We do a dirty word.

[Ravariel]

And that word is: Eugenics.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Zomgnazis, hitlerhitlerhitler wtfevil.

Now that Godwin's law is out of the way, shall we look at the reality?

The reality is that we already practice Eugenics. Using prenatal genetic testing, during the 80s and 90s over 90% of those cases that indicated the existence of Down Syndrome were terminated. Over 60% of Spinabifida cases were terminated. Over 80% of Anencaphaly cases were terminated. Over 70% of Turner Syndrome cases were terminated and over 50% of Klinefelter Syndrome cases were terminated. As our ability to safely test for these genetic disorders increases, we can similarly expect an increase in the number of terminated pregnancies. Though, if we look at the numbers, if all instances of these situations were terminated (an unlikely scenario) then the rate for abortion would rise from 2% to 3%.

However, there is another side to that. We already require married couples to get blood tests to check for possible incompatibilities that would increase the likelihood of serious genetic disorders. We use in-vitro fertilization that may choose the best embryos for implantation. The abortion rate is already falling, and tests to determine the viability and genetic makeup of embryos prior to implantation means that the incidences of these problems is likely to drop.

Using our medical technology to lower incidences of genetic diseases is eugenics. We do this. Terminating pregnancies that are severely disabled or otherwise genetically harmed is eugenics. We do this, too.

Eugenics is unfairly associated with an unfortunate part of our history, and is conflated with the massacre of those people considered to be "less human" or "genetically inferior" to those in power. The creation of a master race is not eugenics. Killing people is not eugenics. The improvement of the health and abilities of our species IS eugenics, and it is something that we already do, gladly, enthusiastically and, sometimes, sadly (in the case of terminating pregnancies). Eugenics is not about destroying life, it is about improving it. Why would we abort a pregnancy if we could fix the problem through gene therapy? This is obviously many years away yet, but certain types of in-utero gene therapy already exist... to expect that in 20-30 years that we can eradicate instances of debilitating genetic disorders such as Taysachs, Downs Syndrome and others is no stretch of the imagination.

Another dirty word that often gets chucked around with the boogeyman of eugenics is the idea of "designer" babies. The thought that we can combine parents' DNA in such a way as to bring about the best possible combination to create smarter, healthier, stronger children. But with gene therapy, as well as some other technologies coming down the pike, we can not only expect to be able to create designer babies, but designer parents as well. We have found the gene that creates obesity, and have shut it off successfully in mice, where they can eat as much as they want, gain all of the caloric benefits from that food, but do not store the excess in fat and are no longer subject to things like Type 2 diabetes, hypertension and other obesity-related issues... as well as lived 20% longer than the mice who were left with their fat gene activated. Human trials for this procedure are about 10 years away at this point.

Curing diseases is Eugenics. Vaccination is Eugenics. Transplants are Eugenics. They are all methods of improving the viability of the human species. They are all also ways of creating "designer" humans. Our methods currently are crude, and work in broad strokes, but our ability to fine-tune our modifications improves every year.

Like it or not, we live in a culture of eugenically designed humans, who value the superlative over the mediocre (or worse), and who will continue to better our lot in life, and that of our children. The question becomes, then, do we embrace the betterment of ourselves, our children and our species... or do we run like scared children and let our genes determine everything? Like it or not, again, you probably won't have much choice. Eugenics has touched you, your family, and the entire world... and we are all better for it.

note to mods: I know there are other eugenics topics out there, but they're over a year old and the discussions didn't really have the depth of information I felt was needed. Feel free to lock if you think this is too derivative and repetitious.

[SolInvictus]

At 4/6/11 08:32 PM, Ravariel wrote: Eugenics is unfairly associated with an unfortunate part of our history, and is conflated with the massacre of those people considered to be "less human" or "genetically inferior" to those in power.

and apparently still is!!
so many fun moral questions and religious flame-war possibilities and no ones biting?

there is still the question of availability of genetic enhancements; will we be globally benevolent or will profits (or just about anything else i guess; its still the future) influence the lag between populations in so far as genetic improvement?

[Ravariel]

At 4/6/11 09:08 PM, SolInvictus wrote: so many fun moral questions and religious flame-war possibilities and no ones biting?

I know... I expected more from you, Newgrounds!

there is still the question of availability of genetic enhancements; will we be globally benevolent or will profits (or just about anything else i guess; its still the future) influence the lag between populations in so far as genetic improvement?

Well, of course there will be a lag. There always is. Look at Cell phones for a good example. 15 years ago, they were only for the rich. Today, they fuel revolutions in third-world countries and are ubiquitous throughout the world. The same happened with vaccines (though current retarded politics has allowed that shit to backslide... though that's a topic for another thread) with the rich western countries gaining the benefits first, then as costs decreased the rest of the world could benefit.

At first, yes, this will create a disparity between those with money and those without. It is also possible that the accelerated technology means that the richest will always have access to better gear, that, as tech advances, continually puts them farther and farther ahead of the poorer nations who will always be unable to catch up. Or, possibly there will coma a time when the rich are so far advanced and ahead of the pack, that their ability to bring the lower class along will outstrip the separation.

[Gario]

Huh, I'd tell everyone how bad Eugenics is and all (it is totally evil!!1!), but now that I think about it, Eugenics is Darwin Evolution taken to it's logical extreme. I like Evolution, so... yeah.

For some reason I can't find myself to logically hate on that, despite the fact that in some ambiguous moral fashion I should. Sorry, no flame war from me right now, for some reason.

[Camarohusky]

I can see three routes down which eugenics becomes bad.

First: The clear one we think of with the term. the killing of human beings in order to clease the existing population. I do not need to expand upon this. We all know the moral issues here.

Second: The Gattaca scenario. The use of prenatal cleansing could get to the point where the genetically "clean" become a higher class and thus leaving those who are not in a lower dirty class based on nothing other than their genes.

Third: We go a little too crazy with genetic cleansing and we end up going all Brave New World on ourselves and remove a great deal of the diversity and minor flaws that makes us human.

[KemCab]

Eugenics is just another word for evolution.

And the concept of it, as it is generally perceived as today, will be irrelevant in the long run because of nanotechnology, strong AI, and the like.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/7/11 12:03 PM, KemCab wrote: Eugenics is just another word for evolution.

Ha! Nope.

For all we know we may actually supressing the very gene that will lead to a stronger better human species.

[MultiCanimefan]

Eugenics is fine so long as it doesn't lead us to some technocratic scientific dictatorship.

[SolInvictus]

At 4/7/11 01:06 PM, Camarohusky wrote: For all we know we may actually supressing the very gene that will lead to a stronger better human species.

and allowing nature to take its course is just as likely to do the same.

[Ravariel]

At 4/7/11 01:59 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Eugenics is fine so long as it doesn't lead us to some technocratic scientific dictatorship.

How might it lead to such a state?

Also, to the question of homogenizing the gene pool to a dangerous level... why, if we had the choice, would we tend towards homogeny? The physical abilities that are most suited for marathon running are ill-suited for sprinting, Basketball or deep-sea fishing. The physical attributes that allow survival in hot climates do poorly in cold ones. The mental attributes that are best for the artistic side of things aren't as useful for the mathematical. If we gain the ability to create ourselves in whatever image we desire, why would we all create the same thing? We can all choose the same clothes... yet we don't. We can all choose the same music... yet we don't.

I believe that the human desire for both individuality and community will pull on that issue enough to make it a moot point. I also believe that the separation of abilities as the rich gain first access to the technology will not be fast enough to allow them to create a meritocracy that lets them impose a set standard for enhancement.

[Camarohusky]

At 4/8/11 04:18 PM, Ravariel wrote: Also, to the question of homogenizing the gene pool to a dangerous level... why, if we had the choice, would we tend towards homogeny?

I think your example of 'tailored people' and the freedom of chopice are heavily at odds.

Built for job X, but freedom of choice could lead to a great deal of Xers wanting job Y and so on.

[Ravariel]

At 4/8/11 07:23 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/8/11 04:18 PM, Ravariel wrote: Also, to the question of homogenizing the gene pool to a dangerous level... why, if we had the choice, would we tend towards homogeny?

I think your example of 'tailored people' and the freedom of chopice are heavily at odds.

Built for job X, but freedom of choice could lead to a great deal of Xers wanting job Y and so on.

Then they could tailor themselves for that job. Eventually we will be able to build ourselves as we wish to be. Not everyone wants to be a Football player... not everyone wants to be a concert pianist. This goes beyond engineering prior to birth... we will be able to engineer ourselves as we see fit.

[KemCab]

At 4/7/11 01:06 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/7/11 12:03 PM, KemCab wrote: Eugenics is just another word for evolution.

Ha! Nope.

Okay, since what I was saying seemed to pass over your head (predictably), I'll elaborate.

Evolution is the change of inherited traits in populations of organisms over time, and this is done by natural selection. All selection is ultimately "natural" -- there is no point in differentiating between whether a human agent was involved or not in the process. Eugenics is merely a human extension of this.

For all we know we may actually supressing the very gene that will lead to a stronger better human species.

Evolution isn't about producing the "strongest" and "best" species; it is the trend wherein more adaptable populations of organisms survive over others. Furthermore, your objection is stupid because that magical "better" gene you were talking about might be suppressed or weeded out by "natural" reasons as well.