Opinions on eugenics?

Well guys, I was kinda just thinking for a little and I kinda decided I wanted to ask everyone what they thought about Eugenics. For those who don't know about eugenics it is the belief that depending on genetics some people will have a higher potential to succeed at a certain activity or thing than others. Im sure you all know about WW2 and Hitler. What Hitler believed towards Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, Gays, so on so forth was taken from eugenics and corrupted. I wanted to know what you thought about it but not Hitlers derranged alteration of it. I want to know what you think about real eugenics. Remember, the idea is not that people will automatically succeed at something but that if they practice it for ten years and another person practices for the same amount of time the one with the genetic advantage would still be a slight amount better.

Personally I think the concept is plausible, likely even but I also think that it shouldn't be held too highly.

I somewhat agree. There are some situations that could support that theory. For instance, someone could be born mentally challenged or someone could be born gifted. But when it all comes down to it hard work and determination is all it takes to be number one at anything. Some may find it easier than others but to me it doesn't matter. It’s just the determination that people find challenging. If I really wanted to I could devote my time and energy into being a master at playing the guitar. But I don't like to play the guitar and I'm too lazy to take the time to learn. I have been diagnosed with a learning disability but I’ve still managed to make it to college and continue to advance my intellect. I’m a horrible speller and my grammar isn’t too good either that’s why I use Microsoft word. But that still doesn’t mean I can’t be the next Einstein. The only thing that could really prevent this success is mental retardation. If anything serious is wrong with the brain then there can’t possibly be any way to achieve this. Unless technology advances any further we really won’t know.

Yes I fully agree with you. What Im hoping will start up on its own is a debate to whether or not genetics has any influence on talent at all. I just find the topic of eugenics rather interesting. I dont have a learning disability but I have a social disability. I dont think social disabilities can be applied to basic eugenics though.

Well i kinda agree because genetics can enhance some of youre abilities but as the school sistem as it is now (at least in my county ) if youre mentaly gifted to solve a wide range of problems with a "hunch" you will be the one who is penalised because you dont have to work as hard as youre felow classmate and it will be a danger to enter in a letargy(mind lazyness or in my chase limiting youre brain potential to drop youreself within the level of the group). And the ones with a mentalyty challenged can be at the same level or at least near him.
I might add that the personality of the person can influence these aspect.

[font=Verdana][color=green]Of course, it goes without saying that people can be born with higher mental/physical abilities than others. For example, The Rain Man didn't learn to remember all the things he could, he just remembered.

However, that doesn't mean that it's a conclusive test. I could work hard at something all my life that I was originally terrible at, but that doesn't mean someone who was born with an innate talent at the field is better than me with no training. Doesn't work like that I'm afraid.

Like the members who posted before myself, I believe genetics do play a part in determining whether an individual is suitable, if not talented, at certain activities.

Using the simple example of height, tall people may hold an advantage when playing certain sports, such as basketball or maybe as a goalkeeper in football. Likewise, individuals with extremely good eyesight can become pilots or participate in shooting sports.

However, we must also remember that eugenics should not be used as an excuse when one is unable to match up to others without putting in hard work and effort.

Not talented, gifted.

But hey, if u don't use what you've got, then it's basically useless.



Note the born with greatness part.

Well. That's not actually what eugenics is. It's basically a movement that advocates making a better genetic composition for the general population in the hopes of creating a better society. Problem being that applying it to a society would require the use of immoral restrictions on who can have sex with whom. Either that or a lot of people willing to forgo sex with certain people for genetic reasons, which is not going to happen.

Anyways, that doesn't really matter since you clarified what you meant. Just saying that what you're talking about is a different issue. As for the idea that genetics effects talent- of course it does. There are those who are smarter, stronger, etc... It's why we can rate people by IQ. Though it by no means completely determines your ability. Research has shown that your environment has an effect on you that is on par with your genes. There are genetic traits and acquired traits. If you were to put an uneducated genius beside an educated idiot, it'd be quite clear who is more knowledgeable.

-Responding to KnowsNoNoseBleed and Gambler


Yes, that does make sense. I actually never thought of it that way. You both make a valid point to the discussion. If you are born taller than most then it may give you an edge over the other players. But like he said if you don’t use it, it’s pretty much pointless. Basketball is definitely a good example. If you’re short you’ll have to work harder at long distance shots then a taller person. That short person needs to put in more effort into the shot, while the taller person uses less effort and can easily make a slam dunk. Eugenics is supported in that case. What do you guys think?

Photographic memory is not the same as being born with a higher intellect. The actual idea of eugenics is that the person is given a greater potential in a subject meaning if they practice regularly they can become better than everyone else but only if they practice it hard. My friend back in year 10 used to be an amazingly fast runner but by the end of year 11 I was already faster than him because he was simply too lazy to run.



I think you are more inclined to think of Hitler when you think of eugenics rather than Friedrich Nietzsche. To believe in eugenics is to believe that some structures of dna are superior to others in specific situations, not that everyone has to have the same genetic structure. Although you are right in that to put it into society we would have to take immoral actions I am asking about your beliefs on the matter thus this is an unimportant point until someone actively says it should be put into practice. Besides this one point I find your answer very valid.

KHAN!!!!! - J. T. Kirk

when ever i think of eugenics, i think of star trek. i think they got it right.

long term, there will be two classes/races. the old naturals and the new 'enhanced'. maybe, much later, when our scientific knowledge catches up with our ambiton. for now i think they are in such a hurry to be the first, that they won't bother to think if they should or not. that and they will spend more time/effort on useless cosmetic type crap like hair or eye color, and ignore diseases and other things that might actualy be helpful.

Intelligence is inherent. This has nothing to do with race. Eugenics has nothing to do with racism. Eugenics is not the same as genetic engineering. People should be assigned with whom to breed (breeding is not the same as just having sex), and there is nothing immoral about it. If we keep researching the human genome with the same eager as we did until now, we will be able to genetically determine the physical and intellectual potential of any person in max. 20-30 years. Eugenics rocks! Genetic Engineering sucks!

In "Beyond this Horizon" by Heinlein the society described practices a form of eugenics that I can get behind. Basically, you still choose who your partner will be, but you can pick and choose the characteristics of your child within the set of genes you both have. Want the dad's blue eyes and the mom's musical talent, but not the mom's near-sightedness and the dad's allergies? You can do that. Each couple gets a child that is genetically theirs, but is tailored according to what the parents want. Since the state or any external party is not choosing a certain set of traits for everyone, and the genes still come from different people, this method would still allow for a reasonably high amount of genetic diversity.

We already practice a form of this type of eugenics right now--there is genetic counseling, where people can find out if they are carriers for certain diseases (e.g. sickle-cell anemia, hemophilia), and there is also fetal DNA testing for stuff like Down syndrome. I'm all for improving this to the point where we can actually choose specific traits, but the choice of who to marry and what traits to choose for children should always remain in the individuals' hands. This, of course, assumes that the parents know best and would choose to use this technology for the benefit of the next generation instead of exploiting it, but it's better than having the choices forced upon the parents.

The old Eugenics was based on Morphology, which was inaccurate. Genetics did not exist back then. The modern Eugenics is nothing else but practical Genetics, and Genetics is a very accurate science.

Which means, that to condemn Eugenics nowadays you would have to say something like "the human phenotype is 100% independent of its genotype", which is obviously a contradictio in adjecto.

But I see where you are going with your "sickle-cell disease". You claim that an organism with a crazy mutation is as viable as a healthy organism, because in a crazy environment the crazy mutation may become an advantage? But then you say it's dependent on the environment? It is indeed, and in an environment where Malaria can be prevented and healed, the sickle cell trait is redundant, and the sickle cell disease clearly disadvantageous.

And as Nekohime already mentioned, Eugenics is SUCCESSFULLY practiced in Humans, and prevented many diseases, even exterminating some. So obviously you just have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about, calling Eugenics a pseudoscience. You are probably suffering from sickle-cell DISEASE and you are not gutsy enough to admit that it's a disadvantage.



This is why you women should stop reading novels. You can't just pick and choose certain physical and mental traits from your parents. You could only observe and replicate them via genetic engineering. Read up on meiosis - this is how genes are inherited. You can't "improve this to the point where we can actually choose specific traits", because those are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS!

If you were "to pick and choose traits", you could replicate any DNA-sequence, not only the one of your parents. Meaning if one of your Grandmothers had a sloping forehead, and your other Grandmother had a straight forehead, you could have a convex forehead as well as a sloping or a straight one. This is genetic engineering, you just manipulate the DNA as you wish. You could make your children look like Brad Pitt. This is the danger of genetic engineering; people are directly manipulating the genes. If it becomes a trend it could not only cause abnormal mutations, but catastrophic epidemics that could exterminate all of mankind within a shortest period of time. And viruses and bacteria are impossible to predict, and will always find a way to "crack" the target organism.

So the only thing that is to choose and that should be chosen wisely is the partner with all of his genes, because it is theoretically impossible to "choose" certain genes.

YES to Eugenics. YES to partner selection according to genes!
NO to Genetic Engineering. NO to botching around in the human genome!

Yes, certain people are better are doing certain things naturally. This just comes from natural variation within species in general. If this wasn't true then everyone would be exactly the same physically. And they are not.

Though discounting the environment is also silly. While someone may naturally be a faster runner. Someone who trains to be a runner will most likely surpass them as well.

In the end, it's what you do with what you have that ends up being really important, and not what you have.

Have you read this novel at all? You should--it's really interesting. The way Heinlein explained it is that you pick and choose from the already existing sperm and eggs of the parents containing those traits--you're not creating any new DNA or messing with the existing one--you're just choosing the combination that produces the traits you want. Of course we don't have this technology yet, and we don't even understand what all of our genes do yet, or how they interact, but assuming we get to that point, I'm all for this kind of eugenics.

Also, the novel explains that you can opt out of this, and choose become a "control natural." I think this is a very important part that Heinlein put in--personal choice. If eugenics is forced upon us, it's not a good thing, but if you can choose whether to do it or not, and who to do it with, then that is a bit more palatable.

@Neko:
Heinlein is a Sci-Fi author, not a scientist. And the book is from 1948. This is the same as using Jules Verne 20.000 miles under the sea to argue about nautical science. :)

You seemingly did not understand my post. It is NOT scientifically POSSIBLE to "select certain genes" from your parents because combinations of entire chromosomes (!) are inherited, and not only genes! The only way of "inheriting only certain genes" is by messing around with your DNA (at which point this has nothing to do with inheritance anymore). We know how Chromosomes are inherited, and we already know what certain genes do and how they interact (like the genes for eye color f.e.).

I don't think anyone should be forced to breed by Eugenics, but I am convinced that everyone who really wants healthy and progressive children, and is healthy and progressive himself, will take part in an Eugenics partner finding program.