5 ms·

Pretty much all of us are massive hypocrites when it comes to Eugenics: it is a taboo subject when applied to populations, yet everyone apart from the insane is

Pretty much all of us are massive hypocrites when it comes to Eugenics: it is a taboo subject when applied to populations, yet everyone apart from the insane is looking for a genetically fit partner.

lihaciudaniel 8y ago
You are right. As proof there's the game of chess.
magduf 8y ago
I disagree: it's the concept of voluntary vs. involuntary decisions. If I look for a genetically fit partner to have kids with, that's my decision, and it's my choice as to what I consider "good" genes (which is arbitrary, after all). If the state does it, then I have no choice, plus I might be getting paired with someone who I don't consider to have "good" genes, or I might not even be allowed to breed at all.
- growlist 8y ago
  > it's my choice as to what I consider "good" genes (which is arbitrary, after all) But is your choice yours, or just your genes speaking? I'd also dispute the idea that there aren't universal indicators of genetic fitness that we all find attractive. Given free choice we would all prefer someone with better skin, brighter eyes, more lustrous hair, better teeth, etc. etc. wouldn't we? No one sets out to look for an ugly, physically lousy mate, do they? > If the state does it, then I have no choice, plus I might be getting paired with someone who I don't consider to have "good" genes, or I might not even be allowed to breed at all. Like it or not, Eugenics of a type is probably coming down the track anyway via gene editing. Who would turn down the chance to upgrade their offspring's intellect or height, given the option?
  - dangerface 8y ago
    > No one sets out to look for an ugly, physically lousy mate, do they? Search porn hub for BBW.
    - growlist 8y ago
      To reiterate my earlier comment: 'everyone apart from the insane'
dragonwriter 8y ago
It is not hypocrisy to believe that something is appropriate as a free individual choice and reprehensible as compulsorily-imposed State policy. Saying that that makes us hypocrites about eugenics is like saying supporting adults freely engaging in consensual sex but opposing government-mandated compulsory intercourse as soon as one reaches the age of majority makes us hypocrites about sex.
DoreenMichele 8y ago
Some people have no plans to reproduce. Many women are quite willing to get with some ugly old geezer with money in order to get a cut of his money. Your hypothesis doesn't hold any water on the face of it, even before getting into much more complicated edge cases. I once saw a comment on a cystic fibrosis forum by a woman with CF who had a previous boyfriend with CF. CF causes significant reproductive problems, including that 97 percent of men with CF have vas deferens, so their ejaculate contains no live sperm. On top of that it is a homozygous recessive disorder, so it's very controversial for someone with CF to want biological children of their own since you have no hope of not passing on a defective gene. Two people with CF wanting a child together would be guaranteed to have a child with CF and it would almost certainly require medical intervention to happen at all. The CF community frequently has heated, emotional discussions about the morality of having more kids if your first child has CF, having biological kids at all if you have CF, etc. I also have read of people with certain disorders having intervention so they could have a biological child and select out the ones that got the bad genes because they knew how torturous the condition was and had no desire to do that to their own child. The ability to identify problematic genes via testing and the option to have certain kinds of fertility intervention is creating a whole slew of new questions. This complicated by the fact that genetic disorders profligate when they offer a survival advantage. This is the story behind Sickle Cell, which helps protect against malaria. It is also the reason CF is so much more common in Caucasian populations of European descent: Having only one of the genes doesn't give you a deadly condition and protects against an infection that rampantly killed people in Europe historically. So it is entirely possible that after designer babies become a thing and we remove too many "bad" genes from the gene pool, someday this will come back to bite us for some reason.
- growlist 8y ago
  > Many women are quite willing to get with some ugly old geezer with money in order to get a cut of his money. Resources are arguably a proxy for genetic fitness, in that those resources must have been acquired somehow, and discounting luck that would indicate success in the acquisition of resources - on its own a useful trait to pass on to your offspring. Apart from that, it's perfectly possible for women to marry the ugly old geezer and be promiscuous with attractive young men, and this is backed up by statistics on the number of children unknowingly raised by men that are not the biological father. I never said that Eugenics is desirable or that I support it. All I said is that I think there is a discrepancy - if we took the same approach to personal attraction as we do at a societal level towards Eugenics we would forbid attraction based on physical factors, which would be a very different world from what we have now.

Pretty much all of us are massive hypocrites when it comes to Eugenics: it is a taboo subject when applied to populations, yet everyone apart from the insane is looking for a genetically fit partner.

lihaciudaniel 8y ago

You are right. As proof there's the game of chess.

magduf 8y ago

I disagree: it's the concept of voluntary vs. involuntary decisions. If I look for a genetically fit partner to have kids with, that's my decision, and it's my choice as to what I consider "good" genes (which is arbitrary, after all). If the state does it, then I have no choice, plus I might be getting paired with someone who I don't consider to have "good" genes, or I might not even be allowed to breed at all.

growlist 8y ago
> it's my choice as to what I consider "good" genes (which is arbitrary, after all) But is your choice yours, or just your genes speaking? I'd also dispute the idea that there aren't universal indicators of genetic fitness that we all find attractive. Given free choice we would all prefer someone with better skin, brighter eyes, more lustrous hair, better teeth, etc. etc. wouldn't we? No one sets out to look for an ugly, physically lousy mate, do they? > If the state does it, then I have no choice, plus I might be getting paired with someone who I don't consider to have "good" genes, or I might not even be allowed to breed at all. Like it or not, Eugenics of a type is probably coming down the track anyway via gene editing. Who would turn down the chance to upgrade their offspring's intellect or height, given the option?
- dangerface 8y ago
  > No one sets out to look for an ugly, physically lousy mate, do they? Search porn hub for BBW.
  - growlist 8y ago
    To reiterate my earlier comment: 'everyone apart from the insane'

dragonwriter 8y ago

It is not hypocrisy to believe that something is appropriate as a free individual choice and reprehensible as compulsorily-imposed State policy. Saying that that makes us hypocrites about eugenics is like saying supporting adults freely engaging in consensual sex but opposing government-mandated compulsory intercourse as soon as one reaches the age of majority makes us hypocrites about sex.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

Some people have no plans to reproduce. Many women are quite willing to get with some ugly old geezer with money in order to get a cut of his money. Your hypothesis doesn't hold any water on the face of it, even before getting into much more complicated edge cases. I once saw a comment on a cystic fibrosis forum by a woman with CF who had a previous boyfriend with CF. CF causes significant reproductive problems, including that 97 percent of men with CF have vas deferens, so their ejaculate contains no live sperm. On top of that it is a homozygous recessive disorder, so it's very controversial for someone with CF to want biological children of their own since you have no hope of not passing on a defective gene. Two people with CF wanting a child together would be guaranteed to have a child with CF and it would almost certainly require medical intervention to happen at all. The CF community frequently has heated, emotional discussions about the morality of having more kids if your first child has CF, having biological kids at all if you have CF, etc. I also have read of people with certain disorders having intervention so they could have a biological child and select out the ones that got the bad genes because they knew how torturous the condition was and had no desire to do that to their own child. The ability to identify problematic genes via testing and the option to have certain kinds of fertility intervention is creating a whole slew of new questions. This complicated by the fact that genetic disorders profligate when they offer a survival advantage. This is the story behind Sickle Cell, which helps protect against malaria. It is also the reason CF is so much more common in Caucasian populations of European descent: Having only one of the genes doesn't give you a deadly condition and protects against an infection that rampantly killed people in Europe historically. So it is entirely possible that after designer babies become a thing and we remove too many "bad" genes from the gene pool, someday this will come back to bite us for some reason.

growlist 8y ago
> Many women are quite willing to get with some ugly old geezer with money in order to get a cut of his money. Resources are arguably a proxy for genetic fitness, in that those resources must have been acquired somehow, and discounting luck that would indicate success in the acquisition of resources - on its own a useful trait to pass on to your offspring. Apart from that, it's perfectly possible for women to marry the ugly old geezer and be promiscuous with attractive young men, and this is backed up by statistics on the number of children unknowingly raised by men that are not the biological father. I never said that Eugenics is desirable or that I support it. All I said is that I think there is a discrepancy - if we took the same approach to personal attraction as we do at a societal level towards Eugenics we would forbid attraction based on physical factors, which would be a very different world from what we have now.