The ethics of eugenics

[scalyblue]

I'm helping somebody with a paper and I was wondering if anybody knew some good books / sites regarding the ethical standpoints of various cultures / religions on eugenics in both the present and the past.

Of course, somebody immediately pulled the "darwin=eugenics evilllll man! evolution is bunk" crap..so I'm having to debunk that too.

On the same subject, apparently the person who founded the organization that would eventually become planned parenthood was a proponent of negative eugenics, but she left planned parenthood's predecessor over 25 years before it became planned parenthood. I drew an analogy that this would be like considering everybody who drives a Volkswagen to be a nazi supporter, can anybody think of more analogies on that in case he insists?

 

[Niocan]

A better analogy would be a company that sells cars will still continue to sell cars in 25 years;
Or a branch of science will continue to exist in one form or another in 25 years...

Eugenics is wrong in all accounts, no matter the justification behind it.

 

[scalyblue]

And no, those aren't accurate analogies, because neither of them indicate an ulterior motive. The implication is that planned parenthood is executing eugenic practices due to its association with the original founder of the organization that planned parenthood was incorporated from that wasn't designed to execute eugenic practices.

And it's wrong if you and your partner get genetic testing, that testing states that any children you would have are going to have a serious congenital disease, and you decide to adopt instead of having children because of those test results?

 

[Giliell]

Well, I think those analogies are pretty good.
Another thing to do would be looking for quotes from conservative politicians or church leaders and such made at around the same time as those Margret Singer (?), founder of planned parenthood, quotes are from.
I've read them (US-American anti-choicers usually come up with them in any discussion about abortion or sex ed) and they promote racist eugenetics, encouraging black people to use contraception and to have abortions in order to keep their numbers small.
Which is, to my knowledge, not what PP is about today. Of course I only have second hand information, but those women I talked to were extremely grateful for their medical service and the possibility to get affordable reliable contraception.

And it's wrong if you and your partner get genetic testing, that testing states that any children you would have are going to have a serious congenital disease, and you decide to adopt instead of having children because of those test results?

Personally, I'd see that as avery ethical way of doing things. Not having children can hardly be considered eugenetics. That's like saying being an abstinent single is like having an abortion...
Typically, the risk for having a child with an inherited dissease when both parents don't have it is 25%. The kid needs to get both defect chromosomes from the parents (unless it's X-chromosome recessive which means that boys have a 50% chance)
THat's a pretty big risk for either having to choose an abortion or to have a seriously ill child.

Giving information about what kind of disease we're talking about would be a good thing, since most people aren't aware of what it's actually about.
There are also studies indicating that those kids who are born are very likely to be depressive and at higher risk of commiting suicide. Probably worth looking them up

 

[scalyblue]

Eugenics is "The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding."

So, not having a kid becuase of a high tendancy for a genetic disease is eugenics

Laws against incest are eugenic, as well.

I'm more looking for the ethical standpoint that religions have taken on eugenics--as far as I can see the practice has been promoted in every abrahamic religion

 

[Anexor]

Whats wrong with moving closer to the asymptote of perfection? Only the means by which you get there. If you think that making the human race better compared to where we are now is useless then you are probably useless, lol. But if you dont like eugenics because it suggests genocide and other negative things then I'm with you. But heres a question, suppose you consider yourself to be a superior individual and your trying to climb a flight of stairs. Except there are all of these inferior (by your standards) beings pulling you back and preventing you from realizing your potential. Its like a fat guy who wants to jump high. The fat is dead weight. It does not contribute to his jumping ability, rather, it reduces his vertical. But if he were to remove the fat he would have only muscle left with little fat. All of the muscle contributes to his jumping ability. So ask yourself, do I want to jump higher? If yes, then ask yourself what is an acceptable method by which to remove my excess fat so that I can jump higher. So if capable individuals are muscle, incapable individuals are fat, and jumping high is perfecting the human race, what is acceptable? Get liposuction? Work out for a long time? Take pills? Change your diet? there are many different ways, some of them fast and others slow. Whats the trade off between speed of improvement and your overall health after completion?

Suppose you're in a elevator shaft and its about to crash down on you killing you and your buddy on your leg. The door above you is open and there are others there trying to help you up and reach safety, except they cant pull both of you up. So either you kick your buddy off to his doom and save yourself or you both die. What do you do?

Personally I would kick him off and say " sorry man this really sucks" which is easy to do since Im on top. But what if your getting kicked off? Do you accept the idea of "for the greater good"?

As for eugenics, i believe in a change in diet and exercise. Ill be healthier in the long run and wont have scars from surgery(aka genocide). So what are diet and exercise in the real world? Education and birth limits. Reduce your population intake(birth rate) and increase the intelligence of those who are born from now on, and try to save as many of the still-existing people as possible. The question is, what is an acceptable standard of living, and then how many people can planet earth support at this standard? The less people, the higher the standard, but the less diversity. So whats the trade off? The Georgia Guidestones suggest it to be 500 million people. The ideal birth rate is 2 people make 2 kids. This is because people die for reasons other than old age so a birth rate of two reduces the worlds population eventually without the need for mass murder. Those who are more able to raise a 3rd child will be screened and approved. In other words they would make sure that the child is going to end up as muscle and not fat.

So ask yourself, where do you stand?

 

[Grimaldus]

I think Anexor makes a very good point. The question is not " is eugenics good or bad?", but "what methods are acceptable". Foe example I would say, we all agree, that mass murder and genocide aren't acceptable!! On the other hand it's worth a thought or two, if birth limits and or the right for parents to decide if they want to abort a child with a severe genetic disease ( like Huntington's disease), are acceptable ways...

 

[borrofburi]

Whats wrong with moving closer to the asymptote of perfection?

What is perfection?

 

[Anexor]

I would say something like every human being "God" like I suppose. Hm, cant really describe perfection, cause it depends on what goal you're trying to achieve.

 

[creamcheese]

From an evolutionary standpoint, you could describe a perfect organism as one that can adapt instantaneously to any circumstances so as to survive and reproduce.

 

[Anexor]

From an evolutionary standpoint, you could describe a perfect organism as one that can adapt instantaneously to any circumstances so as to survive and reproduce.

Nice, a being that has achieved infinite adaptability, and because its infinite you can never reach it, thus the "asymptote" of perfection.

 

[scalyblue]

Nice, a being that has achieved infinite adaptability, and because its infinite you can never reach it, thus the "asymptote" of perfection.

Instantaneous adaptability is not infinite. It does raise the question about what such a being would do when two adaptations are mutually exclusive and equally beneficial.

 

[creamcheese]

Nice, a being that has achieved infinite adaptability, and because its infinite you can never reach it, thus the "asymptote" of perfection.

Instantaneous adaptability is not infinite. It does raise the question about what such a being would do when two adaptations are mutually exclusive and equally beneficial.

Just the fact that they are different makes them not equally beneficial in all ways.

And yes, since all possible adaptations could happen in the same instant of time, you have the possibility of infinite adaptations. That was my point.

 

[Nogre]

Evolution has no goal. There is no "perfection" established by evolution. It's merely an endless pathway where life adapts to its environment. The idea of a goal or perfection within eugenics is where it goes beyond what evolution says, or at the very least, beyond what Darwin and evolutionary biologists I've heard of say. Evolution gives you the process: selection and differential reproduction leading to changes in a population. Anything more than that is stuff we set up as a goal that we can use this process to achieve. Essentially, if you're talking about perfection, it's the asymptote we're aiming for by our conscious choice.

 

[scalyblue]

It's easy to define perfection in an evolutionary sense: an organism that survives long enough to reproduce.

 

[Kvisling]

Eugenics is the only ethics. Allowing people to become the way they are now is the cruelest violation of human rights ever conceived.

 

[obsidianavenger]

Eugenics is the only ethics. Allowing people to become the way they are now is the cruelest violation of human rights ever conceived.

i quite like being domesticated thank you

 

[Kvisling]

Well it wouldn't be much of a social engineering if the subjects weren't socially engineered to like it!

 

[5810Singer]

Well it wouldn't be much of a social engineering if the subjects weren't socially engineered to like it!

Are you a follower of Nietzsche's philosophy by any chance?

 

[Kvisling]

Well it wouldn't be much of a social engineering if the subjects weren't socially engineered to like it!

Are you a follower of Nietzsche's philosophy by any chance?

No.