Is eugenics subjective?

[Ixtab]

I say No. Eugenics, as I understand it, is the organic alteration of a population through conscious application of the laws of hereditary, to confer upon that population an evolutionary advantage of some sort. In the modern world, characterised by information technology and dependent upon social cohesion, eugenics would necessarily focus on raising intelligence and altruism. The eugenicist considers whether this or that trait confers an evolutionary advantage under given environmental circumstances, not the subjective 'desirability' of that trait. Eugenics can be speculative, but it is never subjective.

[HELLSTAR_trek]

I say No. Eugenics, as I understand it, is the organic alteration of a population through conscious application of the laws of hereditary, to confer upon that population an evolutionary advantage of some sort.
How does one determine whether or not a given characteristic is "an evolutionary advantage of some sort"? For reproductive success, the only issues seem to be:

1 capacity and willingness to reproduce; and
2 capacity and willingness to provide for offspring.

[Ixtab]

How does one determine whether or not a given characteristic is "an evolutionary advantage of some sort"?That is a question to be answered by those in the pertinent scientific discplines. I simply begin from the conclusions of those scientists.

1 capacity and willingness to reproduce; and
2 capacity and willingness to provide for offspring.That is 'relative fitness' in the sense of evolutionary biology. Eugenics concerns itself with group fitness and long-term survival. In this the gene, not the individual, is the unit of analysis.

[HELLSTAR_trek]

That is a question to be answered by those in the pertinent scientific disciplines.
How can one confirm scientifically that something is an evolutionary advantage before the evolutionary history that would supply evidence that it is an evolutionary advantage?

The entire history of human existence has already selected genes. Scientists can survey the genes to see which have been selected. As for the future value of a given gene, surely that would be a guessing game.


Eugenics concerns itself with group fitness and long-term survival. In this the gene, not the individual, is the unit of analysis.
Isn't the fitness of an individual gene simply going to be a matter of its contribution to:
1 capacity and willingness to reproduce; and
2 capacity and willingness to provide for offspring?

There's a difference between a goal of survival of a gene and a goal of maximizing the number of people who carry a given gene.

If some people consider a particular gene to be desirable for spouses to have, then the gene has survival value, but that value depends upon the existence of a population of people who value that gene. For example, consider genes that control aspects of physical appearance, such as hair color and eye color.

[Ixtab]

You are still confusing relative fitness, quantified by the number of offspring an individual has, with absolute fitness, that is, the long-term perpetuation of human life, in this case by scientific application of the laws of heredity. That is 'eugenic' which conduces to absolute fitness. A population which can evade extinction indefinitely by colonising the heavenly bodies and achieving organic godhood is 'fit' in the absolute sense - of which superhuman native intelligence and altruism is perhaps a prerequisite.

Science not only observes, but experiments, controls and predicts. A science of human behaviour grounded in evolutionary biology and intended for practical application would seek not only to observe genetic phenomenona, but control human behaviour and predict the outcomes of genetic changes and determine through eugenical experimentaiton whether they confer long-term evolutionary advantages.

[Sean]

Yes. Even the desire for "evolutionary fitness" of the species is subjective. Creatures do not have some will to survive, and nor is there any mandate that they must act in a way which is conducive to their survival. All evolution says is that animals have the traits they do because those traits helped their ancestors survive in the past. If the human species is on a course for destruction, then there is still no reason to thwart it that isn't based in subjectivity; the desire to perpetuate humanity is subjective. If someone did, however, thwart it, then I suppose that would have an effect on human evolution, but there is no reason to believe that it is what humans aught to do.

[Ixtab]

Yes. Even the desire for "evolutionary fitness" of the species is subjective. Evolutionary fitness, whether quantified by the number of offspring an organism has or the replication of genes, is totally objective.

All evolution says is that animals have the traits they do because those traits helped their ancestors survive in the past. If the human species is on a course for destruction, then there is still no reason to thwart it that isn't based in subjectivity;Eugenics does not provide a reason or justification for suvival. It is a tool, like medicine. We can use that tool if we want to, if we want to increase our chances of survival. The desire to use that tool is subjective, but not the tool itself. That is all.

the desire to perpetuate humanity is subjective.The desire to live a healthy life is subjective. That doesn't make the science of medicine, which conduces to that end, subjective.

[Steppenwolf]

Eugenics, in being the science of improving the offsprings produced, is objective. Of course, this can be done in different ways, which would be in accordance with the type of individual a society bases its existence upon. There are different ways by which eugenics is conducted, and they can also be objective in their own scenario. A warrior society would desire to breed fit individuals in seeking to maximize its warfare-based existence. An exclusively intellectual society breeds, or ought to be concerned with breeding, intelligent individuals; et cetera.

[Helios Panoptes]

This is a difficult question to answer. It pulls in two directions. I am inclined to state it as follows: eugenics is objective within the framework of eugenics and whether or not one adopts that framework is subjectively determined. To wit, we set a goal, such as to protect humanity against the threat of extinction. The traits that we will select for will be objective, then. There are some that will be objectively good for species preservation. Of course, it is not a foregone conclusion that this purpose will be accepted. The comparison to medicine made earlier in the thread can be used again. If a person is afflicted by an illness, there are objective methods to treat it. Whether or not the patient wishes to cure it is a different matter entirely.

[Micaelis]

This is a difficult question to answer. It pulls in two directions. I am inclined to state it as follows: eugenics is objective within the framework of eugenics and whether or not one adopts that framework is subjectively determined. To wit, we set a goal, such as to protect humanity against the threat of extinction. The traits that we will select for will be objective, then. There are some that will be objectively good for species preservation. Of course, it is not a foregone conclusion that this purpose will be accepted. The comparison to medicine made earlier in the thread can be used again. If a person is afflicted by an illness, there are objective methods to treat it. Whether or not the patient wishes to cure it is a different matter entirely.

It is interesting to note that eugenicists seek justification for their practice in eschatological theosophemes. One might as well subscribe to the Second Coming instead.

[Helios Panoptes]

It is interesting to note that eugenicists seek justification for their practice in eschatological theosophemes. One might as well subscribe to the Second Coming instead.

Eugenics is concerned with the future of man, but I see few similarities with the Second Coming. For one thing, it is devoid of any "supernatural" element.

P.S. I don't see my post as a justification. I was attempting to answer the question posed by the thread. If I intended to justify eugenics, I would've made a different post.

[Micaelis]

Eugenics is concerned with the future of man, but I see few similarities with the Second Coming. For one thing, it is devoid of any "supernatural" element.

They both claim to offer man salvation from the inevitable destruction of his species. They both seek to save man from the fall, Christ in the fall of man into sin, eugenics with the fall of man into dysgenic evolution. They are the difference between physical and metaphysical metanarrative.

[Helios Panoptes]

They both claim to offer man salvation from the inevitable destruction of his species. They both seek to save man from the fall, Christ in the fall of man into sin, eugenics with the fall of man into dysgenic evolution. They are the difference between physical and metaphysical metanarrative.

Please clarify one thing for me: are you merely making an observation or is this intended to serve as a critique or refutation?

[Micaelis]

Please clarify one thing for me: are you merely making an observation or is this intended to serve as a critique or refutation?

I don't see anything distasteful about minimising retardation and the proliferation of harmful inherited diseases in our species- the notion seems rather ideal. The ethical effect that this pursuit would have upon culture and the power structure that it would create is a concern. The majority of those that support eugenics on this forum are racist scum. I do not support that at all. I do not support race-betterment, because that is an invitation to tyranny through deception. Eugenics should not be a matter for the state. If couples wish to abort children that are malformed or in some way defective, it should be voluntary. It should also be the extent of eugenics. Anything beyond that is relative to aesthetic preference and, therefore an invitation to tyranny.

[HELLSTAR_trek]

A science of human behaviour grounded in evolutionary biology and intended for practical application would seek not only to observe genetic phenomenona, but control human behaviour and predict the outcomes of genetic changes and determine through eugenical experimentaiton whether they confer long-term evolutionary advantages.
If you can develop enough of a science of human behavior to determine, given a manuscript for a novel, roughly how many copies of the novel could be sold within a specified amount of time, then you can become a successful publisher of fiction. That's far less ambitious than what you are proposing, but it is nevertheless very ambitious. Publishers don't use science to determine whether or not to publish a given novel.

What you are proposing sounds suspiciously like the proposed "scientific" economic management of the USSR. Who is going to consent to have more offspring or fewer offspring based on recommendations of some "scientific" bureaucracy? What person will let a bureaucracy decide with whom he or she will produce offspring?