Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Helgoland]

This question popped up in another thread:

What, if any, eugenic methods are acceptable? On what kinds of traits should they be used? What should remain strictly off-limits?

Because of the, let's say, controversial nature of the topic, I'd ask everyone to be extra careful with making statements and expressing opinions. It's extremely easy to be misunderstood.

That having been said:

GO!

[MetalSlimeHunt]

We should do prenatal scanning and genefixing for things that will kill you or make you unable to live a normal life. Everything else is up to the individual when they become an adult. No rights to parents.

[javierpwn]

Livestock are selectively bred through special traits.

And woman who go to sperm banks select which man they want their babeh to look like

selective breeding really is the world's bigger ongoing Eugenics experiment, and is still going on today

[Leafsnail]

A very difficult question.  In modern terms the contentious issue is if you should allow parents to abort their child based on pre-screening their genes.  I'd say there's a big grey area here which depends on the specific case, but I can list some cases and my views on them

Screening IVF embryos to choose one which will not have a major genetic disease (eg cystic fibrosis, Huntingdon's) - OK.  Only some of the embryos created in IVF are going to be born, might as well make it the ones who won't suffer crippling diseases.  I don't think anyone would object to the eradication of these diseases either.

Allowing the option of abortion following screening for less major genetic diseases - Mixed feelings.  Down's syndrome is the major one here since it's easiest to screen for, and I'm not sure it's something we should seek to eliminate.  I'd still allow couples to do it but I wouldn't make the decision to myself.

Allowing termination of pregnancy based on sex of child - Bad.  Causes major social problems.  Hard to regulate but in principle I'm opposed, and if it became a major problem (as in India) it could be something to take measures against.

Although unless you actively made a program to do these things you probably couldn't really call them eugenics.  They could end up having similar effects though.

selective breeding really is the world's bigger ongoing Eugenics experiment, and is still going on today

This isn't reaaaaaaally eugenics unless you stretch the definition.  If it is then it's no different to choosing a partner you find attractive anyway

[javierpwn]

I was talking about animals

[Leafsnail]

Oh okay, yeah that is the most straightforward form of eugenics.

[Helgoland]

What about actual genetic modification of the embryo? Give them a higher IQ, or a certain hair color, or - as the inspiration for this thread was - strictly heterosexual.
I'm no comfortable with these things, but hard-pressed to find good counterarguments. If something's a choice, gene modification shouldn't be able to do one bit about it; if it's not, then the two options should be no reason for discrimination anyway.
TL;DR There's squicky stuff that actually does not harm the child.

[Eagle_eye]

I'd say genetic modification is ok, and even a moral imperative, as long as it doesn't have any dangerous side effects.

As for actual eugenics, I think it's fine as long as noone is getting killed over it. For truly dangerous conditions, mandatory sterilization is probably an acceptable evil. For more minor, treatable stuff like hemophilia, there should probably be financial incentives to not have children, but no forcing.

[Criptfeind]

What do you mean by financial incentives? There already is financial incentives in the forum of crushing medical bills for most things. Do you want to add to that? Or what? As for forced sterilization. Well. That's a pretty fucking slippery slope. And it seems like a pretty bad solution when you can just kick the ethical ball into the geneticist court. Or at least will be able to in a few generations.

[King DZA]

I'm personally fond of the idea of traditional reproduction being made obsolete by technology that would allow new human beings to be created in laboratories where they could be tweaked to biological perfection as they develop.

[PanH]

I remember the story of a blind couple, who wanted their child to be blind too, like them. I don't exactly remember the context, but I think, in the end, it was denied or something.

[Eagle_eye]

What do you mean by financial incentives? There already is financial incentives in the forum of crushing medical bills for most things. Do you want to add to that? Or what? As for forced sterilization. Well. That's a pretty fucking slippery slope. And it seems like a pretty bad solution when you can just kick the ethical ball into the geneticist court. Or at least will be able to in a few generations.

I mean no tax benefits for having kids, possibly tax hikes, or even a tax break for not having children. And forced sterilization would be so repulsive to the public at large that you can be sure that at best sterilizing those with lethal illnesses would be barely tolerated at best. It would take a dictatorship to expand it to anything beyond that, and we're already screwed if that happens.

[Sir Finkus]

What do you mean by financial incentives? There already is financial incentives in the forum of crushing medical bills for most things. Do you want to add to that? Or what? As for forced sterilization. Well. That's a pretty fucking slippery slope. And it seems like a pretty bad solution when you can just kick the ethical ball into the geneticist court. Or at least will be able to in a few generations.

I mean no tax benefits for having kids, possibly tax hikes, or even a tax break for not having children. And forced sterilization would be so repulsive to the public at large that you can be sure that at best sterilizing those with lethal illnesses would be barely tolerated at best. It would take a dictatorship to expand it to anything beyond that, and we're already screwed if that happens.

Except we only recently stopped forced sterilizations in the US.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There is no reason to sterilize people against their will. That won't even eliminate genetic illnesses anyway. There are orders of magnitude more carriers than there are individuals whom express the illness in question, no matter what it is.

[misko27]

There is no reason to sterilize people against their will. That won't even eliminate genetic illnesses anyway. There are orders of magnitude more carriers than there are individuals whom express the illness in question, no matter what it is.

Yeah. The only way to say, forcefully eliminate aids would be to threaten to cut off everyone's dick. NO ONE would risk it then. Except females, But I'm sure a equally pointlessly violent alternative is available for our female friends.
 
I'm against giving human beings to much power over their own development, so no.