[Schrödinger's Kitty]

Why Eugenics?

Throughout the history of human developement, individuals have had the unfortune of being born with specific defects which hindered their abilities to function in society and/or were lethal to that individual. These diseases are numerous, but include things like heart disease, diabetes, epilepsy, schizophrenia, sickle cell anemia, down syndrome and Klinefelter's syndrome - just to name several. These either were caused by mutation, duplication of a chromosome, or a defective gene. Around 4,000 genetic disorders are known to us, mucoviscidosis being the most common.

Eugenics seeks to enhance the genetic quality of the human gene pool much the same way that early humans used selective breeding to evolve to the point we are now. The main differences being that now we have technology to add our natural evolution, and then there is the fact that we have progressed to a point now where the standard of living is so high that the worst among us are living to breed and pass on their genes; where a thousand years ago, they wouldn't have got the chance. Eugenics also offers the chance for humans to evolve past their physical point now.

How?

Selective Breeding - The first an easiest way to carry out eugenics is to breed selectively. Logic dictates that if person with good genes breeds with a person with good genes, the probabilities are minimal that their offspring would have a hereditary disease. However, If you take a person who already has a hereditary disease and have them breed, the chances are much greater the offspring would inherit the disease. All other animals practice this type of eugenics.

Birth Control - This would be a voluntary or forced procedure which would prevent pregnancy, and thus prevent undisired genes from being passed on.

Extermination - This one pretty much speaks for it's self. Kill all the one's which are considered to have a hereditary disease. Unlike birth control methods, this is the most permanent form of sterilization.

Genetic Engineering* - Human genetic engineering deals with the modification of a human by changing his or her genetic structure. This research is usually done to study gene expression and various human diseases. However, some drastic demonstrations of gene modification have been made with mice and other animals: a mouse with an 'ear' on its back, glow in the dark mice, etc. have been created (although mostly as a PR/"see if they could actually do it" type effort). Testing on humans has been generally deemed off limits. Genetic engineering could help alleviate many problems, such as diabetes, by inserting/removing genes in the correct places (thus causing the appropriate cells of the body to fix the problem). Genetic engineering to drastically change people's genomes could enable people to regrow limbs, spine, the brain, be stronger, faster, have better reaction time, be smarter, survive underwater longer, the abilities are endless. If nature has created it, it could be carried over to the human body and expressed. Genetic engineering could bring a number of improvements to our race. The human race would be able to adapt and survive more circumstances than currently possible. For example, humans can't breathe the atmosphere on Mars, nor live in the sea; genetically engineered people, theoretically, could. Populating areas currently impossible without external technology would no longer be as difficult.

* - From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Engineering
Also a good site: http://www.bootstrike.com/Genetics/Home/index.html

[Ombrageux]

It begs the question, what is a 'better' human.

I mean, what is a 'defect'? Some of which may be obvious, but not all. Autism for instance, I believe it's been shown that more intelligent parents had a higher chance of having autistic kids. Should we weed out these intelligence/autism causing genes?

Nevermind the risk of huge abuse when it comes to eugenics and, for instance, an ethnic group or race be deemed 'defective'.

It may be worth experimenting in this direction, but only when it comes to genetic engineering. Selective breeding and extermination will have only obscure long-term gains with huge short-term risks. Genetic engineering may be worth it, if and only if, it's shown to be safe.

[Schrödinger's Kitty]

It begs the question, what is a 'better' human.

Having desirable qualities over undesirable ones.

I mean, what is a 'defect'?

The failure of an organism to develop properly.

Some of which may be obvious, but not all. Autism for instance, I believe it's been shown that more intelligent parents had a higher chance of having autistic kids. Should we weed out these intelligence/autism causing genes?

That's more of a nature vs. nurture question. I don't believe intelligence is mostly countroled by genes, I believe it is mostly evironmental, how someone is brought up. However, you are making an assumption that autism and intelligence are controlled by the same gene.

Nevermind the risk of huge abuse when it comes to eugenics and, for instance, an ethnic group or race be deemed 'defective'.

When it comes to "designer babies," it would be up to the couple to determine which race they would like their child to be. This is not to different from selective breeding, where a person would choose their mate according to ethnicity or race. One group is seen as more desirable than another.

It may be worth experimenting in this direction, but only when it comes to genetic engineering. Selective breeding and extermination will have only obscure long-term gains with huge short-term risks. Genetic engineering may be worth it, if and only if, it's shown to be safe.

You are perhaps not understanding selective breeding, it is personal choice about one's mate. However, I see no short-term risk to extermination or selective breeding. Genetic Engineering needs to be put into the experimental phase, but too many religious types see it as immoral.

[Ombrageux]

The failure of an organism to develop properly.

Don't be tautological now and dodge the question. What is proper development? For instance, if a human were to grow up to be 4 foot, that might be viewed to be abnormal and improper. It wouldn't raise too many eyebrows in a pigmy community however.

So, what is 'proper'?

That's more of a nature vs. nurture question. I don't believe intelligence is mostly countroled by genes, I believe it is mostly evironmental, how someone is brought up. However, you are making an assumption that autism and intelligence are controlled by the same gene.

I am basing myself on studies (though sadly, I have no source and this is largely, IIRC) which claimed that people with higher intelligence had more autistic kids. Thus, it either means that autism is more likely to occur in a intelligent-parent environment (unlikely, IMO) or it means that autism is based on genes, some of the same as those for intelligene.

It might be akin to the genes for sickle-cells. They're useful, in moderation, but whether or not they are 'good' or 'bad' or 'proper' is meaningless in scientific language.

One group is seen as more desirable than another.

What if they want a 'defective' baby?

You are perhaps not understanding selective breeding, it is personal choice about one's mate. However, I see no short-term risk to extermination or selective breeding.

Helloooo? Nazis? WW2? All that hooey.

Genetic Engineering needs to be put into the experimental phase, but too many religious types see it as immoral.

It's not necessarily immoral, unless it needlessly put the babies created in danger of poor health.

[Schrödinger's Kitty]

Don't be tautological now and dodge the question. What is proper development? For instance, if a human were to grow up to be 4 foot, that might be viewed to be abnormal and improper. It wouldn't raise too many eyebrows in a pigmy community however.
So, what is 'proper'?

It would depend on the desired result. It would be proper to grow to '4 foot' (please use metric), if and only if it was the desired result for that person. The desires are usually set by the society and parents, not to mention the person themselves. However, I don't know of anyone who would choose to be abnormal, either too short or too tall. Though, these are really almost comical examples. Height of a person is of little regard when it comes to genetic diseases - which is what eugenics should mainly be about curing. Like I said, there are around 4,000 genetic disease idenified by medical science. Trying to eliminate these entirely from the human genome is something we should strive for.

I am basing myself on studies (though sadly, I have no source and this is largely, IIRC) which claimed that people with higher intelligence had more autistic kids. Thus, it either means that autism is more likely to occur in a intelligent-parent environment (unlikely, IMO) or it means that autism is based on genes, some of the same as those for intelligene.

Or a person with autism is more likely to be a nerd. It really depends on the specific case, and I would have to have scientific data before I would give an opinion on this topic.

It might be akin to the genes for sickle-cells. They're useful, in moderation, but whether or not they are 'good' or 'bad' or 'proper' is meaningless in scientific language.

If you asked parents if they wanted their children to have sickle-cell or any other genetic disease, they would say no. In fact, most would cut off their right arm so their children can have the best start in life possible - this include genetics.

What if they want a 'defective' baby?

That's their choice, as far as I am concerned. Though it would depend on what exactly you mean by 'defective' and the extent of the 'defectiveness'. If they want to engineer a child with red hair, for example, that would be acceptable. However if they would dilberately give their child kleinfelter's syndrome, that wouldn't be acceptable.

Helloooo? Nazis? WW2? All that hooey.

That has nothing to do with it. People invoke that just to silence discussion on these topics which should be discussed.

It's not necessarily immoral, unless it needlessly put the babies created in danger of poor health.

Don't use terms like "babies" - it is too ambiguous. It doesn't give the development of the child, such as fœtus, embryo, etc.
I would say, nothing is immoral or moral. What matters to me is the health of our species as a whole and our survival.

[Ombrageux]

Though, these are really almost comical examples. Height of a person is of little regard when it comes to genetic diseases - which is what eugenics should mainly be about curing. Like I said, there are around 4,000 genetic disease idenified by medical science. Trying to eliminate these entirely from the human genome is something we should strive for.

What if the parents want a baby with characteristics (such as, say, 1 sickle cell gene) which mainstream science considers abnormal? Who makes the last call on these designer-babies, the parents or the government?

That has nothing to do with it. People invoke that just to silence discussion on these topics which should be discussed.

I'm not trying to silence the discussion. But to say there are "no risks" is total nonsense. I am open to eugenics, especially and only genetic engineering, but don't pretend that things like extermination or selective breeding are 'harmless'.

They are potentially harmful to civil liberties and human life. The first step is to aknowledge that. The second is to try to figure out if it's possible to have eugenics without risking life and liberty.

Don't use terms like "babies" - it is too ambiguous. It doesn't give the development of the child, such as fœtus, embryo, etc.
I would say, nothing is immoral or moral. What matters to me is the health of our species as a whole and our survival.

Our species is trivial. The individuals that compose it are not. If eugenics it risks the health and life of the children it affects, then it is a dangerous policy.

[Le Rouge]

I have always "liked" the idea of eugenics by voluntary birth control and sterilization coupled with genetic engineering. There is no reason to forbid people to produce offspring because of heriditary genetics.

[Schrödinger's Kitty]

What if the parents want a baby with characteristics (such as, say, 1 sickle cell gene) which mainstream science considers abnormal? Who makes the last call on these designer-babies, the parents or the government?

It would be the same as child neglect or child abuse, depending on circumstances. Parents don't have the right to give a child a possibly life-threatening or harmful illness because they want to. There should be health regulations when it comes to genetic engineering, mantained by the government (for as long as there is one), similar to those of food, drugs and safety. At the end of the day, the last call wouldn't go to the government or the parents, it would go to the doctors/scientists who would be preforming the task of engineering the potential's genome.

I'm not trying to silence the discussion. But to say there are "no risks" is total nonsense. I am open to eugenics, especially and only genetic engineering, but don't pretend that things like extermination or selective breeding are 'harmless'.

There aren't risks. Well, it would depend on what you mean by risks. I can see how one would take that opinion on extermination, but selective breeding - no way. Also, extermination isn't the same as genocide, so the two realy don't compare. It would depend on your point-of-view. A radical christian zelot would say that abortion throughout the world has been mass-exterminations. Though equating it to national socialism's genocide is intellectually absurd.

They are potentially harmful to civil liberties and human life. The first step is to aknowledge that. The second is to try to figure out if it's possible to have eugenics without risking life and liberty.

What's 'wrong' with risking liberty or life? Please don't get into some metaphysical morality discussion.

Our species is trivial. The individuals that compose it are not. If eugenics it risks the health and life of the children it affects, then it is a dangerous policy.

Individuals are trivial. Survival of our species isn't. Look at the big picture. In a thousand years, it would not matter whether or not you existed, it would matter if the human species survived.

[Ombrageux]

There aren't risks. Well, it would depend on what you mean by risks. I can see how one would take that opinion on extermination, but selective breeding - no way. Also, extermination isn't the same as genocide, so the two realy don't compare. It would depend on your point-of-view. A radical christian zelot would say that abortion throughout the world has been mass-exterminations. Though equating it to national socialism's genocide is intellectually absurd.

That depends on whether or not you believe feotuses are human beings. I don't but if they were, then it's quite comparable to the holocaust.

Individuals are trivial. Survival of our species isn't. Look at the big picture. In a thousand years, it would not matter whether or not you existed, it would matter if the human species survived.

I suspect this is going to be our key differing point. Fact is, what matters is not our biological bodies, it's our experiences, our lives, feelings, sensations, that is, what we are as conscious beings and individuals.

I mean, ultimately, why should we care if our 'species' goes on or not? More important is that the component individuals are able to live happy lives. Eugenics, because of the health risks it involves, as well as risks to civil liberties, may curtail our ability to live happy lives. I mean, sure, our species might go on, but a bit more miserable.

Case in point: compare nomadic pre-Columbian Indians to Renaissance Spain. The Indians are in many ways healthier, free from dictatorship, free from plague and famine. However, these aspects of them which will increase their human-well-being, did not make their existence more likely, the disease-ridden, despotic, poorly-fed Spagniards were more than a match for the generally better off Indians. Those attributes which made them miserable were the same that made them stronger than the Indians.

Perhaps I have drifted, but my point being, I would rather make the choice of making us weaker, but happier, as a species, than one which would make us have a longer and more miserable experience.

[Schrödinger's Kitty]

That depends on whether or not you believe feotuses are human beings. I don't but if they were, then it's quite comparable to the holocaust.

A valid point-of-view...
However, killing fœti or embryos can't be comparable to the killing sapient cognoscenti with distinct personalities and awareness. It is an opinion blinded by metaphysical, nonsensical beliefs which don't stand up to logical reasoning.

I suspect this is going to be our key differing point. Fact is, what matters is not our biological bodies, it's our experiences, our lives, feelings, sensations, that is, what we are as conscious beings and individuals.

All that exists, is physical. There is nothing non-biological about us. Everything we feel, sense, experience etc., is just complex bio-chemical and -electro signals in the brain. It is all material. What matters to me, is not feelings that I alone have, or a brief sensation, but the things that are long-lasting, that which binds things and people together - commonality.

I mean, ultimately, why should we care if our 'species' goes on or not?

No one has to, however it is only natural. Why do people reproduce, and have children? It isn't because they like to change diapers. One of the things which all life has in common is reproduction/replication, the creating of new life. Each and every lifeform has this written into it's genetic code, the drive to procreate. It is so the species can survive, that life can survive, that life lives. I believe one of the only obligations a living organism has is to pass on it's genetic code.

More important is that the component individuals are able to live happy lives.

Happy is relative. Happy doesn't last too long, either. Shit always seems to happen to make life a bit unhappy. People put up with a lot of shit (like work, for instance) so their offspring can have better lives. Wheather they realise it or not, they are living for their species. That is not a selfish thing. People who live for sensations, feelings, to be personally happy; they are living selfishly. That might be good for them, but I don't consider it a virtue, certainly not something which is good in the long-run.

Eugenics, because of the health risks it involves, as well as risks to civil liberties, may curtail our ability to live happy lives. I mean, sure, our species might go on, but a bit more miserable.

Eugenics can be carried out in ways which have negligible health risks. The more considering the polcies are to 'risks' the slower the progression would be, but at least it would be some progress instead of none. I don't consider it 'risky' to experiment on human embryos. Much can be learned from that valuable reasource. One doesn't have to practice eugenics on children not in utero or adults. I really think it wouldn't be prudent to do the latter anyway, it is far more effective if the organism isn't developed when the changes to the genome are implemented.

Case in point: compare nomadic pre-Columbian Indians to Renaissance Spain. The Indians are in many ways healthier, free from dictatorship, free from plague and famine. However, these aspects of them which will increase their human-well-being, did not make their existence more likely, the disease-ridden, despotic, poorly-fed Spagniards were more than a match for the generally better off Indians. Those attributes which made them miserable were the same that made them stronger than the Indians.

In the end, I don't care about one population of humans over another. Science teaches us that nature evens it's self out eventually. If a bunch of them perish, it is because they are weak (can't resist disease, e.g.), however the human species as a whole is stronger, and those survivors adapt and are also stronger. Adaptation doesn't happen without adversity.

Perhaps I have drifted, but my point being, I would rather make the choice of making us weaker, but happier, as a species, than one which would make us have a longer and more miserable experience.

That makes the assumption that eugenics would cause the latter, i.e. miserable lives. There's no evidence to show that. Also the assumption that quantity will inversely result in quality, isn't founded.

[Ombrageux]

If a bunch of them perish, it is because they are weak (can't resist disease, e.g.), however the human species as a whole is stronger, and those survivors adapt and are also stronger. Adaptation doesn't happen without adversity.

That wasn't my point. My point was that historically, more miserable but stronger people have prevailed, multiplied and replaced happier but weakers people.

I don't think this is a good development. If eugenics represents a health risk (for instance, should GMing people have unintended consequences as we see on Dolly, who though only a clone, should illustrate the point) or is a danger to civil liberties (because the government would keep a track on who can reproduce, who should be exterminated, which genes one has) then it lowers our ability to have happy lives.

[Schrödinger's Kitty]

That wasn't my point. My point was that historically, more miserable but stronger people have prevailed, multiplied and replaced happier but weakers people.

You have insufficient data to reach a logical conclusion.
You are making a huge assumption that europeans were less happy and the natives were more happy.

I don't think this is a good development. If eugenics represents a health risk (for instance, should GMing people have unintended consequences as we see on Dolly, who though only a clone, should illustrate the point)...

It doesn't illustrate the point. You should acknowledge the clones aren't the same thing as gene-splicing with embryos.

...or is a danger to civil liberties (because the government would keep a track on who can reproduce, who should be exterminated, which genes one has) then it lowers our ability to have happy lives.

Actually eugenics is far from advocating government choosing who can reproduce, however it is an option. It is also not in the habbit of advocating extermination (also an option), but like I said before, it depends on the defintion of extermination (my example of abortion, for instance). Keeping track of a person's genetics isn't a violation of civil liberties, in my analysis. Infact it would improve health for said people. It would keep track of genetic diseases, just as an example. By having a population's genes to examine and analyze, one can more easily identify genetic abnormalies, isolate them and cure them. Your views of this seem to be inline with many science-fiction stories written by overly imaginative minds.

[Josh]

Uh... why are we talking about eugenics here? It's not a goal of Technocracy Inc. in any way, shape or form. And as for eugenics in a Technate... I sincerely doubt that would happen, short of the population voting in favor of it. :\

[Schrödinger's Kitty]

Uh... why are we talking about eugenics here?

It's the goal of my technate.

It's not a goal of Technocracy Inc. in any way, shape or form.

American design flaw.

And as for eugenics in a Technate... I sincerely doubt that would happen, short of the population voting in favor of it. :\

It wouldn't require a vote. It will happen by evolution of technology, people will personally choose it, even if it isn't voted on.

[Josh]

Well, I hate to break it to you, SK, but that's not Technocracy. At least, it's not Technocracy as it is today. Saying "it's the goal of my technate" doesn't make eugenics a part of Technocracy any more than my saying "I think gravity is purple" changes gravity.

It wouldn't require a vote. It will happen by evolution of technology, people will personally choose it, even if it isn't voted on.

Again, not Technocracy as it is today. Or was when it was first instituted, for that matter.

[Schrödinger's Kitty]

Well, I hate to break it to you, SK, but that's not Technocracy. At least, it's not Technocracy as it is today. Saying "it's the goal of my technate" doesn't make eugenics a part of Technocracy any more than my saying "I think gravity is purple" changes gravity.

Actually have you met anyone which agreed with any ideology 100%? I think not. If you have, you have met a automaton. I think technates should pursue eugenics, and if your little american organization doesn't like that they can just live in their little country.

Do you only agree with what Technocracy Inc. puts out on it's website?

Besides, there is no other forum this belongs in.

[Josh]

I think technates should pursue eugenics, and if your little american organization doesn't like that they can just live in their little country.

Technocracy, Inc. isn't just an "American organization"- the design of Technocracy includes the entire North American continent. I'm not trying to say that eugenics is good or bad. The point I'm trying to get across is that it is not the point of Technocracy. Technocracy is essentially the science of effectively running a continent that has an available abundance. Might I suggest this Information Brief?

As for eugenics in a technate, it would most likely be left to the decision of the people, since the Sequences would be concerned simply with their areas of expertise (which would involve the technical aspects of successfully running the technate and distributing the abundance).

Also, have you read the Technocracy Study Guide? It's essentially a textbook (slightly smaller) that explains Technocracy, and it (and the TTCD, which is essentially the TSG slightly rewritten) is an invaluable tool in properly understanding Technocracy.

[Schrödinger's Kitty]

First of all:
America = North and/or South America
The USA is different.

Second:
I never stated eugenics was "the point of technocracy."
And yes, I've read on technocracy.

[Einherjar]

I disagree with some thoughts of eugenics mainly because:

The human being will largely overpopulate, negatively affecting the environment. Eugenics can be applied if and only if humans begin to colonize space or by applying some sort of birth control .

There will be no natural evolution; the genetic modification of the human may not be compatible with the genetic adaptation required by nature.

This knowledge would be in the hands of the few scientists and those who can finance them, possibly creating abuses unless eugenics is totally normalized within society.

I believe that the human's emotional character will be negatively changed. For example, physical self-discipline will disappear (since one can just change his physique genetically).

I agree with some things though mainly sterelization of genetically defected individuals and abortion/euthanasia of defected fetuses/babies.
Though the most argument in favour is the inevitability of eugenics: A human invention can never be suppressed.

[Ombrageux]

The human being will largely overpopulate, negatively affecting the environment. Eugenics can be applied if and only if humans begin to colonize space or by applying some sort of birth control.

Not necessarily. Our population should cap out at about 8 billion. Many parts of the world have aging or even shrinking populations, Europe, the former Soviet Union (not central Asia), North/South Africa, North America and China.

Europe in particular is shrinking.

There will be no natural evolution; the genetic modification of the human may not be compatible with the genetic adaptation required by nature.

Natural evolution is horrendously slow and our society and environment has been changing far far far faster than our bodies can never keep pace. What's more, with many medical breakthroughs, increasingly, genetic predisposition towards disease is secondary.

This knowledge would be in the hands of the few scientists and those who can finance them, possibly creating abuses unless eugenics is totally normalized within society.

I agree.

I believe that the human's emotional character will be negatively changed. For example, physical self-discipline will disappear (since one can just change his physique genetically).

Hypothetically, we could change our emotional character too.