Eugenics (2 Viewers)

[quixote studios]

Seeing as how the God and Abortion threads have bloated into obscuritism, I'll throw in a more specific conversation piece.

Eugenics: Do you support it/oppose it? Why?

Before someone goes and godwins this on the first reply, let me clarify.

Positive involves promotion of "good" genes or genetic traits. There are varying levels of this, from genetic screening at birth to transhumanism to (speculative and scifi-ish) human improvement programs ie social/genetic engineering on a macro level.

Negative on the other hand is more social engineering, as in the removal from the gene pool of "undesirables", to quote the early 20th century, via sterilisation, institutionalisation and/or more direct and gaseous methods.

Throw in your thoughts

 

[Stevo.]

 

[katie_tully]

I whole heartedly support prenatal screening for degenerative genetic disorders.

The end.

 

[testiclepilot]

Support.

 

[Kwayera]

I whole heartedly support prenatal screening for degenerative genetic disorders.

The end.

Agreed.

 

[quixote studios]

you know who else supported eugenics????

oh, that's right

you mean the governments and acadaemia of the us, canada, britain, china, japan...pretty much half of europe?

let me desoberise first and ill post some more

 

[Slidey]

I support eugenics.

A valid scientific and ethical philosophy shouldn't be marred by the actions of a lunatic (Hitler). Brave New World brings up some interesting points, and great caution should certainly be taken, but I don't think doomsday hype should be allowed to stifle all progress in the matter.

Anyway, even if it isn't called eugenics, it will happen. It's a natural evolution of current biotechnology and medicine.

For clarification: I support combating ageing, genetic diseases, etc. Genetic manipulation for 'fun' or 'interest' isn't high on my agenda.

 

[Serius]

I dont really have a problem with it, even for fun or interest. Screen genes however you want, its the way of the future[or so all the sci-fi books i have read lead me to believe]

 

[Serius]

Australia has had "compulsory" sterilisation in the past, usually for downies and other mentally disabled.

This thread has a lot more scope than simple Hitler style eugenics. Genetic screening is one thing, but designer babies is even cooler. If certain genes are identified as providing positive traits[resistances to diseases, whiter teeth, greater inteligence etc] and an effective way of implanting these genes or encouraging them to be expressed is discovered then i would have no problem with providing these advantages for my children.

Who wouldnt want their kids to live longer, be healthier, more attractive and intelligent?

Then you can get into some really freaky shit, like modifying human DNA for particular purposes e.g breathing underwater, or to be able to survive in zero G and a vacum for extended periods[i.e space stations]

 

[Omium]

If certain genes are identified as providing positive traits[resistances to diseases, whiter teeth, greater inteligence etc] and an effective way of implanting these genes or encouraging them to be expressed is discovered then i would have no problem with providing these advantages for my children.

Who wouldnt want their kids to live longer, be healthier, more attractive and intelligent?

Then you can get into some really freaky shit, like modifying human DNA for particular purposes e.g breathing underwater, or to be able to survive in zero G and a vacum for extended periods[i.e space stations]

Makes you think dont it..

 

[lasnAy]

Australia has had "compulsory" sterilisation in the past, usually for downies and other mentally disabled.

If certain genes are identified as providing positive traits[resistances to diseases, whiter teeth, greater inteligence etc] and an effective way of implanting these genes or encouraging them to be expressed is discovered then i would have no problem with providing these advantages for my children.

would they still be YOUR children, as they're technically not YOUR genes?

has anyone read 'Brave new world' (by Huxley) by any chance? that book is a perfect insight into the dangers of eugenics........ i strongly suggest you read it (atleas tthe first half, which is the most intresting half) if you are seriiously interested in the possibilities/dangers that eugenics hold.

 

[tommykins]

I've read it, and whole heartedly agree with the World State.

There aren't any fucking dangers in that World, just the amount of people that are like "but zomgahz but i wunt be in touch wif mah feelinkz and morazlzz" that dislike it.

It is a perfectly fine world. Please tell me where its remotely "dangerous" to program the genes?

 

[lasnAy]

I've read it, and whole heartedly agree with the World State.

There aren't any fucking dangers in that World, just the amount of people that are like "but zomgahz but i wunt be in touch wif mah feelinkz and morazlzz" that dislike it.

It is a perfectly fine world. Please tell me where its remotely "dangerous" to program the genes?

so you would ratherl ive in a world in which there is no individuality? A world in which people are practically hypnotised through the use of hypnopaedia sleep teaching to simply quote meaningless sayings such as "Evryone belongs to everyone else", "civilisation is sterilisaiton", "whent he individual feels, the community reels".........

This is a community in which young children are taught to rejoice in the thoguhts of sexual experimentation, and death, whilst they are also taught to be disgusted with the idea of emotions and questioning the values of society (their society is a totalitarian society!!! theres a reason why hitler is despised) and devl;op a hatred for nature. This is a society in which consumerism and mass production are put ahead of individual freedom and humanity.


The dangers presented in 'Brave New World' is the loss of humanity and loss of individuality.

personally, i think the world state is disgusting.

 

[lasnAy]

btw the reason why i know so much about this novel and the themes it presents is because it is one of my compulsoy texts for English.

if you really want i could go on and on about the other (less significantly highlighted) dangers (technological, religious, social, etc.) that it also presents

 

[KFunk]

The dangers presented in 'Brave New World' is the loss of humanity and loss of individuality.

personally, i think the world state is disgusting.

Random question: 'humanity' is often thrown around as something which is essential or unassailable. Mightn't it be possible to change/redefine what it means to be human, or are some aspects of 'humanity' vital / not up for debate?

 

[lasnAy]

Random question: 'humanity' is often thrown around as something which is essential or unassailable. Mightn't it be possible to change/redefine what it means to be human, or are some aspects of 'humanity' vital / not up for debate?

wow your question somewhat caught me by surprise... mainly due to the fact that its so (lack of a better word) deep.... and i guess, also as the answer is completely up to interpretation.

But to answer your quesiton, Yes i do think that 'what it means to be human' is deffintly succeptible to change. This is so obviously seen from history. I.e. previously it was considered humane to disregard and look down upon the black population; it was considered humane to have a "white Asutralia Policy" and enforce this view upon others; and more recently it was also considered inhumane to be homosexual.

Although i do accept the idea that the definition of 'what it is to be humane" (if there even is a proper definition) is deffintly able to change depending on the current societal views.... i also think that some aspects of humanity (namely individualism, family, love, emotion, fear, pain, art, passion... etc..) should remain the same in order for the basic concept of humanity to be valid ( so that we dont have a completely new 'word'/concept/definition that we are talking about)

And now, this is where your question really strikes me. Cos now im sorta questioning "but who am i to define these aspects as the major aspects of humanity, which without, the whole concept of humanity would be totally new".
Especially as my current outlook on 'humanity' is only as a result of my society/context, and hence can easily be prooved to be wrong in the future (as is now happening with the ideas about black people and homosexuality- relating to previous examples)

sorry if that sentence doesnt even makes sense.... im not sure if i worded it correctly...

But yeh, basically i think that a society without individuality (which may possibly ultimately lead to the loss of passion, family, creativity, freedom, naturality... etc) which may result due to eugenics, will not be very humane in the sense that we know it to be today.



Also, my questin to whoever is:
where do we draw the line as to how in depth we implement the whole concept of eugenics.... i.e. do we make it availiable to only those who cannot conceive,or to those who have a strong liklihood of having a baby with a 'imperfection'/ genetic disorder (how do we define "strong liklihood"), or do we make it avaiable to everyone and (risking the possible threat of the loss of individuality?).... What happens when couple not only want to use this technology to eliminate the risk of abnormalities, but to actually "design" their own child!?!

basically this question, and the fact that we cannot draw a line as to how far we introduce this concept is the problem i have with making the technology avaiable to people (many people are very ignorant and won't even consider the full implications of using this technology...)

 

[Slidey]

lasnAy: one of the problems with BNW is that it is a dystopian novel.

My issue with using BNW as a guideline for eugenics advances is that BNW draws from multiple horror themes: unethical use of eugenics, unethical psychological manipulation, totalitarianism. Yet, more often then not, the typical HSC student will be told BNW is an explanation via example of why eugenics is bad. But I wonder how bad the eugenics in the book would be if the government weren't totalitarian? If it didn't practice mass brainwashing?

It's designed as a worst-case scenario. How many situations do you know where technology has been used ubiquitously for the worst case?

The novel was written in a time where fear of eugenics was rife; a time when only a few years prior all the brightest, nicest, most powerful and influential people from all walks of life advocated eugenics, often in an extreme and unethical form. The novel was very reactionary towards that mindset.

Contrast this with the mindset of the modern day. Do you see the notions of racial superiority or genetic purity having any followers at a religious, political, philanthropic or cultural level? Compared to the small number of supporters (because there's always a few), how many people don't support these concepts?

Would you let kneejerk reactionism ruin even the ethical advancements eugenics can provide?

 

[lasnAy]

My issue with using BNW as a guideline for eugenics advances is that BNW draws from multiple horror themes: unethical use of eugenics, unethical psychological manipulation, totalitarianism.
........But I wonder how bad the eugenics in the book would be if the government weren't totalitarian? If it didn't practice mass brainwashing?

Who's to say that eugenics won't be used for unethical purposes? One of the strognest arguments aginst making eugenics accessible to everyone is that it could (very likely) lead to an abuse of the technology by parents who wish to produce 'perfect' children. Would you not consider the artificial designing of a human being as unethical?

Also can you not see the link between
-the use of eugenics for parents to 'design' their children, with that of the testube babies in BNW where there are no natural processes such as childbirth; and
-of the money that parents would need to spend on eugenics services with that of the highly consumerist/mass production world of BNW. (again, i guess this is an extreme outlook.. but ultimately likely as our society is already highly consumeristic)



Also, my major concern about BNW in relation to eugenics is not so much about the fact that they practice mass brainwashing, but more so the fact that every single person in that society (bar bernard, helmholtz and maybe lenina) is practically the same. They all look the same, with their perfect bodys and everlasting youth, and they all think the same. Ultimately, even without a totalitarian government, as the use of eugenics becomes more prevalent, parents will be practically designing their kids to be the steotypically perfect person (i.e. good looking, tall, perfect skin, intelligent and basically to be perfect at everything). Hence eventually everyone will be almost the same. (i know this is a little extreme)

How many situations do you know where technology has been used ubiquitously for the worst case?

- hydrogen/nuclear bombs
- plastic surgeory etc (i know this isn't like the end of the world or anything, but plastic surgeory is becoming more and more accepted in society and also furthers the power of media and needing to conform etc..)

hmm im sure there should be a couple more obvious examples.. just can't think of them on the spot right now =p.....

Contrast this with the mindset of the modern day. Do you see the notions of racial superiority or genetic purity having any followers at a religious, political, philanthropic or cultural level? Compared to the small number of supporters (because there's always a few), how many people don't support these concepts?

A vast majority of people still hold the point of view that their beliefs and values/culture is better than other beleifs.
Also, Eugenics would be an extremely expensive process, thus only the upper class would be able to afford it. It wouldnt even be an option for consideration to the lower classes. Hence this further widens the social gap.

Would you let kneejerk reactionism ruin even the ethical advancements eugenics can provide?

In saying all of that, i do still see the pro's of eugenics technology aswell.

but its just a question of when to draw the line. And how to enforce this 'line'/restriction.

 

[lasnAy]

woahhh essay... sorry my bad! =p

 

[KFunk]

wow your question somewhat caught me by surprise... mainly due to the fact that its so (lack of a better word) deep.... and i guess, also as the answer is completely up to interpretation.

But to answer your quesiton, Yes i do think that 'what it means to be human' is deffintly succeptible to change. This is so obviously seen from history. I.e. previously it was considered humane to disregard and look down upon the black population; it was considered humane to have a "white Asutralia Policy" and enforce this view upon others; and more recently it was also considered inhumane to be homosexual.

Although i do accept the idea that the definition of 'what it is to be humane" (if there even is a proper definition) is deffintly able to change depending on the current societal views.... i also think that some aspects of humanity (namely individualism, family, love, emotion, fear, pain, art, passion... etc..) should remain the same in order for the basic concept of humanity to be valid ( so that we dont have a completely new 'word'/concept/definition that we are talking about)

And now, this is where your question really strikes me. Cos now im sorta questioning "but who am i to define these aspects as the major aspects of humanity, which without, the whole concept of humanity would be totally new".
Especially as my current outlook on 'humanity' is only as a result of my society/context, and hence can easily be prooved to be wrong in the future (as is now happening with the ideas about black people and homosexuality- relating to previous examples)

sorry if that sentence doesnt even makes sense.... im not sure if i worded it correctly...

But yeh, basically i think that a society without individuality (which may possibly ultimately lead to the loss of passion, family, creativity, freedom, naturality... etc) which may result due to eugenics, will not be very humane in the sense that we know it to be today.

Hey, thanks for the lengthy reply. I would tend to agree with your contextual approach to understanding the concept of 'humanity'. However, I would shy away from statements like "can easily be proved wrong in the future" because, on the relativist/contextualist account of a concept like humanity, 'wrong' really just means 'incorrect relative to a given context' which doesn't have the kind of weight we would usually like to imbue a claim of incorrectness/falsehood.

Also, you mention aspects of humanity that are important to you - individualism, family, love, art, emotions, etc. Do you have any thoughts on why these preferences stand out as important?