Eugenics. Genetic engineering 'A third way'.

[Tank]

Eugenics

Eugenics is "the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic  defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."[2]  Eugenics was widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century, but has fallen into disfavor after having become associated with Nazi Germany. Since the postwar period, both the public and the scientific communities have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced racial hygiene, human experimentation, and the extermination of "undesired" population groups. However, developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century have raised many new questions and concerns about the meaning of eugenics and its ethical and moral status in the modern era.

With the potential of genetic engineering to 'fix' genetic faults is it time to consider an approach of 'interventionist' eugenics as opposed to the 'positive' and 'negative' external methods described above?

One of many worries I have is that eugenics has to hold an ideal of what an 'ideal' human is before it can start creating said ideal. Who decides the 'ideal'?

With genetic engineering becoming more prevalent and sophisticated combined with human curiosity and a desire to 'solve every problem' I would contend that at some point in the future the human race will have to make a choice to leave itself alone and simply let evolution take its naturally selected course or become interventionist in its own genetic future.

I think that when we do have the technology to genetically modify zygotes, and have done so successfully on animals, the pressure to do so on humans will become intolerable. I personally feel that, even if outlawed, rich people would use the technology to 'improve' their offspring or at the very least repair known genetic problems.  

Would it be reasonable to repair a genetic fault, any one of many, while be unreasonable to boost a child's IQ (should this be possible through genetic manipulation)?

[epepke]

I'm not sure why eugenics has such a bad rap.  I think that pretty much everyone who wants to reproduce tries to do eugenics by their own personal mate selection.  I know that some people mate pretty much at random or select mates by traits unrelated to whether they want them passed on, but it's not generally considered particularly a good thing to do.

[The Magic Pudding]

I'm not sure why eugenics has such a bad rap.  

No, neither do I.
Fiction seems fond of imagining modified humans will be somehow flawed.
In various star trek iterations genetic modification is banned, the modified lack humanity.
Me, I could do with some augmentation.

Some contraceptives in those catholic wafers would be worth a thought.

[Tank]

I'm not sure why eugenics has such a bad rap.  I think that pretty much everyone who wants to reproduce tries to do eugenics by their own personal mate selection.  I know that some people mate pretty much at random or select mates by traits unrelated to whether they want them passed on, but it's not generally considered particularly a good thing to do.

I'm not sure one can conflate eugenics with personal choice of mate. Eugenics is interventionist in the act of mate choice in the example of 'positive eugenics' cited above. It would appear to me to be about choosing people to mate regardless of those people's desire to mate with each other. It would be similar to a forced marriage in the sense that it would be a loveless coupling made to breed a better human rather than through cultural traditions. So it would depend to some extent if one considered that 'the end justifies the means' in a human procreative program to eradicate a genetic disease.

One could conceive of a future where one is gene typed at birth and one is given a profile of probability of developing particular genetically pre-disposed conditions. One could then have a personal and informed choice about ones future partners by comparing their gene profile with ones own and determining the probability of developing unhealthy offspring. The key point here would be that it is left to the individuals to choose based on the information available to them. Eugenics in its historical application has been at the behest of the state and forced upon the individual, which I would suspect most people would call the 'unacceptable face' of eugenics.

[The Magic Pudding]

The key point here would be that it is left to the individuals to choose based on the information available to them. Eugenics in its historical application has been at the behest of the state and forced upon the individual, which I would suspect most people would call the 'unacceptable face' of eugenics.

It's likely to be parents choosing unnatural interventions for children.
An argument against is, parents will feel pressured to seek intervention to keep up with others.

I saw a documentary series recently, they considered it unlikely governments could prevent it.
The example of failure to control illicit drugs was used.

[Tank]

The root problem with eugenics and interventionist genetics is the fact that we are evolved and not designed. There is no 'user manual' or 'design schematic' for the human genome. It's a bit like a beautiful old rose garden, all tangled up and unpredictable so that if you cut one stem you don't know which head will fall. In the case of genetic manipulation one problem would be false correlation of gene to manifestation. Gene A may look like it is linked to manifestation B but A to B is in fact mediated by C and removing/modifying A does not have the desired effect on B as C was in the loop and nobody realised. It's going to a brave/fool-hardy scientist that produces the first genetically modified embryo and, after implanting it, lets it grow to term. Would it have to be his own child with the mother's full consent? And what if it goes wrong? Would the child be able to sue its parents for any harm it suffered because it was the result of an experiment?

[Tank]

The key point here would be that it is left to the individuals to choose based on the information available to them. Eugenics in its historical application has been at the behest of the state and forced upon the individual, which I would suspect most people would call the 'unacceptable face' of eugenics.

It's likely to be parents choosing unnatural interventions for children.
An argument against is, parents will feel pressured to seek intervention to keep up with others.

I saw a documentary series recently, they considered it unlikely governments could prevent it.
The example of failure to control illicit drugs was used.

I agree that the pressure on parents would be virtually irresistible and that some would succumb to that.

I actually started writing a story along similar lines based on cloning. Once scientists have got stem cells sussed out one could create a mindless womb and then clone oneself thus making a consenting partner irrelevant for reproduction be one male or female, but that is yet another thread!

[epepke]

I'm not sure one can conflate eugenics with personal choice of mate.

I think it's pretty close, though.  I am definitely trying to improve the species with my choice of mate.  

Nevertheless, if that doesn't satisfy, let's go back to the definition from the Wikipedia article: "the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."

I think we can safely assume that we're not talking about the "study of."

Now, what satisfies the quoted text?  All standards of beauty and desirability.  All fashion, inasmuch as it involves behavior and body appearance.  The former explicit discouragement of nerds from reproduction (when they were perceived as having undesirable traits, such as by doing technical projects instead of playing sports), and the modern encouragement (once it has been realized that they become innovators, which is looking pretty good in a post-high-school-and-a-union-job economy).

Still, I think that individual mate selection counts.  There have been a fair number of studies finding standards of beauty to reflect perceptions of health and wealth.  You might argue that it doesn't count because it's not explicitly conscious, but in a culture that clearly frowns upon admitting having rational reasons for mating, that doesn't seem to me to matter much.

Though perhaps it's a clue as to why people dislike the concept of eugenics.  It's too honest about sexuality and mate selection, which people aren't supposed to talk or think about.  If people just didn't talk about it or have a word for it, it would be fine.

[Tank]

I'm not sure one can conflate eugenics with personal choice of mate.

I think it's pretty close, though.  I am definitely trying to improve the species with my choice of mate.  

Nevertheless, if that doesn't satisfy, let's go back to the definition from the Wikipedia article: "the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."

I think we can safely assume that we're not talking about the "study of."

Now, what satisfies the quoted text?  All standards of beauty and desirability.  All fashion, inasmuch as it involves behavior and body appearance.  The former explicit discouragement of nerds from reproduction (when they were perceived as having undesirable traits, such as by doing technical projects instead of playing sports), and the modern encouragement (once it has been realized that they become innovators, which is looking pretty good in a post-high-school-and-a-union-job economy).

Still, I think that individual mate selection counts.  There have been a fair number of studies finding standards of beauty to reflect perceptions of health and wealth.  You might argue that it doesn't count because it's not explicitly conscious, but in a culture that clearly frowns upon admitting having rational reasons for mating, that doesn't seem to me to matter much.

Though perhaps it's a clue as to why people dislike the concept of eugenics.  It's too honest about sexuality and mate selection, which people aren't supposed to talk or think about.  If people just didn't talk about it or have a word for it, it would be fine.

I think my point of view is that for mate selection to be called eugenics it would have to involve a specific act of genetic 'sifting' or choosing by the partners involved. And the purpose of that selection would have to be specifically aimed at producing offspring with specific traits (which could be a lack of a genetic disease). One also has to factor in the situation that mate choice in the western world is predominantly an act of individual self expression. People in the west don't like being told what to do they like to choose what to do.

I don't think humanity can work without words for things/behaviours. Not having a symbol for something does not stop that something existing. A symbol (word) simply becomes the focus upon which meaning is concentrated for the purposes of communication. The act of eugenic behaviour causes the word to be created as much as the word causes the behaviour to occur.

[epepke]

One also has to factor in the situation that mate choice in the western world is predominantly an act of individual self expression. People in the west don't like being told what to do they like to choose what to do.

Tank, I love you to pieces, but this is the most naive thing I've seen in a long time.  People in the "West" have a cult of pretense to individual self expression, but if some really big pop star were to decide to wear the nests of paper wasps on her hair for a big awards ceremony, entire fortunes would be made providing them to young wannabees, and I think you know that.

[Tank]

One also has to factor in the situation that mate choice in the western world is predominantly an act of individual self expression. People in the west don't like being told what to do they like to choose what to do.

Tank, I love you to pieces, but this is the most naive thing I've seen in a long time.  People in the "West" have a cult of pretense to individual self expression, but if some really big pop star were to decide to wear the nests of paper wasps on her hair for a big awards ceremony, entire fortunes would be made providing them to young wannabees, and I think you know that.

I agree with you. It's naive to think that people don't follow trends and think they aren't. What I do think is that people in the west believe that they make up their own minds. Thus the man rattled the bars of his cage to demonstrate his freedom.

I think we have wandered a little off topic here, 'as is often the case'. I'd just like to keep focus on the subject of genetic intervention as a possible '3rd way' for eugenics rather than selective breeding (where all the traits are thrown in) and/or culling (where unwanted traits are excised from the population). Selective breeding or culling would occur before or after conception without genetic intervention at the genomic level. My thought specifically focuses on intervention at the genomic level prior to and/or post to conception.

[PoopShoot]

I'm all for eugenics in cases of painful, debilitating and deadly genetic disorders.  I'm sorry if some poor girl with CF has to be sterilized or some guy who carries it has to be, but we have the power to wipe these out.  That said, I don't advocate eugenics in the case of "preferable traits" or anything like that.

[The Magic Pudding]

Those arguing the negative may argue too much attention to genetics, may have seen Stephen Hawking not born.
Also for some genius such as Van Gogh, their madness seems entwined with their genius.

I don't have much sympathy for the argument deaf people some times make, that they would prefer deaf children.

Everyone is familiar with the film Gattaca?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

[karadan]

Yes, Gattaca was an amazing film. Probably one of the only films where Jude Law was any good.

[Tank]

I'm all for eugenics in cases of painful, debilitating and deadly genetic disorders.  I'm sorry if some poor girl with CF has to be sterilized or some guy who carries it has to be, but we have the power to wipe these out.  That said, I don't advocate eugenics in the case of "preferable traits" or anything like that.

CF?