|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
 Posted - 09/12/2004 : 13:38:19
|
This is the appropriate folder for this, no? I figured it would be because Eugenics focus is to increase the health of humans, but feel free to move it if you think it belongs in the General Skeptic or Evolution folder.
Anyways, in one of my classes Humanities, Science, and Technology, we are talking about Eugenics this week. On Friday, we have a discussion class. There, after two classes, I am already looked at as the expert on science (teaching the scientific method 2 weeks ago, the difference between bad science (atom bomb) and pseudoscience (homeopathy) as well as Theory or Relativity last week), so I just want to be prepared and I have not looked to much into Eugenics.
So far, what I see wrong with it is:
1.) It goes against diversity which evolution has been shown to "favor"
2.) Also goes against evolution which shows a gaining in complexity (the source we had claimed that humans, if left to reproduce freely, would tend towards disorder)
3.) Based upon the misconception that behavior is genetic instead of created by society and environment
Is there something I missed? Any good (but please, not too long) article would be awsome.
|
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
Edited by - Ricky on 09/12/2004 13:39:40
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2004 : 15:37:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
So far, what I see wrong with it is:
1.) It goes against diversity which evolution has been shown to "favor"
Isn't eugenics "artificial selection" instead of "natural selection"?
In a society where fatal deceases no longer are weeded out by premature deaths (like hemophilia, colour-blindness etc.) the lack of natural selection may actually be harmful in the long run. Selection, natural or otherwise would be useful for the survival of the spices.
In what context is the discussion? In several countries, including USA and Sweden, sterilisation was a method of eugenics to prevent people with mental handicaps from procreating. In several instances, even people with minor defects were "treated for the good of the society". These were not moments in history we should be proud of. None the less, they did happen.
quote:
3.) Based upon the misconception that behavior is genetic instead of created by society and environment
Behaviour is a complex trait... Some of it might indeed be genetic. Aren't live stock bred with at least a thought that the offspring should be docile?
Pit-bulls are bred to be aggressive.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 09/12/2004 15:39:50 |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2004 : 16:47:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Isn't eugenics "artificial selection" instead of "natural selection"?
Yes, but it doesn't matter, it would still result in evolution (which is just a change in the gene pool).
quote:
In a society where fatal deceases no longer are weeded out by premature deaths (like hemophilia, colour-blindness etc.) the lack of natural selection may actually be harmful in the long run. Selection, natural or otherwise would be useful for the survival of the spices.
However, such diseases can be beneficial. I would like to point out Sickle Cell, in which the red blood cells are slightly mutated. When (I think I have the terms right here, but not sure) the merozoites (stage of Malaria) infect the red blood cells, it changes (once again, I think) the pH level, which deforms the cell just enough so that the white blood cells attack the red blood cell, thus stopping the spreading of the virus.
Wow, I'm starting to forget things I learned in biology. I would check that this is correct, but I don't have much time. So in this situation, it is beneficial. I'm not sure if there are others (more common) examples of this however. But diversity is always wanted, and its something that Eugenics eliminates. And natural selection through these is still very much in effect in third world countries.
quote:
In what context is the discussion? In several countries, including USA and Sweden, sterilisation was a method of eugenics to prevent people with mental handicaps from procreating. In several instances, even people with minor defects were "treated for the good of the society". These were not moments in history we should be proud of. None the less, they did happen.
The main theme of the course is how society has shaped technology and how technology shaped society, and how it is doing so today. Its global, not just of America.
quote:
Behaviour is a complex trait... Some of it might indeed be genetic. Aren't live stock bred with at least a thought that the offspring should be docile?
Pit-bulls are bred to be aggressive.
There are many exceptions to pit-bulls being aggressive. Could this just be diversity of a gene pool, or is it a learned behavior? Based off of instinct, I lean towards learned behavior, but I'm not sure.
And yes, behavior is very complex and some of it may be genetic, but once again, my gut instinct tells me that very much of it is learned, but once again, I'm not sure.
|
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 09/12/2004 16:51:11 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2004 : 17:55:15 [Permalink]
|
As far as I'm aware, I don't think there is much objection to Eugenics in theory, but more in the morality of the practice. That humans can effectively alter the traits of species through selective breeding has been demonstrated by domesticated animals, though obviously there are health issues with purebreds not found in mongrels.
However, there are ethical questions regarding such human experimentation. Finding a suitably large and willing human population is more difficult. Almost aways, breeding for traits is objected to by the participants. Thus far, the only manner to institute such a program is by force.
I know Hitler envisioned a genetically superior master race, and we all know where that landed him. One time sports caster Jimmy "The Greek" lost his job for speculating that black Americans may enjoy an advantage in sports due to selective breeding for physical strength and stamina during the years of slavery. Since the observation smacked of racism, he lost his job, though I'm not certain he was ever really proven incorrect in his assumption. Forced slavery and brutal living conditions would indeed be capable of selecting for such traits.
Less clear is the idea of altering the human genome directly, without breeding programs. Some feel it would still be unethical, while others take the opposing view.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/12/2004 22:32:55 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2004 : 18:40:33 [Permalink]
|
The main problem with eugenics, as H. Humbert almost got to, is this: who gets to pick the people who get to mate, and those who don't?
Genetically and evolutionarily, forbidding a person to reproduce is the same as a death sentence. In those states which still have the death penalty, such a punishment is automatically appealed, and usually appealed at least once more after that if necessary.
How many eugenics programs have ever had (or will ever have) an appeals system like that?
So, who gets to choose who breeds and who doesn't? While I do think there are a few things which should be done "for the greater good," they involve an inconvenience to the minority, and not the mass murder of the minority. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2004 : 19:54:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The main problem with eugenics, as H. Humbert almost got to, is this: who gets to pick the people who get to mate, and those who don't?
In Robert Heinlein's sci-fi story "Methuselah's Children", a eugenics program for longevity worked successfully by means of financial incentives. Such a program would be much slower than brute force, but it would not intrude on civil and personal liberties. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2004 : 22:39:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The main problem with eugenics, as H. Humbert almost got to, is this: who gets to pick the people who get to mate, and those who don't?
Yes, Dave, you are correct. Always a fault of mine, dancing around an issue. Even before I began posting here I had always esteemed your ability to see a problem and, most importantly, relate it in its simplest and most fundamental terms. That is, you have an amazing ability to cut through bullshit.
I really admire that.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/12/2004 22:47:24 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2004 : 02:11:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Is there no problem with limiting diversity? Wouldn't this be harmful to a species?
There definitely can be a problem. We see it in agriculture, were large monocultures are very vulnerable to certain diseases. In humans, the same would apply if a virus or bacteria got a mutation which made it effectively infect humans. I think it is highly probable that we wouldn't be able to fight such a disease in that case. If it spread rapidly, you would get situations as seen with the plague in Europe or SARS in China. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2004 : 11:08:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
3.) Based upon the misconception that behavior is genetic instead of created by society and environment
I also am not to sure about this being a misconception. It seems to me that most of the behavioral experts currently believe that it is a mix of the two with much argument as to the mix. 50/50?, 70/30?, 80/20? This is where I find the studies of identical twins that were separated at birth can provide some insight. I think this topic will be argued indefinitely but those twin studies do appear to show a stronger genetic component over society & environment. Thus "bad seeds" will almost always remain so, while the "fence sitters" will probably be lost or saved depending on social and environmental factors. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2004 : 12:11:59 [Permalink]
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/americas/1965811.stm
Virginia apology for eugenics program.
Ricky have you read, 'The Mismeasure of Man'? |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2004 : 16:02:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Virginia apology for eugenics program.
Yes, that happened in an area not too far away. The article says over 60,000, recent counts have been up to 70,000.
quote:
I also am not to sure about this being a misconception. It seems to me that most of the behavioral experts currently believe that it is a mix of the two with much argument as to the mix. 50/50?, 70/30?, 80/20? This is where I find the studies of identical twins that were separated at birth can provide some insight. I think this topic will be argued indefinitely but those twin studies do appear to show a stronger genetic component over society & environment. Thus "bad seeds" will almost always remain so, while the "fence sitters" will probably be lost or saved depending on social and environmental factors.
Yes, I'm sorry, I did I bad job there. What I meant was entirely based upon genetics.
However, isn't there evidence against it? The crime rate is much higher in families below poverty level. Would that not indicate that it is in fact environment in which you are raise in and not genetics? |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2004 : 16:18:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
... the crime rate is much higher in families below poverty level. Would that not indicate that it is in fact environment in which you are raise in and not genetics?
Not necessarily. I have heard it theorized that money might function as a selection pressure in a free society. Those with the best genes are succesful and earn the biggest paychecks. They also choose healthy and attractive mates. Their offspring then enjoy a hereditary advantage, which is accentuated over succeeding generations. People with emotional or intellectual deficiencies are less econmically successful, thus consigned to lower social levels and breeding with similar individuals.
Now, I'm not saying I agree with this position at all, since it implies that poor people are "meant" to be poor by design. (Or were at least "out competed" for resources.) And it doesn't take into account such things as level of education, or really, any environmental factors at all. But still, this line of reasoning is there.
Further muddying the issue, high crime rates could simply be a result of poverty itself (need based stealing, for instance) without it being necessary to posit either a genetic or learned cause for it.
In short, I don't think its possible to conclude with certainty that environment is the sole source in shaping an individual's behavior, or that genetics plays no role.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/13/2004 19:14:56 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2004 : 19:08:33 [Permalink]
|
H. Humbert wrote:quote:
Yes, Dave, you are correct. Always a fault of mine, dancing around an issue.
Hmmm... Thanks for the compliment, but perhaps my emphasis came out the wrong way. I was trying to say that you came this [holds up thumb and forefinger a hair apart] close to what I thought was a core issue. I wasn't attempting to criticize.
Ricky wrote:quote:
Take a baby whos family has been in the upper class for many generations. Put him a poor community. Take a child of a family who has lived in poverty for many years, put him in the upper class.
Heh, it can be a whole new reality show (and a whole new low for TV).
Wasn't that the plot to Trading Places?
Seriously, Steven Pinker stirred up a lot of controversy by saying that the established psychological ideas - that behaviour is entirely environmental - were so much dogma, in his book, The Blank Slate. The title refers to the idea that everyone starts out as a blank slate, with no particular behavioural traits, and are molded by family, experiences, and society into the people they become. Pinker called "baloney" on that.
I'm no psychologist, but I've never thought that the extremes - either all environment or all genetics - were correct. The real answer has to be somewhere in the middle, since serious hormonal imbalances (for just one example) can create massive changes in behaviour, and also because it's pretty obvious that people can and do overcome "base desires" all the time. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2004 : 21:47:27 [Permalink]
|
Eugenics has gotten a bad rap in the last century. It has a really negative connotation thanks to the likes of Hitler and others.
Dave W also hit one of the major problems.... if you have a eugenics program, who gets to be in charge?
If you were to remove the "selective breeding" from the definition of eugenics and replace it with "selection of desired traits" and have the technology widely available (like invitro clinics are now) to the general public, the negative conotation might disapear.
Some fertility clinics already use genetic screening to eliminate the major genetic diseases (like Downs). As the technology progresses more screening options are likely to become available.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
