human evolution

[gattaca]

human evolution
1 I accept the theory of evolution. I accept Eugenics should be use on humans.
Is this consistent and why?

2 I accept the theory of evolution. I accept Eugenics is wrong.
Is this a contradiction, and why?

3 the theory of evolution is wrong and eugenics is wrong.
Is this consistent and why?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

the problem with the poll is that you are using the term "wrong" in two different ways. When applying the term to eugenics you appear to be asking a moral question, that is, the distinction between right and wrong. However in the phrase "evolution is wrong" you are asking a scientific question which is opposing wrong to correct. This is not the same thing as the moral use of the term.

however, the "eugenics is wrong" could also be interpreted as "eugenics is incorrect" as in it either does not work, or is bad science or something else but not used as a moral term.

in the same way, someone could consistently take the phrase "evolution is wrong" not as the science is incorrect but in the sense of morally wrong, especially if they see the metaphysics known as social darwinianism as evolution and not the science.

 

[gattaca]

1 I accept the theory of evolution is correct. I accept Eugenics should be use on humans.
Is this consistent and why?

2 I accept the theory of evolution is correct. I accept Eugenics is incorrect .
Is this a contradiction, and why?

3 the theory of evolution is incorrect and eugenics is incorrect.
Is this consistent and why?

 

[Skaloop]

Evolution is the explanation of the diversity of life on Earth. I accept it as true, and those who don't are, in the words of Richard Dawkins, ignorant, stupid, or insane. Evolution is established and based on evidence, facts, and observation and its veracity is based on objective, not subjective, analysis.

Eugenics, on the other hand, is a question of morality and ethics. I personally disagree with the use of eugenics. Others may feel differently, so one's feelings on eugenics are subjective in nature, and open to interpretation.

There is no inconsistency with accepting evolution and supporting eugenics. There is no inconsistency with accepting evolution and being an opponent of the practice of eugenics. Evolution and eugenics are separate issues.

 

[billwald]

First, eugenics has nothing to with evolution. It is Social Darwinism. Sentient beings do not "evolve."

Second , letting people pass defective DNA on to the next generation is antithetical (sp) to evolution. It is . . . crazy to encourage people to produce defective children.

 

[TeddyKGB]

People practice eugenics to varying levels of sophistication every time they reproduce. No one (or almost no one) mates randomly.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Second , letting people pass defective DNA on to the next generation is antithetical (sp) to evolution. It is . . . crazy to encourage people to produce defective children.

No reproductive practice is antithetical to evolution. Every unique genome is run through the filter of nature, and each one has an identical starting survival probability.

 

[Hydra009]

First, eugenics has nothing to with evolution. It is Social Darwinism. Sentient beings do not "evolve."

Close. Individuals don't evolve, populations do. Species, sentient or not, do accumulate genetic changes.

 

[Aegist]

I think one of the biggest problems with Eugenics is the idea that we think we know enough to select our own breeding well enough to improve us. We could select our race into extinction.

 

[baobobtree]

Though I do believe in evolution, I don't know enough about eugenics to call it right or wrong

 

[Aegist]

Though I do believe in evolution, I don't know enough about eugenics to call it right or wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Eugenics is simply selective breeding of Humans. Selective breeding has given us marvellous creations such as the domestic Dog, the domestic Cat, a huge variety of pigeons, Cows, sheep, pigs, horses etc etc.

All of the domesticated and farm animals and even the plants have been selectively bred for the last 10,000 years in some cases and thus we have many breeds specifically created to serve human ends. (sheep dogs, pig dogs, rat dogs, dogs with incredible senses of smell, dogs to guard us, and kick dogs.)

Eugenics is the idea that we should apply selective breeding to humanity, thereby allowing us to over time become more intelligent, stronger, healthier, longer living etc etc.

The benefit to 'us', nothing. The loss to us? Reproductive freedom. The gain to future generations? Potentially big...but who can really say?

 

[Kahalachan]

human evolution


2 I accept the theory of evolution. I accept Eugenics is wrong.
Is this a contradiction, and why?

What we have learned through science doesn't imply what we should do with science.

Our knowledge of strong and weak forces, doesn't mean we should use it to make nuclear weapons to bomb people.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The interesting thing about the discussion is, as was pointed out in post 6, we already practice eugenics. We just don't practice it on all possible levels, preferring to restrict it to the level of personal mating choices not in either political or societal groups, or in levels above the individual.

But lots of groups have and do practice various elements of eugenics. Jews married only Jews for a 1000 years in Eastern Europe and possibly as a result have a 10-15 point higher IQ than do Europeans and several unique genetic diseases that have to do with brain cell metabolism.

Interestingly during this same time period the wealthy in Europe in order to preserve the concentration of family wealth evolved the 2nd son to the military and the 3rd to the monastery general rule, which since monks were supposed to be chaste and celibate were eugenic principles in practice.

In ancient China as well as modern China, there are several elements of eugenics at the political level. Mandarin examinations made intellectual activity a high cultural value, making them elements of the government gave them both status and the means to raise large families. (the same thing happened in the ghetto practice of the highest achieving male in Hebrew school marrying the richest man's daughter, intellectual ability as having value, the opposite of our current cultural demands) At the same time there was a significant number of eunuchs, another eugenic practice, this one both by force and voluntary. The modern Chinese "one child" policy is probably the largest conscious governmental eugenics policy currently in this world.

The question is really not: if eugenics is to be practiced, but rather how and at what levels in the society.

 

[Aegist]

I wouldn't consider many of those examples to be eugenics though. One child per family for instance isn't really eugenics, it is just restricting offspring numbers. Eugenics (unless I am mistaken) is specifically controlling WHO has offspring, with a goal of afecting the 'qualities' of the coming generations.

There is no indication at all that the first offspring has higher quality over successive offspring, and thus this can't be eugenics.

Similarly so with the 2nd son goes into military, and 3rd son to convent. And Also with in-group-breeding. This isn't eugenics, it is just tribalism.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I wouldn't consider many of those examples to be eugenics though. One child per family for instance isn't really eugenics, it is just restricting offspring numbers. Eugenics (unless I am mistaken) is specifically controlling WHO has offspring, with a goal of afecting the 'qualities' of the coming generations.

There is no indication at all that the first offspring has higher quality over successive offspring, and thus this can't be eugenics.

Similarly so with the 2nd son goes into military, and 3rd son to convent. And Also with in-group-breeding. This isn't eugenics, it is just tribalism.

actually the proper terms are exogamous and endogamous mating patterns not tribalism.
there are lots of people who practice endogamous mating today, fewer with exogamous patterns although there are a few places that ought to because of the accumulated recessives from interbreeding.


Eugenics (unless I am mistaken) is specifically controlling WHO has offspring, with a goal of afecting the 'qualities' of the coming generations.


eugenics is control of human breeding. whether it is done consciously or unconsciously, by apparatus of the state or by rules of mating behavior or any other way. it is all control of the genes that comprise the next generation.

WHO has offspring
sometimes.
sometimes which offspring survive as in infantcide or what offspring are born as in abortion or what offspring are allowed to reproduce as in monasteries and celibacy rules. they are controlling the relative percentages of various alleles in the next human generation. simple put eugenics is the human control of human evolution, and there are lots of ways of doing it.

 

[Aegist]

actually the proper terms are exogamous and endogamous mating patterns not tribalism.

I'll try to remember that

sometimes which offspring survive as in infantcide or what offspring are born as in abortion or what offspring are allowed to reproduce as in monasteries and celibacy rules. they are controlling the relative percentages of various alleles in the next human generation. simple put eugenics is the human control of human evolution, and there are lots of ways of doing it.

Well, I do agree with that.

I just can't think of non-directed eugenics as real eugenics. Simply controlling the reproduction of yourself, or a community of people doesn't seem like it is deserving of the term 'eugenics'. I mean, that is making the definition so braod that the concept of debating "Is Eugenics moral" is pointless unless we take our overly open-ended word and re-define it more narrowly to a specific type of eugenics.

To my mind, Eugenics must be value based selection of offspring. The 'Good' are kept, the 'Bad' are selected against. That is what I think of when I hear Eugenics.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I just can't think of non-directed eugenics as real eugenics.

when Jews marry Jews that is directed. When cousins marry cousins that is directed (actually that has a great deal to do with recessive phenotypes being demonstrated)
human mating is not random, even something as basic as the difference between parent arranged marriages and marriages based on personal preferences (what most of the western world uses now) is directed. for example, if it is true that pheromones cause or enhance attraction then mating is often between people with pheromones that attract. I'd suspect that this is much less in parent arranged marriages which have a completely different set of criteria for mating.

the issue is not so much directed vs not-directed as who does the directing, what kind of rules they use, what kind of enforcement those rules have and at what levels this is done.

it is already directed, often by things we do not understand and are not conscious of. i'd prefer conscious to unconscious manipulation and understanding and talking about these things rather than below the surface.

 

[Aegist]

I just can't think of non-directed eugenics as real eugenics.

when Jews marry Jews that is directed. When cousins marry cousins that is directed (actually that has a great deal to do with recessive phenotypes being demonstrated)
human mating is not random, even something as basic as the difference between parent arranged marriages and marriages based on personal preferences (what most of the western world uses now) is directed. for example, if it is true that pheromones cause or enhance attraction then mating is often between people with pheromones that attract. I'd suspect that this is much less in parent arranged marriages which have a completely different set of criteria for mating.

the issue is not so much directed vs not-directed as who does the directing, what kind of rules they use, what kind of enforcement those rules have and at what levels this is done.

it is already directed, often by things we do not understand and are not conscious of. i'd prefer conscious to unconscious manipulation and understanding and talking about these things rather than below the surface.

But this is pretty much my point. If you talk about Eugenics as controlled breeding, where control comes from the individual, from the mate selection and from subconscious directives, then EVERYTHING in evolution practices eugenics. Which entirely misses the point of the word.

When I say 'directed', i specifically mean value driven direction. Intelligence is good (that is a value statement), therefore we are directing our breeding efforts towards higher intelligence. Strength is good, tall is good, dark skin is good, therefore we are directing the long term evolution of humans towards that ends. THAT is eugenics, and that has a specific meaning. Acheiving a definitive ends of breeding requires the control of an entire population.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

your poll is leaving out other possibilites.

I believe that the evidence available supports evolution and that there is no evidence for creationism.

I believe that eugenics is a moral issue and it may vary.

I do not see any thing wrong with it itself, however i do see problems with the possible loss of freedoms that may result.

I see no problem with genetic engineering i.e. gattaca.

However, once again there are moral and social issues that will likely go along with it.

 

[gluadys]

Many past attempts at applying eugenics to humans have been an attempt to increase the proportion of the population which meets some sort of ideal which is classist and/or racist. This sort of Social Darwinism is both unscientific and morally wrong. We don't know what the "ideal" human is, even for the present generation, much less for the far future with different social and environmental challenges.

OTOH, I don't see a huge problem with negative eugenics, depending on the means. For example, if I knew there was a strong probability that I would pass a disabling genetic problem to my children, I would seriously consider sterilisation for myself. Or at least use strict birth control.