficulty' people, let alone NRS social class E long-term unemployed.
So, not only would full blown eugenics not work, it would be unworkable.
John
John
Edited by tapkaJohnD on Wednesday 20th February 16:29
Population size is certainly something that we need to look into - should have been looking into it for at least 30 years really. I read an interesting thesis that proposed how properly organised modern farming could support a global population of up to 9billion but those very methods rely entirely on fossil fuels which are not going to last indefinitely.
Independently to the above, some chap on R4 a couple of years ago suggested population would grow to 9billion (why always 9billion?) and level-off but I don't know what he was basing that on. Sounded speculative and unlikely to me.
The recent Utopia 6-part series on C4 had a very interesting premise where they "vaccinate" people against flu but make them sterile in the process, thus reducing population without actually killing anyone which might sound reasonable from the perspective of someone who already had children but of course that's only one perspective.
I believe any population number control needs general agreement in today's world which means it'll never happen, but I don't believe it'll be long before emergency measures could be drawn-up to deal with the ever-decreasing number of jobs, amount of food, availability of housing, availability of "quiet" spaces as the roads fill-up, the countryside is built upon, and people are recycled into food by Soylent Green (OK the last bit is silly but you get the picture).
Eugenics though... the controlled breeding to improve arguable features or capability... I believe it's a good idea when viewed from this perspective (i.e. we haven't done it) but what will it look like once we have a race of superhumans looking down on the rest of us? Perhaps instead of breeding better people we aim to improve those that are alive today? That way we all have the opportunity to improve and maybe as a consequence we get to pass some of that onto our offspring anyway?
Independently to the above, some chap on R4 a couple of years ago suggested population would grow to 9billion (why always 9billion?) and level-off but I don't know what he was basing that on. Sounded speculative and unlikely to me.
The recent Utopia 6-part series on C4 had a very interesting premise where they "vaccinate" people against flu but make them sterile in the process, thus reducing population without actually killing anyone which might sound reasonable from the perspective of someone who already had children but of course that's only one perspective.
I believe any population number control needs general agreement in today's world which means it'll never happen, but I don't believe it'll be long before emergency measures could be drawn-up to deal with the ever-decreasing number of jobs, amount of food, availability of housing, availability of "quiet" spaces as the roads fill-up, the countryside is built upon, and people are recycled into food by Soylent Green (OK the last bit is silly but you get the picture).
Eugenics though... the controlled breeding to improve arguable features or capability... I believe it's a good idea when viewed from this perspective (i.e. we haven't done it) but what will it look like once we have a race of superhumans looking down on the rest of us? Perhaps instead of breeding better people we aim to improve those that are alive today? That way we all have the opportunity to improve and maybe as a consequence we get to pass some of that onto our offspring anyway?
What are the "desired" characteristics you would like to see bred into humans?
Do you think that any sort of concensus could ever be agreed on such characteristics?
Or do you think that the state should decide arbitarilly the types of people it would like to retain?
Would anyone voluntarilly decide that people like themselves should be removed from society by selective breeding?
Do you think that any sort of concensus could ever be agreed on such characteristics?
Or do you think that the state should decide arbitarilly the types of people it would like to retain?
Would anyone voluntarilly decide that people like themselves should be removed from society by selective breeding?
Watchman said:
... Perhaps instead of breeding better people we aim to improve those that are alive today? That way we all have the opportunity to improve and maybe as a consequence we get to pass some of that onto our offspring anyway?
Surprisingly, to me at least, I think this is our best option.However, we then have the same problem Eric mentions - who decides what is taught?
For example; current popular thinking is low fat diet and ever more exercise just to stave off obesity. This is CLEARLY b
ks but is taught by and to everyone.I was thinking more of physical improvements directly linked to scientific process rather than education however I think your approach has more merit because it should be more easily achievable and would promote less hand-wringing from the anti-eugenics society.
The sort of physical improvements I doubt anyone (or "many" at least) would contest are the reduction/removal of cancer and/or heart disease from the human experience, as well as an improvement in eyesight especially into old age, and the ability to more easily shape ourselves to avoid obesity (assuming everyone dislikes it).
Super strength and intelligence is a nice film script but marginal improvements in both could be achieved by healthier lifestyles, which coincidentally would help with the reduction of cancer, heart disease and obesity too.
The sort of physical improvements I doubt anyone (or "many" at least) would contest are the reduction/removal of cancer and/or heart disease from the human experience, as well as an improvement in eyesight especially into old age, and the ability to more easily shape ourselves to avoid obesity (assuming everyone dislikes it).
Super strength and intelligence is a nice film script but marginal improvements in both could be achieved by healthier lifestyles, which coincidentally would help with the reduction of cancer, heart disease and obesity too.
Hooli said:
It'd work if we could breed out the lazy entitlement 'gene'.
All it needs is a Government with the courage to cut benefits. Unfortunately in a democracy you need votes to stay in power, and the only way to win votes these days is give people free money (because everyone now has the vote regardless of age or intelligence or fitness to decide what is best for the country). So democracy will proliferate itself to death.
the internets said:
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.
Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.
Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff