It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pro & Con of Eugenics

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I've debated with myself about opeining this thread for some time now. I hope bringing up this subject doesn't tarnish my reputation on ATS, but here goes.....

If I have cancer cells in my body, doctors go in and eliminate them.

If a forest gets infected with disease, foresters go cut out the damaged trees.

When there are degenerate indivuals in a population, we lock them away.

We use this logic all around us but when it comes to restricting hazardous gene's from the population everyone gets quiet.


I would like to open debate on this subject. Our technology makes this possible in ways never available before.

The pro's of eugenics would result in a stronger, healthier, population after a few generations. Sounds good.

The con's of eugenics would result in people being discriminated against for things they haver no control over. Basically institionalized murder, not good for sure.

Humans have enginered plants and animals in this manner, but there is resistance to using this on ourselves.

I am asking what you think about this. If I am really honest with myself, I come up with real benifits and also real concerns about Eugenics.
what do you think?
any helpful links on this subject?
thank you.




posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Genetics isn't as simple as "person A has X genetic disorder, so don't let them procreate". Your susceptibilities are based on several genetic factors, as well as factors which impact and change your genes during your life.

Eugenics doesn't work, plain and simple =/



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Is the people in control of it.

I just don't want to live in a world where, you hand over your DNA sample as a resume.

But I have no problems with people taking out various disabling traits. Parents should always want better for their children.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I did some reading on this subject awhile back, as I was interested in it. There are two types of eugenics, as it is divided, 'positive' and 'negative' eugenics.

'Negative' eugenics is the one that has a bad rap, and rightly so. Examples of this are the Holocaust, the situation in Darfur, the Armenian genocide, and so on. Negative eugenics involves actually killing or sterilizing the people that are deemed 'unfit' to reproduce. It is also almost always characterized by a degree of bad science or downright lies, like Hitler's lies about how awful he claimed the Jews were.

'Positive' eugenics is probably closer to things like preventative medicine and such. Vaccines that protect people from disease would be one. In positive eugenics, no one is killed, sterilized, or otherwise inconvenienced. Basically the idea is to improve the population as a whole over the generations. There is, unfortunately, still the problem of who gets to decide what things will improve the population.

Sickle cell anemia, as one example, causes many health problems, but interestingly it also provides immunity to malaria, which is common in southeast Asia, where many people have this condition. Should we wipe out sickle cell anemia in southeast Asia, assuming we could do so? We would prevent sickle cell anemia deaths, but also cause malaria deaths.

I remember having a discussion like this in a history of technology class in university. The prof asked the class whether we would let our children be genetically modified to give them advantages, Gattaca-style. The general consensus seemed to be that people wanted the best life for their children, and hoped that their kids would have things easier than their parents did. As a simple example, while my family certainly isn't poor, like most middle class we have had some rough times, and I hope to someday have a family and enough wealth that they will not want for anything.

It's one thing to talk about trees or crops or even animals, but when people start talking about other people, we have to be a lot more careful. It certainly isn't right to take away life Nazi-Germany style, and sterilizing or otherwise intruding on people's lives without their consent is wrong, as well.

I think the trick is to identify the things that we see as 'undesirable' in people, and find humane ways to treat them. Maybe that isn't 'eugenics', but it is what I think of when I think of the 'positive eugenics' I have mentioned. For example, laser eye surgery can correct many vision impairments, so that that particular genetic condition is less serious a problem in the gene pool. Granted, that won't actually breed the poor vision problem out of the human race, but with our technology, we won't have to.

Eugenics is something that we will need a lot of discussion on before anything should happen. Of course, this entire discussion is rather academic, since there is very little or nothing any of us can do about it, but if there were, it would take a lot of people working together to make it work right, and it would be very, very easy to make things go really wrong.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   
when addressing the issue, one aspect that is at the core of the issue is what is 'undesirable'?

For example, I had an relative who was born with a mental handicap. She could not function in day to day life, required constant attention. She died before i was born, but when i talk to my relatives who knew her they say she was one of the happiest, the most christ like person they had ever known. Why prevent such a person from life? There is no harm in her presence.

I think of people of low intellegence. But wisdom has nothing to do with intellegence, neither does happiness, or being able to contribute to society.
So i cannot reason keeping these people back either. Some of the best examples of "what a man should be" have been 'old dumb farmers'.
Given the above examples, eugenics is a tricky subject.

Perhaps the only righteous way it could be used is not to prevent certian traits, but to promote desirable characters. It cannot work if it is used to 'purify' gene pools. That is murder.
If however, it was used to give willing parents options, i don't see whats wrong with that.

We are comming upon an age where we will realize our place as creators; of ourselves and our world. The new technologies provide us with options only dreamt about before. However, thier application will require minds of the highest quality to prevent them from being abused. good intentions is not enough. We must be clear and conscious when dealing with this.
As they say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   
wouldn't it be easier for people with disabilities to choose not to have kids. to many people with heavy depression in families meet others with heavy depression, and its an endless cycle.

people only think about themselves bringing someone into the world, and amny should think twice. its about being responsible.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   
As I've mentioned on several related threads, America had a eugenics program in this country in the early part of the century but gave it up when it became hypocritical to criticize Hitler for having one. Ours was nowhere near the genocidal level of Hitlers' but was more insidious. We sterilized the mentally "defective" & physically deformed but moved on to "criminals", immoral, poor (unwed mothers), etc.
We can already see the effects (on a small scale) of breeding programs in this country by looking at our athletes. During the days of slavery, the biggest, strongest and healthiest "bucks" were used as breeders to produce bigger, stronger and healthier slaves for the next generation. We no longer have slavery (thank God!) but you may have noticed that most of our athletes are black (African-American for the PC).
The natural selection process of diabetics having a short life span due to their illness prevented them from producing any (or as many) progeny with the same genetic weakness. With the introduction of insulin, diabetics are living longer and producing more diabetics with their inherit propensities toward retinopathy, neuropathy, heart disease, kidney disease, etc.
My state (Oklahoma) has one of the highest rates of heart disease in the country and I've seen reports that state it's because of smoking, our "unsophisticated diets", etc. One thing I've never seen addressed is the high population (highest in the nation) of indigenous Americans (Indians for the non-PC). This ethnic group (to which I belong) has a genetic propensity towards diabetes. Could the 2 be related?
Also, I worked at the Heart Hospital in Oklahoma and noticed a pattern. Almost without exception, the patients coming in to have heart caths or bypass surgery or having heart attacks were blood type A or AB. This was not an official double-blind study, just an observation. Should we sterilize all persons of blood type A or AB (of which I belong) because of their potential for cardiac disease? I'm not trying to be sarcastic. If you're talking eugenics, it's a fair question. All potential genetic defectives would be fair game for consideration.
One last point: having taken care of so many physically and mentally flawed individuals I have to say, as a group they are the most merciful, compassionate, tolerant, non-judgmental bunch you'll ever meet. I've met plenty of "superior intellects" (translate: doctors-no disrespect to bsldoc intended) that were total jerks and an equal amount of "beautiful people" who had nothing going for them other than the good fortune to be what the the popular culture deemed physically aesthete. Who knows but that the character building side effects of the genetically "inferior" may be the reason the human race has genetic "flaws"?



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
eugenics is a bad idea and hopefully something that will be left behind in the 20th century. With the exception of removing genetic abnormalities from fetuses, I think all eugenics should be banned because you will always violate someones rights.

Think about it, whether your trying to breed bigger stronger athletes or a certain genetic trait , its wrong.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I hate to point out the obvious, XfilesPhan, but you just contradicted yourself. If trying to breed certain genetic traits is wrong then removing those traits deemed defective in fetuses would fall in the category of "trying to breed certain genetic traits" (in or out).
We are currently doing genetic modification in agriculture and have eugenics programs with farm animals and domesticated pets so I don't think it will be left behind in what is now the 21st century.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   
The bottom line question is, who says who's good and who's bad?

Not to mention that when it comes to genetic disorders that "could" manifest themselves in behavioural paterns "if" certain factors are met in "some types" of environement after "some" events occured in a persons life etc etc etc.

Not to mention that human beings are full well able to surpass nearly any genetic behavioural disorder that isn't classified as a real handicaps, like authisme and mongolisme (dunno if thats what its called in english).

People with ADD and ADHD, if helped correctly, can learn to live with their disability and actualy turn it into an advantage.
Many of the best people in the IT, Engineering and Finance world have forms of ADD ranging from mild to severe, which can give them an edge over everyone else, because if the field they work in is that narrow field their ADD allows them to focus on, they outclass, outmaneuver and outspeed any and every "normal" person.

Eugenics is a fantasy and falacy of people with a superiority complex.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave

During the days of slavery, the biggest, strongest and healthiest "bucks" were used as breeders to produce bigger, stronger and healthier slaves for the next generation. We no longer have slavery (thank God!) but you may have noticed that most of our athletes are black (African-American for the PC).



this is true, but at the same time, (native) Africans are dominating, say, Marathon, which begs the question how much of their success can be attributed to breeding practices in slavery.

So far, eugenics has always been an excuse for mass murder and, according to Darwinian dogma, the unfit are going extinct anyways, that's pretty much the definition, so why bother? from my experience, most pro- eugenics people on the board are citing something along the lines of 'survival of the fittest' as their motivation, though.

go figure.

[edit on 17-2-2007 by Long Lance]



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Another flaw with eugenics is that we don't fully understand the interconnectedness of genes. We may go in a remove a gene that causes addiction and unknowingly create another problem.

On a related note, has anyone heard if China is involved with Eugenics of some kind or another? Given the steps they've already taken at family control it seems this would be right up thier alley.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewart Lewis
Another flaw with eugenics is that we don't fully understand the interconnectedness of genes. We may go in a remove a gene that causes addiction and unknowingly create another problem.
.



gene manipulation could of course be lumped into eugenics, but with 98% of our DNA being considered junk, noone can really advocate genetic manipulation with a straight face.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   

gene manipulation could of course be lumped into eugenics, but with 98% of our DNA being considered junk, noone can really advocate genetic manipulation with a straight face.


What you've said is only sort of half true. Yes, only 1-3% of our genome is considered "coding" DNA, and yes, the other 99-97% is jokingly referred to as "junk" DNA, however, this junk DNA actually plays a very important structural role in the human genome, and it is just as viable a target in genetic manipulation as the coding regions.



posted on Feb, 17 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   
SL,
Maybe you could give us a working definition of "eugenics" for the purpose of this discussion. It seems that we're all working off different ideas of what constitute a eugenics program. It's my understanding that eugenics refers to the mandatory permanent sterilization of a group or groups of people deemed unfit to propagate the species. There are, of course, sub issues inherent in that definition such as who determines what is fit or unfit, etc.
Hitler's eugenics program was carried to a genocidal extreme and I think (hope) we can all agree that is not a desirable outcome.
Some believe that eugenics means the predetermined selectivity of breeder pairs (which raises issues of its' own).
Before we get too far into the discussion, let's have a common foundation from which to build and the OP should be the one to provide that foundation, if you please.



posted on Feb, 18 2007 @ 03:00 AM
link   

What you've said is only sort of half true. Yes, only 1-3% of our genome is considered "coding" DNA, and yes, the other 99-97% is jokingly referred to as "junk" DNA, however, this junk DNA actually plays a very important structural role in the human genome, and it is just as viable a target in genetic manipulation as the coding regions.



jokingly or not, non coding DNA was (is?) considered useless, mainly because noone knows what it does. with such preliminary understanding, genetic manipulation is akin to walking a minefield with blinders on, isn't it?



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Maybe you could give us a working definition of "eugenics" for the purpose of this discussion. It seems that we're all working off different ideas of what constitute a eugenics program. It's my understanding that eugenics refers to the mandatory permanent sterilization of a group or groups of people deemed unfit to propagate the species. There are, of course, sub issues inherent in that definition such as who determines what is fit or unfit, etc.
Hitler's eugenics program was carried to a genocidal extreme and I think (hope) we can all agree that is not a desirable outcome.
Some believe that eugenics means the predetermined selectivity of breeder pairs (which raises issues of its' own).
Before we get too far into the discussion, let's have a common foundation from which to build and the OP should be the one to provide that foundation, if you please.


Allow me to open it for us...


The term eugenics comes from the Greek roots for "good" and "generation" or "origin" and was first used to refer to the "science" of heredity and good breeding in about 1883.


www.pbs.org...


"Eugenics is a word with nasty connotations but an indeterminate meaning." (I. Paul, 1998, p. 99).The first edition of the Encyclopedia of Bioethics' entry for eugenics notes that the term has had different meanings over time: "...a science that investigates methods to ameliorate the genetic composition of the human race, a program to foster such betterment; a social movement; and in its perverted form, a pseudo-scientific retreat for bigots and racists" (V, Ludmerer 1978, p. 457).


www.georgetown.edu...


The principal manifestations of eugenics are racism and abortion; eugenics is the basis for "scientific racism" and laid the foundation for legalizing abortion. It is the driving force behind euthanasia, in vitro fertilization, and embryo and fetal research. It is the driving force in global population policy, which is a key element in American foreign policy. It is the force driving much of the environmentalist movement, welfare policy, welfare reform, and health care. It is found in anthropology, sociology, psychology—all the social sciences. It is reflected in much American literature, especially science fiction. So it is worth some study.


www.all.org...

I feel this is a good starting point, the above links and quotes have a Pro/Con aspect, which is fitting to this thread. Take time to read through the links. It is very evident Eugenics has serious drawbacks. It also has some compelling benefits.

To restate the essence of this thread, I think it is beneficial to our community to look at eugenics due to the fact it IS becoming a reality in our lives. One way or another, now or later, we are all going to have interactions with these concepts. I personally would prefer to be informed beforehand.



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix
The bottom line question is, who says who's good and who's bad?


Exactly. Humans are fallible organisms and left in the wrong hands Eugenics could/would be used for something like this:

Nazi Eugenics

Another...

Not only that, but as bsl4doc explained Eugenics is a highly improbable thing to happen anytime soon. Now let's ask a few questions that need to be put forth...

1. Do we really want perfection in a certain race?
2. Which people would be the beneficiaries of Eugenics and who would not, and what would be the basis for excluding certain groups of people or people with certain characteristics?
3. What would be the foundations for the basis to sterilize, change the genetic code, etc. of the human race?
4. What are the benefits of this, and what makes us think a genetic mutation would not occur in the future that is not forseen?
5. Would it limit the genetic genepool (ie. a certain amount of inbreeding)?
6. If the basic foundations of our humanity and Constitutional rights state "All Men are Created Equal" then where does Eugenics fit in?

These are just a few questions to ask ourselves before such a thing is explored any further. Just look at any country that has tried to instate a "Eugenics like" program...all miserable failures culturally, economically, and socially.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by Jazzerman]



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
Sickle cell anemia, as one example, causes many health problems, but interestingly it also provides immunity to malaria, which is common in southeast Asia, where many people have this condition. Should we wipe out sickle cell anemia in southeast Asia, assuming we could do so?


Great question; I concur. Another example of a Genetic disease helping against other conditions would be something like Cystic Fibrosis, which is absolutely terrible for one set of people but may prevent Typhoid fever in a population affected by it:

Link- NIH

Another link

So, thinking along these lines, what may be deemed beneficial for one group of individuals may be deemed opposite for another. If a Eugenics program of any sort is instated then where do we draw the line? There are many factors that come into consideration with such a broad and undefined area such as Eugenics.

Great topic by the way!



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   
A eugenics programme is now being instituted. However, you only get to have a genetically engineered child if you can afford the technology.




[edit on 29-5-2009 by caz111]

[edit on 29-5-2009 by caz111]

(I am having trouble linking to the youtube video here....but if you go to the youtube website and search for 'ARK Eugenics' you will find the video 'ARK Schools, Academies and eugenics'.)

[edit on 29-5-2009 by caz111]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join