6 ms·

Last I checked, most people mated with a partner of their choosing. That you call it love and not "selection of the most desirable traits" doesn't change the f

by brohee 12y ago

Last I checked, most people mated with a partner of their choosing. That you call it love and not "selection of the most desirable traits" doesn't change the facts ;-)

readerrrr 12y ago
You are using the same mistake as most people when they associate the word eugenics with mass forced extermination of certain traits. Because of fear and certain individuals in the past. The word can be used in a modern context, where eugenics is performed voluntarily, on a very small population, and under scientific supervision for causes that benefit the entire humanity. The rest can live and love whoever they want. Genetic manipulation functionally falls in the same category, but it is better accepted because it doesn't have the negative history attached to it.
- Dewie 12y ago
  It isn't voluntary for the offspring that are created through such efforts. Sure, that's not the case for procreation to begin with... but the difference is that these people would effectively be bred for a specific purpose. Then, to keep it voluntary, I guess we would lightly suggest to them at some tender age to consider going into field which requires high intelligence? Or do we not interfere at all, and just observe them from a distance (since you mention scientific supervision)?
  - crazypyro 12y ago
    Nobody has a voluntary choice in their birth and eugenics doesn't have to breed people for a certain position or job. It may be something as simple as egg/sperm analysis that calculates a favorable (in whatever way the technology designers determine that) gene sequence and then the child would be raised normally. Eugenics doesn't mean the decay of the moral fabric of society or the loss of basic ethics in research. Why is it so hard to imagine eugenics integrating into modern society? This fear is really surprising to me.
    - dkarapetyan 12y ago
      It's not surprising at all. Eugenics on a large scale is also know as population control and it elicits negative visceral reactions for good reasons. Large undertakings usually require some kind of central control and the history of such control is not positive at all. Now if the choice comes down to something between two individuals because technology makes it possible to make certain choices that's a different matter but even then you are treading in dangerous territory. Who gets access to the technology? How do you verify that the technology is safe? Is there a beta test period? Who gets to be a beta tester? Anyway the list is long and the technology is nowhere near where it needs to be for even these kinds of choices to be made between two individuals let alone at the population level. I find the idea in general just intuitively unappealing. Humanity can't breed itself out of the problems it is in. Being smart is simply not enough. Anything worthwhile requires hard work. So are you going to breed for hard work as well now? I don't see these scientists looking for those genes though.
    - judk 12y ago
      Its like you didn't even notice that World War II happened.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Why not treat them identically to any intelligent child born today? This doesn't have to be weird.
- chriswarbo 12y ago
  > The word can be used in a modern context, where eugenics is performed voluntarily Relevant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMz_tK4Q6Qs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMz_tK4Q6Qs
- pcrh 12y ago
  "Eugenics" is actually currently practiced, but described as pre-implantation diagnostics. This allows parents who are carriers of a deleterious mutation, such as that causing Tay Sachs Disease, to avoid having children with the condition.
- theletterasdf 12y ago
  So what you're saying is that attractive women are all in on a eugenics conspiracy designed to wipe out white gamers who watch wolf sex cartoons?
socialist_coder 12y ago
I would be more than happy to raise a child that was not genetically related to me if it's genes were "better".
- Dewie 12y ago
  I notice your use of scare quotes. Is the state of the art advanced enough to make a judgement on whether or not a person is better at the genetic level than another person? I'm not just talking about some specific category or skill, but also as a well-rounded person. Because these people will have to live their own lives, and would be subject to whatever other traits that might arise when you try to optimize humans for some kind of skill. I at least don't think that the state of the art is so advanced that they can predict that optimizing for some specific trait might have some unforeseen consequences when it comes other, perhaps seemingly unrelated traits.
- cscurmudgeon 12y ago
  Is the corollary that one should not raise less "better" children? If this what we come to practice as a species, I would definitely hope that a superior one wipes us out soon.
  - LLWM 12y ago
    If this is what we come to practice as a species, we are in fact replacing ourselves with something superior. And unless you hope for your children to never be as successful as you were, that's a good thing.
    - walterbell 12y ago
      For whose definition of "better" and "superior"?
      - LLWM 12y ago
        The parents of each individual child, obviously.
    - 12y ago
wolfgke 12y ago
Unluckily at least in Germany highly educated people often produce less children than low educated ones.
- ZenoArrow 12y ago
  The goal should be to help encourage the next generation to do something meaningful (to them), regardless of what advantages they had at birth.
  - aurelian 12y ago
    If country A makes and achieves its goal to give the next generation an average IQ of 130, and country B makes its goal to encourage the next generation to do something meaningful (to them), B will serve A before long.
    - ZenoArrow 12y ago
      I somewhat doubt it. Let's use something you're likely to be familiar with, smartphone apps... Now it's arguable that the skills required to develop a smartphone app implies a reasonable level of intelligence, yet look at any app store and you'll see huge numbers of uninspired, lowest common denominator shovelware. Does the world really need hundreds of todo apps? Do you really think people are driven to make those apps for anything greater than the "prestige" of being an app developer or a desperate attempt at making money? Compare and contrast with a society that values the outcome of the work rather than how book smart you need to be able to do it. For example nature conservation is pretty easy to understand how to do right, and there's a tangible lasting benefit. Guess it depends on what you view as a society worth having.
    - peterfirefly 12y ago
      Maybe. Or lots of people from country B will get into country A as "refugees", bring along their families, and have taxpayers in country A pay for them while they do what they can to be racist and criminal against native people from country A. It depends on the moral sensibilities of the A'ers.

by brohee 12y ago

Last I checked, most people mated with a partner of their choosing. That you call it love and not "selection of the most desirable traits" doesn't change the facts ;-)

readerrrr 12y ago

You are using the same mistake as most people when they associate the word eugenics with mass forced extermination of certain traits. Because of fear and certain individuals in the past. The word can be used in a modern context, where eugenics is performed voluntarily, on a very small population, and under scientific supervision for causes that benefit the entire humanity. The rest can live and love whoever they want. Genetic manipulation functionally falls in the same category, but it is better accepted because it doesn't have the negative history attached to it.

Dewie 12y ago
It isn't voluntary for the offspring that are created through such efforts. Sure, that's not the case for procreation to begin with... but the difference is that these people would effectively be bred for a specific purpose. Then, to keep it voluntary, I guess we would lightly suggest to them at some tender age to consider going into field which requires high intelligence? Or do we not interfere at all, and just observe them from a distance (since you mention scientific supervision)?
- crazypyro 12y ago
  Nobody has a voluntary choice in their birth and eugenics doesn't have to breed people for a certain position or job. It may be something as simple as egg/sperm analysis that calculates a favorable (in whatever way the technology designers determine that) gene sequence and then the child would be raised normally. Eugenics doesn't mean the decay of the moral fabric of society or the loss of basic ethics in research. Why is it so hard to imagine eugenics integrating into modern society? This fear is really surprising to me.
  - dkarapetyan 12y ago
    It's not surprising at all. Eugenics on a large scale is also know as population control and it elicits negative visceral reactions for good reasons. Large undertakings usually require some kind of central control and the history of such control is not positive at all. Now if the choice comes down to something between two individuals because technology makes it possible to make certain choices that's a different matter but even then you are treading in dangerous territory. Who gets access to the technology? How do you verify that the technology is safe? Is there a beta test period? Who gets to be a beta tester? Anyway the list is long and the technology is nowhere near where it needs to be for even these kinds of choices to be made between two individuals let alone at the population level. I find the idea in general just intuitively unappealing. Humanity can't breed itself out of the problems it is in. Being smart is simply not enough. Anything worthwhile requires hard work. So are you going to breed for hard work as well now? I don't see these scientists looking for those genes though.
  - judk 12y ago
    Its like you didn't even notice that World War II happened.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Why not treat them identically to any intelligent child born today? This doesn't have to be weird.
chriswarbo 12y ago
> The word can be used in a modern context, where eugenics is performed voluntarily Relevant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMz_tK4Q6Qs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMz_tK4Q6Qs
pcrh 12y ago
"Eugenics" is actually currently practiced, but described as pre-implantation diagnostics. This allows parents who are carriers of a deleterious mutation, such as that causing Tay Sachs Disease, to avoid having children with the condition.
theletterasdf 12y ago
So what you're saying is that attractive women are all in on a eugenics conspiracy designed to wipe out white gamers who watch wolf sex cartoons?

socialist_coder 12y ago

I would be more than happy to raise a child that was not genetically related to me if it's genes were "better".

Dewie 12y ago
I notice your use of scare quotes. Is the state of the art advanced enough to make a judgement on whether or not a person is better at the genetic level than another person? I'm not just talking about some specific category or skill, but also as a well-rounded person. Because these people will have to live their own lives, and would be subject to whatever other traits that might arise when you try to optimize humans for some kind of skill. I at least don't think that the state of the art is so advanced that they can predict that optimizing for some specific trait might have some unforeseen consequences when it comes other, perhaps seemingly unrelated traits.
cscurmudgeon 12y ago
Is the corollary that one should not raise less "better" children? If this what we come to practice as a species, I would definitely hope that a superior one wipes us out soon.
- LLWM 12y ago
  If this is what we come to practice as a species, we are in fact replacing ourselves with something superior. And unless you hope for your children to never be as successful as you were, that's a good thing.
  - walterbell 12y ago
    For whose definition of "better" and "superior"?
    - LLWM 12y ago
      The parents of each individual child, obviously.
  - 12y ago

wolfgke 12y ago

Unluckily at least in Germany highly educated people often produce less children than low educated ones.

ZenoArrow 12y ago
The goal should be to help encourage the next generation to do something meaningful (to them), regardless of what advantages they had at birth.
- aurelian 12y ago
  If country A makes and achieves its goal to give the next generation an average IQ of 130, and country B makes its goal to encourage the next generation to do something meaningful (to them), B will serve A before long.
  - ZenoArrow 12y ago
    I somewhat doubt it. Let's use something you're likely to be familiar with, smartphone apps... Now it's arguable that the skills required to develop a smartphone app implies a reasonable level of intelligence, yet look at any app store and you'll see huge numbers of uninspired, lowest common denominator shovelware. Does the world really need hundreds of todo apps? Do you really think people are driven to make those apps for anything greater than the "prestige" of being an app developer or a desperate attempt at making money? Compare and contrast with a society that values the outcome of the work rather than how book smart you need to be able to do it. For example nature conservation is pretty easy to understand how to do right, and there's a tangible lasting benefit. Guess it depends on what you view as a society worth having.
  - peterfirefly 12y ago
    Maybe. Or lots of people from country B will get into country A as "refugees", bring along their families, and have taxpayers in country A pay for them while they do what they can to be racist and criminal against native people from country A. It depends on the moral sensibilities of the A'ers.