Questions for Eugenicists

[Sean]

Do you support eugenics because you see that it is the inevitable result of human history? If no, then why do you support it? I have seen a lot of people claim to support it, but rarely do I see people state why.

And also, are there any things that eugenics program should aim to avoid? If so, what should be done to prevent undesired outcomes? I am directing these question solely towards proponents of eugenics.

[Arminius]

Do you support eugenics because you see that it is the inevitable result of human history? If no, then why do you support it?

No, I don't see it as inevitable. I don't know what the future will bring for humans, or if we will survive in even the short-term future. The reason I am inclined to support a eugenics program is that I take an interest in the course of human evolution. Species have natural selection, and humans even practice their own selection by picking a mate. Why then is it not prudent for humans to take that a step further and use our technological advancements to aid our desired course of evolution? I don't see a moral conflict there, although I can see how some religions may have their objections.

[Ravenheart]

Do you support eugenics because you see that it is the inevitable result of human history?

In a way, yes. History is world development, and this will entail the overcoming of the human condition. Virtually all people want to be healthy, strong, intelligent, beautiful, etc and wish the same for their children. This progressive impulse is too often overruled by egoist desires, though. The development of biotech (germline therapy, embryo selection, etc) will solve this; many people will want to use it to give their children the best they can afford. I do not think this will result in a two-caste society of genetic-haves and genetic-havenots (as some dystopian anti-eugenicists argue); the people will most likely not accept such a system in the long run. Instead, we'll probably see insurance companies or government programs to make at least certain procedures (probably starting with the eradication of hereditary defects) accessible to the poorer people as well. The genetic improvement of mankind is then already being institutionalised.

And also, are there any things that eugenics program should aim to avoid? If so, what should be done to prevent undesired outcomes?

I don't want pseudo-artsy freaks to use biotech to create bizarre offspring. There should probably be a list of legalised procedures, and doctors who stray from the list should have their licenses revoked. On the other hand, whether or not a person will make use of biotech should be up to him/herself. Exceptions to the latter should be made if the person in question is not mentally mature or stable, or if (s)he carries severe genetic defects that should not be allowed to spread among the population, in which case (s)he should be presented with the choice between sterilisation and the available form of biotech, e.g. embryo selection or germline therapy.

[Jonathan]

Do you support eugenics because you see that it is the inevitable result of human history?
That's something that I often wonder about when I think of the Eugenicists. They claim that they want to improve humanity, and that's all well and good. But to what end? Just keep breeding the "best" traits...until what exaclty?

[Arminius]

But to what end? Just keep breeding the "best" traits...until what exaclty?

I think a large part of it is to discover humanity's potential. A question to answer: Is it possible to breed humans with a higher brain capacity/intelligence than previously thought? There are many such questions, but they aren't being sought after because of this nonsensical taboo about Eugenics.

[Fade the Butcher]

Do you support eugenics because you see that it is the inevitable result of human history? If no, then why do you support it? I have seen a lot of people claim to support it, but rarely do I see people state why.

Eugenics for me is nothing but a sort of medical technology that can be used to improve our lives. It's like asking me whether or not I support antibiotics. Of course.

[Sean]

I don't see a moral conflict there, although I can see how some religions may have their objections.

I disagree. I think that many secularists reject eugenics because they find it morally repulsive to have a program that picks and chooses which traits are and which are not desirable, and this is the same reason that Christians are against it as well. (I'm not necessarily expressing this opinion myself here.)

[Arminius]

I don't disagree. I didn't say that secularists can't have objections. However, it is usually people that are "Right-to-lifers", which voice their concerns about experimenting on human embryos (I can understand, given their religion). I think many people (less educated on the topic) have objections because of the Nazi stereotype.

[Ixtab]

Why improve the human race through eugenics? That is tantamount to asking, Why is strength preferable to feebleness? why is prosperity preferable to penury? why is happiness preferable to suffering? These are philosophical questions the resolution to which should not disrupt the progress of eugenics. They are for the philosopher and not the medical man.

[Sean]

I don't disagree. I didn't say that secularists can't have objections. However, it is usually people that are "Right-to-lifers", which voice their concerns about experimenting on human embryos (I can understand, given their religion). I think many people (less educated on the topic) have objections because of the Nazi stereotype.

I don't think that it's just the Nazi association that prevents people from supporting it. I think that people object to it for the same reason that they object to torturing innocent children (not implying that the two are found to be equivalent, just that the objections to both of them spring from the same impulse).

[Helios Panoptes]

I disagree. I think that many secularists reject eugenics because they find it morally repulsive to have a program that picks and chooses which traits are and which are not desirable, and this is the same reason that Christians are against it as well. (I'm not necessarily expressing this opinion myself here.)

Let's be honest: these very same secularists value the same traits. None of them want to have deformed or retarded children. That is probably one of their worst nightmares. They also desire high intelligence, good health, etc. in their offspring.

[Arminius]

I don't think that it's just the Nazi association that prevents people from supporting it. I think that people object to it for the same reason that they object to torturing innocent children (not implying that the two are found to be equivalent, just that the objections to both of them spring from the same impulse).

Embryo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tubal_Pregnancy_with_embryo.jpg)
Child (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Child_tongue.jpg)

If that is the case, then they are idiots.

[Sean]

Let's be honest: these very same secularists value the same traits. None of them want to have deformed or retarded children. That is probably one of their worst nightmares. They also desire high intelligence, good health, etc. in their offspring.

Possibly. But not wanting your own children to have certain traits is an entirely different matter than telling other people what traits they should allow theirs to have.

Embryo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tubal_Pregnancy_with_embryo.jpg)
Child (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Child_tongue.jpg)

If that is the case, then they are idiots.

I don't get what you're saying. I was saying simply that the reason people often reject eugenics is because they find it morally repulsive, and that this is the same reason people site for their objection to torturing children. In neither case will they be able to site further reasons, and as I said, this does not imply that one is not worse than the other. Why would this make them idiots?

[Helios Panoptes]

Possibly. But not wanting your own children to have certain traits is an entirely different matter than telling other people what traits they should allow theirs to have.

Indeed, but as you know, probably the first response one hears from anti-eugenicists is that no trait is better than any other, but they, themselves, value some traits highly and loathe others with great consistency. With that thrust met, we can move to the observaton that eugenics would be able to greatly reduce the occurrence of those traits which are disliked and feared, and increase the frequency of those which are valued almost universally within a few generations through non-violent means.

[Arminius]

was saying simply that the reason people often reject eugenics is because they find it morally repulsive, and that this is the same reason people site for their objection to torturing children. [...] Why would this make them idiots?

You didn't state that the connection is that they are both morally repulsive, rather I had to assume that you meant they saw them as connected to each other (i.e., experimenting on embryos and torturing children). When they thought of those experiments their first impulse was "Child torture."


I think that people object to it for the same reason that they object to torturing innocent children (not implying that the two are found to be equivalent, just that the objections to both of them spring from the same impulse).

In light of that:
How is it that the impulse about Eugenics (or even experiments with Embryos) is morally repulsive for them, that being the same impulse as one about torturing children? I would ask them why Eugenics is morally repulsive, specifically the secular reasons. Why is manipulating DNA or traits, selective breeding, and/or genetic engineering morally repulsive? Again, I can understand if people have religious reasons, but I don't understand the objections otherwise. I think it comes from a lack of understanding.

[Janus]

...why do you support it? Eugenics is one method of prolonging the existence of our species. :) And also, are there any things that eugenics program should aim to avoid? If so, what should be done to prevent undesired outcomes? Practitioners of eugenics should avoid the inhumane treatment of subjects whenever possible.

[Sean]

Indeed, but as you know, probably the first response one hears from anti-eugenicists is that no trait is better than any other,

Which I certainly hold.

but they, themselves, value some traits highly and loathe others with great consistency.

But I don't agree with you that there is an inconsistency here. Why not say each to his own? I am perfectly willing to admit that there are certain individuals that I would never want to be around due to physical or character traits, but it doesn't follow that they shouldn't exist at all. Such a person may learn how to live with his "defect", and his family may still grow to love him in spite of it--even if I couldn't fathom why, there is nothing I can say that would make them change their mind.

This doesn't apply only to physical and mental disabilities, though. There certainly are traits which the majority may despise which may be conducive to genius and creativity, like individuality or the ability to question authority. The vast majority hate any one who strays from the herd, and would like to see such people eliminated; they would only want the perpetuation of mediocre people such as themselves. I'd be willing to bet that just about any creative genius meets with persecution in his own lifetime. I am sure that our corporate masters would love nothing better than to breed a race of worker drones (supplemented, of course, by a genetically enhanced higher caste of leader-executives).

You didn't state that the connection is that they are both morally repulsive, rather I had to assume that you meant they saw them as connected to each other (i.e., experimenting on embryos and torturing children). When they thought of those experiments their first impulse was "Child torture."

Yes, that occurred to me after I replied to you. My apologies for not making my point clear.

In light of that:
How is it that the impulse about Eugenics (or even experiments with Embryos) is morally repulsive for them, that being the same impulse as one about torturing children? I would ask them why Eugenics is morally repulsive, specifically the secular reasons. Why is manipulating DNA or traits, selective breeding, and/or genetic engineering morally repulsive? Again, I can understand if people have religious reasons, but I don't understand the objections otherwise. I think it comes from a lack of understanding.

Because they don't like being told that certain traits (possibly possessed by them) are undesirable.

[Sean]

Eugenics is one method of prolonging the existence of our species. :)

1) Why should anyone care about the perpetuation of humanity? 2) Won't eugenics change what it means to be human? (If you don't think so, then state why. I know that others here who support it accept this conclusion.) If so, then the human race will be destroyed by the very program that strives to save it.

[Helios Panoptes]

Which I certainly hold.

I see. I do not agree. Traits such as mental retardation and various genetic diseases are undesirable. I doubt that I could prove this to you, if you do not agree, but it is held almost universally. If you conducted a survey, I propose that almost all participants would agree that they would rather have bright, healthy children than stupid, sickly ones. Hardly anyone considers these things to be good, much the opposite.

But I don't agree with you that there is an inconsistency here. Why not say each to his own? I am perfectly willing to admit that there are certain individuals that I would never want to be around due to physical or character traits, but it doesn't follow that they shouldn't exist at all. Such a person may learn how to live with his "defect", and his family may still grow to love him in spite of it--even if I couldn't fathom why, there is nothing I can say that would make them change their mind.

I would imagine that you would care because they impact you. You, assuming that you contribute to society, are forced to pay to care for them(and even if you don't, you're not reaping the benefits that those resources would yield if spent for the general good). Their parents may care for them for awhile, but they will eventually perish, and someone will need to care for them, assuming that they are not left to die of exposure. You might not have to see them or talk to them, but they are having an insidious effect on you, nonetheless. They are wasting our resources and giving nothing back in return.

This doesn't apply only to physical and mental disabilities, though. There certainly are traits which the majority may despise which may be conducive to genius and creativity, like individuality or the ability to question authority. The vast majority hate any one who strays from the herd, and would like to see such people eliminated; they would only want the perpetuation of mediocre people such as themselves. I'd be willing to bet that just about any creative genius meets with persecution in his own lifetime.

I do not doubt that exceptional individuals feel ostracized by normal people, but I do not think they are hated, really. Most people would probably like to have their offspring be creative geniuses. Despite the difficulties of social integration, it is clear that being a creative genius is considered very prestigious by most civilizations. Moreover, ordinary people do not want everyone to be ordinary. They feel jealous of great people, but they are ever aware that those people's efforts are capable of making enormous contributions to their own lives and have done so a great many times in the past.

I am sure that our corporate masters would love nothing better than to breed a race of worker drones (supplemented, of course, by a genetically enhanced higher caste of leader-executives).

Well, a proper eugenics program would have the benefit of increasing efficiency in all facets of society.

[Janus]

Why should anyone care about the perpetuation of humanity? It may result in the proliferation of their genes. :) Won't eugenics change what it means to be human?

[...]

If so, then the human race will be destroyed by the very program that strives to change it. This is a "non sequitir".

[Sean]

I see. I do not agree. Traits such as mental retardation and various genetic diseases are undesirable. I doubt that I could prove this to you, if you do not agree, but it is held almost universally. If you conducted a survey, I propose that almost all participants would agree that they would rather have bright, healthy children than stupid, sickly ones. Hardly anyone considers these things to be good, much the opposite.

Well, I would like to see evidence of this. I'm pretty sure that most mothers who give birth to such children (the ones that I have seen anyway) become attached to them just as much as they do towards normal children. Then again, I am basing this only on anecdotal evidence, so I could be wrong.

However, if parents do not want to have such children, I see no reason to deny their wish to take means to prevent them from having one. I should clarify here that I am not against eugenics or genetic enhancement if it is voluntary. I am only against large scale social planning.

I would imagine that you would care because they impact you. You, assuming that you contribute to society, are forced to pay to care for them(and even if you don't, you're not reaping the benefits that those resources would yield if spent for the general good). Their parents may care for them for awhile, but they will eventually perish, and someone will need to care for them, assuming that they are not left to die of exposure. You might not have to see them or talk to them, but they are having an insidious effect on you, nonetheless. They are wasting our resources and giving nothing back in return.

The assumption here is whether or not a person's value should be determined by how much he benefits society (we would measure this usually in terms of monetary value). This is another assumption that one will either disagree with or not, but I don't think that a person's value should be measured by how much they contribute to the over all good. For instance, if I would rather have a simple, low paying job in order to pursue personal interests, then some people would claim that I'm not benefiting society as much as I could be since I don't opt to take a demanding, high paying job that would contribute far more to society with regard social services and the economy. What it essentially comes down to is whether one believes that the individual is more important to society as a whole, or whether he thinks that the opposite is true. That is, whether or not a person's individual choices can override utilitarian benefits.

With regard to retarded children, I do not believe that the government, or even parents have an obligation to take care of them. If parents do decide to, then I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to.

I do not doubt that exceptional individuals feel ostracized by normal people, but I do not think they are hated, really. Most people would probably like to have their offspring be creative geniuses. Despite the difficulties of social integration, it is clear that being a creative genius is considered very prestigious by most civilizations. Moreover, ordinary people do not want everyone to be ordinary. They feel jealous of great people, but they are ever aware that those people's efforts are capable of making enormous contributions to their own lives and have done so a great many times in the past.

Well, I should have stated that it's not creativity in itself that people find objectionable, but rather some of the traits that go along with creativity. Some people are different than "normal" individuals, and the latter can't understand why, and might not make the connection. I suppose if there were a way of making them learn to accept people who are eccentric, then that would be good. But I don't know how that would be done.

Well, a proper eugenics program would have the benefit of increasing efficiency in all facets of society.

As long as the people on the bottom rung were breed to relish their position, then there would be no reason to object to it, I guess. But there are many possible dangers. If people are breed to be docile, or to do a certain task, then, if there happens to be a scenario in which they are supplanted from their ordinary role, they will be utterly helpless. It is only if there is a surplus of well-rounded, extraordinary individuals that would enable society to meet unexpected challenges.

This is a "non sequitir".

Well, how do you think that humanity will change? Also I made an error in the previous post. Replace 'change' with 'save'. I'm not sure whether or not you picked up my intended meaning.

[Ixtab]

1) Why should anyone care about the perpetuation of humanity?We do not require a reason to preserve a thing other than that we attach value to it. The mere fact that we value ourselves, or those amongst our kind who bring into being things which we value, is sufficient cause to perpetuate our kind, or those amongst our kind whom we value.

[Helios Panoptes]

Well, I would like to see evidence of this. I'm pretty sure that most mothers who give birth to such children (the ones that I have seen anyway) become attached to them just as much as they do towards normal children. Then again, I am basing this only on anecdotal evidence, so I could be wrong.

I have a little research about this.

The aim of this study was to generate knowledge about how parents who have been part of an ethical decision-making process concerning a son or daughter in a neonatal unit experience life with a severely disabled child. A descriptive study design was chosen using 30 hours of field observations and seven in-depth interviews, carried out over a period of five months with parents who had been faced with ethical decisions concerning their own children in a neonatal unit. Strauss and Glaser's constant comparative method was used for the analysis. The findings seem to indicate that these parents have an extremely tough life. Their relationships with their children are somewhat ambivalent. The children are very dependent on their parents, who in some ways both love and hate them. Too little rest and sleep and feeding the children are the most serious problems. The parents require respite facilities. The home can seem like a prison, from which it is impossible to escape. It is like having a baby who never grows up.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10358529&dopt=Abstract

But, what I was saying was not that loving them is impossible, but that we all value the same traits, regardless of what we say. These people would want their children to be bright and healthy, if that was possible. What a person wants for his own progeny is the best indicator of the traits he values because people are relatively more apathetic about those they never have to see, even if those persons have an indirect effect on them.

However, if parents do not want to have such children, I see no reason to deny their wish to take means to prevent them from having one. I should clarify here that I am not against eugenics or genetic enhancement if it is voluntary. I am only against large scale social planning.

To be honest, I would support a radical, involuntary eugenics program, but it might be untenable at this point in Western history. Therefore, I give my support to voluntary eugenics programs. There are measures that can be taken to cause people to breed differentially without forcing anyone not to breed. That is, social planning which remains voluntary.

The assumption here is whether or not a person's value should be determined by how much he benefits society (we would measure this usually in terms of monetary value). This is another assumption that one will either disagree with or not, but I don't think that a person's value should be measured by how much they contribute to the over all good. For instance, if I would rather have a simple, low paying job in order to pursue personal interests, then some people would claim that I'm not benefiting society as much as I could be since I don't opt to take a demanding, high paying job that would contribute far more to society with regard social services and the economy.

Firstly, eugenics would not only improve value economically, but also "culturally." There would be more people available with the potential to be creative geniuses, ceteris paribus. Also, I'm not terribly concerned about what a given individual does with his life. Eugenics is based on statistical trends, not what one person here or there does. If you increase intelligence, you will increase occupational efficiency. There will be intelligent people who do not utilize their ability in the way that is most efficient for the economy, but that does not much matter. However, regardless of the task a person commits himself to, he will be better at it if he is brighter, all other factors being equal.

What it essentially comes down to is whether one believes that the individual is more important to society as a whole, or whether he thinks that the opposite is true. That is, whether or not a person's individual choices can override utilitarian benefits

The two share a symbiotic relationship, usually. That does not mean that anything that strengthens the state will necessarily improve the lives of individuals comprising it, but it often will, and in the case of eugenics, I believe that it would. After a program operated on a population for several generations, individuals would lead better lives. There would be far fewer people suffering from congenital diseases and retardation, and far more people with the capacity to lead fulfilling lives.

With regard to retarded children, I do not believe that the government, or even parents have an obligation to take care of them. If parents do decide to, then I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to.

Unfortunately, the parents die, and the retarded children must be cared for by someone, and that is the state, unless they are killed as soon as no private individual is willing to serve as their caretaker. Moreover, retarded people have more retarded offspring of their own and they're worse parents. Their children quickly turn up in the state's care. Regrettably, we cannot isolate ourselves from social problems through geographical distance. Generally speaking, we wind up footing the bill somewhere down the line.

Well, I should have stated that it's not creativity in itself that people find objectionable, but rather some of the traits that go along with creativity. Some people are different than "normal" individuals, and the latter can't understand why, and might not make the connection. I suppose if there were a way of making them learn to accept people who are eccentric, then that would be good. But I don't know how that would be done.

It is reasonable to think that as intellectual greatness was bred for, it would become relatively more common, and jealousy would thereby be decreased.

As long as the people on the bottom rung were breed to relish their position, then there would be no reason to object to it, I guess. But there are many possible dangers. If people are breed to be docile, or to do a certain task, then, if there happens to be a scenario in which they are supplanted from their ordinary role, they will be utterly helpless. It is only if there is a surplus of well-rounded, extraordinary individuals that would enable society to meet unexpected challenges.

Either that, or an adequate number of people specialized for particular roles. Roles need not be specific to one task. There might be a group with exceptional mathematical ability, another with verbal ability, etc. They could be directed towards any task related to their expertise. Similarly, an underclass could be used for menial tasks, in general. As menial tasks inevitably required fewer laborers due to mechanization, they could be reduced, and so forth. That is presupposing that we have set upon a genetic caste system.

[Arminius]

Because they don't like being told that certain traits (possibly possessed by them) are undesirable.

I think it is natural to find certain traits undesirable. Who wants their baby to be born with a genetic disease/defect? I think Eugenics is basically a step for parents to have more control over the health of their child too. Are people scared that parents will pick the same traits and the next generation will end up some blonde-hair blue-eyed race?

[Janus]

Well, how do you think that humanity will change? I believe we will be more intelligent. I see some form of robotic-integration also being likely.I'm not sure whether or not you picked up my intended meaning. I dislike making assumptions. :)

[Sean]

To be honest, I would support a radical, involuntary eugenics program, but it might be untenable at this point in Western history. Therefore, I give my support to voluntary eugenics programs. There are measures that can be taken to cause people to breed differentially without forcing anyone not to breed. That is, social planning which remains voluntary.

I simply can't agree with any attempt to enforce an ideal state of affairs on society. For one thing, the humans who would be implementing such a thing are not perfect, so any attempt would be fraught with dangers. I also think that humans are unable to associate well with ideals: they don't do things because they see that it is logical, but rather because they want to. What if people simply don't want to enforce such a plan? It is like trying to make humanity fit into a mold that it is unable to. When ideals are adhered to, then all means are taken to defend them, including the weakening of the intellect and violence; they subordinate man to the ideal, when in reality it should be the other way around. As Nietzsche said, the father's ideal becomes the son's lie. (I don't expect you to agree with any of this.) And as with individuals, it is the same with societies: I don't think that any state of affairs is better than any other.

Firstly, eugenics would not only improve value economically, but also "culturally." There would be more people available with the potential to be creative geniuses, ceteris paribus. Also, I'm not terribly concerned about what a given individual does with his life. Eugenics is based on statistical trends, not what one person here or there does. If you increase intelligence, you will increase occupational efficiency. There will be intelligent people who do not utilize their ability in the way that is most efficient for the economy, but that does not much matter. However, regardless of the task a person commits himself to, he will be better at it if he is brighter, all other factors being equal.

Thanks for clearing up that misconception. But, by this same reasoning, that if it doesn't matter what a given individual does with his life, and supposing that individuals are given the choice of screening for defects in children (or whatever means are taken to prevent such a thing from happening), then wouldn't it not matter if a few such individuals existed? It would definitely be certain that the number of them would decrease, and with it the cost that the state has to pay for them.

It is reasonable to think that as intellectual greatness was bred for, it would become relatively more common, and jealousy would thereby be decreased.

What I'm talking about is more than just jealousy. It is the fact that if the masses are to choose which traits are desirable, then there will be traits which often come with creativity that people will want to eliminate, not creativity itself. This Nietzsche passage sums it up:

Ultimately the "love of one's neighbour" is always something of minor importance, partly conventional, arbitrary, and apparent in relation to the fear of one's neighbour. After the structure of society in its entirety is established and appears secure against external dangers, it is this fear of one's neighbours which creates once again new perspectives of moral value judgments. Certain strong and dangerous instincts, like a love of enterprise, daring, desire for revenge, shiftiness, rapacity, desire for mastery, which up to this point were not only honoured in a sense useful to the community, under different names, of course, from those chosen here, but also had to be really inculcated and cultivated (because people constantly needed them for the dangers to the totality, against the enemy of that totality)—these are now experienced as doubly dangerous when there is a lack of diversionary channels for them—and they are gradually abandoned, branded as immoral and slanderous.

Now the opposing impulses and inclinations acquire moral honour. The herd instinct draws its conclusions, step by step. How much or how little something is dangerous to the community, dangerous to equality in an opinion, in a condition or emotion, in a will, in a talent, that is now the moral perspective. Here also fear is once again the mother of morality. When the highest and strongest drives break out passionately and impel the individual far above and beyond the average and the low level of the herd's conscience, the feeling of commonality in the community is destroyed; its belief in itself, its spine, as it were, breaks: as a result people brand precisely these drives the most and slander them. The high independent spirituality, the will to stand alone, even powerful reasoning are experienced as a danger. Everything which lifts the individual up over the herd and creates fear of one's neighbour from now on is called evil. The proper, modest, conforming faith in equality and the average of the desires take on the name of morality and honour.

From Beyond Good and Evil section 201.

[Helios Panoptes]

I simply can't agree with any attempt to enforce an ideal state of affairs on society. For one thing, the humans who would be implementing such a thing are not perfect, so any attempt would be fraught with dangers. I also think that humans are unable to associate well with ideals: they don't do things because they see that it is logical, but rather because they want to. What if people simply don't want to enforce such a plan?

It is possible to enforce such a plan, humans have embraced far more intrusive and even cruel social interventions in the past than a moderate eugenics program. Eugenics is unpopular right now, but this is far from an inevitable state of affairs.


It is like trying to make humanity fit into a mold that it is unable to. When ideals are adhered to, then all means are taken to defend them, including the weakening of the intellect and violence; they subordinate man to the ideal, when in reality it should be the other way around. As Nietzsche said, the father's ideal becomes the son's lie. (I don't expect you to agree with any of this.)

Man is an ideal, too. If someone is concerned with preserving man as currently constituted, that is adherence to an ideal of the status quo. On the other hand, I see 'man' as a monolithic block of stone waiting to be chiseled into something more pleasing, something better, and I don't care about preserving extant 'humanity.' I take my cause seriously enough not to concern myself with sparing men or 'man.'

And as with individuals, it is the same with societies: I don't think that any state of affairs is better than any other.

If one values the same things that I do, such as intellect, creativity, health, etc., then eugenics makes excellent sense. Additionally, even if one values freedom, he should see that eugenics has the potential to increase individual freedom in time. Those people who are most deficient require disproportionate intervention to keep them under control and if there were fewer of them, less intervention would be required to maintain the same level of order. However, it is possible that a person wants to be able to do anything he pleases in the short term, but I am not trying to reach out to this person, anyway. Similarly, arguments in favor of systems to reduce crime are not formulated to convince unintelligent, extreme psychopaths. In short, there are some people who cannot be made to agree, but I am not attempting to communicate with them, so it is not problematic.

Thanks for clearing up that misconception. But, by this same reasoning, that if it doesn't matter what a given individual does with his life, and supposing that individuals are given the choice of screening for defects in children (or whatever means are taken to prevent such a thing from happening), then wouldn't it not matter if a few such individuals existed? It would definitely be certain that the number of them would decrease, and with it the cost that the state has to pay for them.

Perfection will never be achieved. There will always be retards born due, for instance, to chromosomal disorders, and this must be accepted. However, there are several differences between retards and your situation as you have described it. First, you might not be making an economic or cultural contribution that matches your potential, you are making a contribution of some sort and you are also not causing the waste of resources that a retard does. For example, there is no need to spend large sums of money to pay for shelter, food, and orderlies to care for you. In this respect, the extremely unintelligent are more like criminals than mere underachievers. Additionally, if you are highly intelligent, there is a good chance you will have intelligent children who will have the potential to contribute, whereas retards are likely to have sub-normal offspring. Secondly, making you live up to your potential would require more resources than it would be worth. On the other hand, determining who is retarded and stopping such persons from breeding requires little additional exertion on the part of the state's apparatus. I would recommend a educational system which stressed contribution, be it technological or artistic, as opposed to expressive individualism, though. There will be stragglers no matter what, but like I said, eugenics is not trying to institute a static utopia.

What I'm talking about is more than just jealousy. It is the fact that if the masses are to choose which traits are desirable, then there will be traits which often come with creativity that people will want to eliminate, not creativity itself. This Nietzsche passage sums it up

It is my belief that the "feeling of commonality in the community" would not be destroyed at all because creativity and intelligence would become more prevalent, and therefore, not "weird," eccentric, or fear-inducing. Average persons are uncomfortable in the presence of their superiors, but they are comfortable near their own, and superior persons value the company of their kind. Eugenics could close the gap.

[Sean]

It is possible to enforce such a plan, humans have embraced far more intrusive and even cruel social interventions in the past than a moderate eugenics program.

Yes, but such programs were hardly desirable (I imagine which historical instances you are referring to).

Man is an ideal, too. If someone is concerned with preserving man as currently constituted, that is adherence to an ideal of the status quo. On the other hand, I see 'man' as a monolithic block of stone waiting to be chiseled into something more pleasing, something better, and I don't care about preserving extant 'humanity.' I take my cause seriously enough not to concern myself with sparing men or 'man.'

I neither want to preserve the status quo either. I think that the conception that there can be one uniform ideal will stifle others. Man should be left free and allowed to change, and this is the only way that cultural innovations are possible. If an ideal is held up as absolute, people will cease being appealed by it, and it will lose the vitality that it had when and where it originated. One cannot device, say, what the right modes of artistic expression are (that would be doing philosophy), but rather one can only feel an appeal to certain one. I think that cultural achievements are all similar in that they don't spring from rationality, but are more in line with revelation. Ideals, however, spring from the former.

I'm willing to accept that cultures change and die. If a certain cultural ideal ceases to appeal to a populace, then they should create ones that do appeal to them. Even if the old ideal is great, you can't deny that worthy ones result by this process of decay and rebirth. I am also willing to accept that we are living in a time of cultural decay--such times, when coupled with political and social dissolution, usually see a rise in theorizing.

[Helios Panoptes]

Yes, but such programs were hardly desirable (I imagine which historical instances you are referring to).

What I was getting at is that people could be made to come around to eugenics. It is hardly unprecedented. The egalitarianism and expressive individualism of the present is the stranger development.


I think that the conception that there can be one uniform ideal will stifle others.

These ideals are very general, though. I'm saying that some traits are favorable to others without prescribing specific activities. Intelligence is preferable to stupidity regardless of what you're trying to do, be it art, mathematics, or learning about a topic that interests you.

I think that cultural achievements are all similar in that they don't spring from rationality, but are more in line with revelation. Ideals, however, spring from the former.

Cultural achievements spring almost exclusively from the minds of gifted people, regardless of specifically what inspires them.

I am also willing to accept that we are living in a time of cultural decay--such times, when coupled with political and social dissolution, usually see a rise in theorizing.

I do not disagree. When we become too prosperous, people grow soft and dysgenics takes hold. In past times, this spelled certain doom, but I believe that our positon is unique;we alone are able to change the prevailing trends through the application of eugenic principles which were not available to past people. TBH, I am doubtful that we will ever see classical eugenics again in the West, but the new eugenics of biotech will rear its head and will prove irrepressible.

[Sean]

These ideals are very general, though. I'm saying that some traits are favorable to others without prescribing specific activities. Intelligence is preferable to stupidity regardless of what you're trying to do, be it art, mathematics, or learning about a topic that interests you.

Yes, this actually occurred to me after I logged off. Simply breeding for intelligence or beauty is not the same thing as trying to establish cultural norms.

This has been a good exchange. I have summarized pretty much all I have to say on the issue, and I will now take time to reflect on the points discussed.

[antibuddha]

There are a number of reasons I do not support eugenics. It sounds very rational and perfectly moderate to say something like "well, we will simply be trying to improve the health of the populace, as with any medical practice" but, for one, it fundamentally differs from medical practice which attempts to treat illness because it is rather attempting to breed health, and two, it will carries the some of the same fundamental flaws as normal modern medicine does, but potentially exaggerated. There is also the obvious political fact that, unless a revolution occurs, the same people deciding to make war in Iraq to further the cause of American capitalist-globalism for example, will be the same funding and administering a eugenics program.

In the first place, the history of technological advancement shows that while people will rarely if ever accept radical changes in society due to technics, society over time radically diverges from what it once was. In the life and attitude of a man of the high middle ages is compared to that of a man of the early atomic era we see a vast difference, and that the life and society of the latter is directed almost solely by economic and technical concerns, whereas if we look at the enlightenment period we see individuals and a society still somewhat concerned with what could be termed the values of the middle ages and those we currently possess, but eventually the former died out completely. Right now, most people are generally not willing to go so far as to have the state select specific traits in persons they would like to breed for, and would possibly agree that a eugenics that wishes to simply improve health would be acceptable, but soon, as the populace becomes more generally "healthy" according the the popular idea of such then it would slowly ease into the practice of breeding for specific personalities and character ideals because these notions would become the new "moderate" viewpoint and might similarly be demanded by new economic needs for such individuals in an even more technologically complicated society. Eventually, we end up in Gattaca.

In the second place, it is well known that modern antibiotics and the like has actually improved the strength of many diseases by allowing them to become resistant to medicine. In essence, by artificially enhancing their evolution simply by presenting them with something to be "challenged" by so to speak. Now, since we are far from knowing even close the whole of the complicated associations evolved between certain character traits in the genes and others, or even what ones could be properly said to have a genetic origin, it is quite possible, to speculate for a moment, that if we were to attempt to breed individuals for, let's say, technical intelligence (which is of course what we would do if we got to that point), then the genes determining such may also be associated with, perhaps, some genetic deficiency and you end up with a culture of persons that, while intellectually "superior" may possess some potentially debilitating genetic deficiency (personally, I would not like to breed for technical intelligence because most persons I have seen who posses it are incredibly droll and often disdainfully arrogant, but these aren't truly genetic deficiencies, although I would like to call them such if I could...). Many creative persons for example are mentally unstable, possibly perhaps due to their mental instability. Even simply trying to breed out "negative" traits, it may happen that you reduce the number of "visionary" type persons because you have attempted to remove what you thought was the undesirable trait of some supposed mental illness, and the world in general becomes a duller and more boring place (assuming they even are genetic, which is not proven generally).

Most eugenicists are secretly revolutionaries who want to breed a superman of *their* ideal anyway, and the deceptively 'rational' statement of simply wanting to improve human health is a vanguard for extropian futurism and transhumanism (and they can then rightfully pass off the idea that they are simply nazis). In other words, it's a rhetorical ploy to get a foothold in society, as if ours wasn't technocratic enough as it is. The eugenicists honest enough to admit this openly, unlike say Fade in this thread, are not worth "debating" with because it will be as with debating any person who holds a religious, or pseudo-religious, viewpoint. Your fundamental a priori assumptions against theirs.