Theoretically, to produce the happiest and healthiest humans, yes. In practice, NEVER.
Aside from near inevitable genocide of existing races, that would occur with the excuse of “purification”, there would be further discrimination against the “impure” populace. Immediate class division would occur between those who are genetically modified/improved, and those who were conceived naturally, without any scientific intervention.
Companies would only be willing to hire the “improved” humans, and the rest of us will be left to rot in slums.
It would be unrestrained fascism, scientifically endorsed under the guise of “improving humanity”. All calls from the impure and insignificant would be ignored, as they would be perceived as obstructing scientific and humanitarian advancement. I believe it would be amongst the greatest humanitarian catastrophes that could occur.I feel bad that this post is being downvoted, as it is a discussion that needs to occur. Eugenics can be perceived as an advancement to human biology, but when considering human behavior, it would be a rebirth of fascism.
That being said, I would support doctors advising those with genetically linked, debilitating illnesses, not to reproduce. Keyword though, advisement, not mandate.
While eugenics might sound good on paper, they might not work that well in practice. Also on paper it is said that these genetic differences that often show up as disabilities are a natural barrier against super plagues that might wipe us all out in one go.
Fine tuning ourselves into more perfect, single characteristic beings would actually make us far more vulnerable to extinction.
No, since it would require draconian control over people’s lives.
Like Gattaca?
I do not think people have enough information to even do a good job of it, we’d accidentally make everyone prone to some disease and wipe out humanity, we don’t have a great track record with selectively breeding plants and animals. So no.
In the way it has been done ever in real life? Oh hell no. Some vague idea that certain people are worth more than others based only on their looks, and a push to make a better world by making them the only model for humanity?
So no. I don’t trust people to use it for good, and if it was somehow used for good, would probably still have unintended disastrous consequences.
I would have wrote it in the title buy my idea of eugenics is getting rid of all bad diseases like if they found out a gene caused cancer, or a kid will have heart disease before they are twenty or hell if they will be an addict before they are thirty. Or maybe they can’t see right so they edit the gene that prevents them from seeing correctly. Stuff like that not just blonde hair and blue eye.
I don’t think of selective gene editing of one person as eugenics and do think we will get that, we have some versions of it for born people already. Editing it out of humanity? No that’s probably a bad idea. One of my kids works in genetics and was horrified when I joked about her making designer babies like in Gattaca, so I don’t think science thinks it a good idea. Push on one thing, another pops up.
You might enjoy Octavia Butler’s Xenogenesis and Patternist books, if you like thinking about this stuff.
If you’re a fan of the idea, you’re either a nazi or really really ignorant/naive/misinformed.
So I’ll assume the latter and try to briefly explain to you why it’s so bad: people bad, authoritarianism inevitable, results in ‘oops you’re not “human” because you lack/have X, you must die’
Humanity, just like nature, thrives with diversity. Eugenics starts with “getting rid of nasty diseases” but it’s always 1 bad classification of “disease” away from genocide.
Ok then lets say you could prevent your son from have cancer in his teens or heart disease in his twenties or addictition in his forties or alzheimers or dementia or any other type of disease it’s not you conforming to society like changing looks or anything. But if done correctly tell me you would not want your son to get the best start from birth?
Can you elaborate on “done correctly”?
Scientifically probably not. But lets say in the next 5 years we can pinpoint diseases that were terminal. Counting out the government or anyone else besides loved ones or at least just the parents?
Would you trust your government to fairly and equitably decide who gets such treatments?
The scientific, societal, and economic aspects of eugenics are inextricable.
No not the government because it is dumb as hell but if parents had the option to have a gurantee their child will outlive them then it should be up to them and them alone.
No. Read dystopian novels like Brave New World and you’ll understand why.
Or maybe just a german history book
WTF kind of question is this?
Is it a thing? OK, yeah? A concept of an idea, maybe.
Is it anything approaching moral, ethical or humane? No.
Nooo.
Nope.
Nuh-uh.Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
It’s an uncomfortable question, but a question that appears to be made in good faith and OP shouldn’t be getting downvoted. I do not see the benefit of “burying” this question and the many well written answers in this thread show that.
Yeah it’s one of those things that in theory it could make sense, it could be. However since we are humans, there does not exist any way that would not be morally abhorrent to some group of people. There’s zero way that in doing it this way wouldn’t destroy x group of people. And that’s why it can never be done. Eugenics is just too close to genocide.
No but I’m all-in on phrenology
Is “pre implantation diagnostic” eugenics? Future Crispr modifications of human DNA is a whole other level of discussion… related to eugenics, but a can of worms I won’t open.
It’s impossible for me listen to someone arguing in favor of eugenics without hearing, “we’ve gotta get rid of those people- you know the ones in talking about, right?” Fuck that noise.
It’s always some narcissistic asshole who thinks they’re the prototype for a new master race.
We have entire communities for unpopular opinions and shitposting, yet you chose to post here on ML?
I just wanted to say that you shouldn’t be getting downvoted. You’ve asked a question that isn’t editorialised, appears to made in good faith and asks the opinions of others.
You’ve prompted some very good answers here.
I believe that it exists as a concept. That’s what you’re asking, right?
I believe in the right hands that some types of eugenics can do a world of good. I know hitler and japanese did it and it got an ugly label. But what about if we could tell a parent this child will have no diseases his entire life at the stage of birth? Kind of like Gataca
Assuming your honesty and good faith on asking this question, the real treasure on our genes is it’s diversity. Eugenics would, by definition, reduce it. You could assume that it’s a low price to pay for health, longevity, strength, intelligence, beauty and so on, but it’s not that simple. Even some diseases (out the possibility to it) can be beneficial under the right circonstances, like sickle cell anemia can improve resistance to malaria.
It would be great to be able to prevent most diseases before it happens and treat it if it happens (for free, in a universal health care system), but eliminate the genes would be a very bad idea, a healthy specie needs it’s diversity to avoid extinction, and we sometimes feel like we are above that risk, but we are not that special.
All other concerns aside, I think if we start controlling genes we’ll end up writing our genes into a corner.
I just think of south Korean beauty standards and how I have a hard time differentiating all the kpop artists due to the homogeneous beauty standard being universally applied.
Gattaca was taking a lot of license for the sake of the movie. A lot of diseases are multifactorial and while genes might play a role, they’re not the only factor and often not even the main factor. The movie ignored things like epigenetics, early life exposures, lifestyle, age, sex, and just plain variance that are all factors that can play into chronic diseases.
That being said, allowing parents to make decisions based on genetic testing isn’t itself eugenics. Eugenics is a top-level idea revolving around the idea of improving the quality of human genetics as a whole. And that requires an institutional judgement of what are good quality genes and bad quality genes, which necessitates us saying some people are better quality than others and opens up the door to racism/homophobia/transphobia/ableism/etc. Eugenics is always bad, while personal medical decisions based on genetics can be reasonable.
Until some folks can’t afford to cleanse their genes and are denied the right to have children for “safety reasons” and suddenly, fertility and genetics are under state control.
Yea. It exists and is a terrible idea. Like it’s a creepy ideology that rears its head in too many places.
Selective breeding of humans is not and never was a good idea. It comes with forced sterilisation, marriage bans, stigmatisation of characteristics contributing to naturally occuring diversity, supremacist thinking and fascist pseudo-scientific tendencies.
Used to be a bigger fan, but for the same reason I became more libertarian I’m not so sure it’s a practical philosophy. The biggest issue is that as soon as someone decides what is or isn’t good genetics you get a lot of bias. The majority of the human experience is social anyways.
Where do you get these questions?
