RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < 1 [2] >   
  Topic: What are the Good Arguments Against "Eugenics?"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2006,00:00   

Quote
I try and answer your questions.  Will you be kind enough to answer mine?
How about we skip to the end of this thread. You apparently want me to say something that will invalidate arguments for abortion. Well I have already said I agree with prenatal testing, which extends to genetic counselling. So Im not sure what your point is. Im assuming you don't need arguments against forcably breeding or steralizing people.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2006,00:28   

Chris, TD just wants to use his favorite "argument" without being the one to invoke Godwin's Law.
He's as easy to read as Dave's hand at poker.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2006,00:33   

From last night's session:

Quote
"Pair o' Jacks, pal! Read 'em and weep!"

"Well, sorry to dissapoint you, Dave, but I have... Hey where did my hand go?"

"It got deleted, sucka. Read the table rules."


--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2006,05:12   

Another vague question Thordaddy. What about eugenics?

In the UK it is customary now to check as early as possible in a pregnancy for serious debilitating ilness'. Should these be found to be positive, the woman is asked if she wishes for an abortion or try to go full term.

That I agree with.

If you are refering to "designer babies" then I would probably be against that, in most situations.

Once again though, no easy binary rule, different situations call for different responses.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2006,05:45   

I am begining to think Eugenics might be a good idea - for instance, if we could stop all these fundamentalists from breeding, the world might end up a saner place.  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2006,07:52   

Quote
How about we skip to the end of this thread.


second.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2006,09:55   

Stephen,

Since eugenics is a branch of science, I was expecting more "scientists" to say that there are no good arguments against eugenics since we clearly already practice it to an extent.

It seems to me that science once again is playing politics.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2006,09:58   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 12 2006,14:55)
Stephen,

Since eugenics is a branch of science, I was expecting more "scientists" to say that there are no good arguments against eugenics since we clearly already practice it to an extent.

It seems to me that science once again is playing politics.

I think it has become obvious by now that eugenics covers many things.

What exactly are you asking td?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2006,11:16   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 12 2006,14:55)
Stephen,

Since eugenics is a branch of science, I was expecting more "scientists" to say that there are no good arguments against eugenics since we clearly already practice it to an extent.

It seems to me that science once again is playing politics.

Eugenics WAS an branch of science, rather popular before World war II and nazism.
Now eugenics is a thing of the past. There is no research in this field.

Is discarding an embryo bearing a lethal disease a form of eugenism? No because the aim is not the amelioration of the human kind, it's avoiding pain and suffering. Will you get the difference or will you remain intellectually dishonest?

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2006,14:31   

Thordaddy: "Eugenics is a branch of science."

This is obvious tripe. Eugenics is a discredited social policy. It's no more a branch of science than was "Mutually Assured Destruction".

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,13:15   

Tom Ames,

eugenics

:a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed

Is this not science?  Why has this been discredited?  Is trying to improve hereditary qualities really discredited?  What of picking and discarding embryos?  This is not eugenics?

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,17:35   

Quote
Is this not science?  Why has this been discredited?

Two separate questions here. Can humans, sufficiently organized and of common mind, breed themselves for certain traits considered desirable, or alternatively breed themselves to minimize traits not wanted? Well, yes, I suppose we could if we tried.

Presumably, we could also genetically engineer ourselves (assuming we have the techniques and knowledge) for similar purposes. The first approach is mostly passive, the second is active, but the goals are the same.

Would it "work"? I suppose it would, again presuming near-universal agreement about the goals and methods.

There are societies (China and India come to mind) where sexual selection of embryos have led to imbalences in sexual distribution (too many men), which in turn are causing social accomodations not anticipated beforehand. I imagine if we had much finer discrimination of embryo characteristics (i.e, skin color, sexual orientation, etc.) we could selectively make matters much worse than they are.

The basic question has been posed long since: Would a Congress of gorillas, given this capability, have chosen humans? Would they have abandoned greater strength, superior ability to live in the jungle, better protection against the elements, etc.? Given universal agreement and determination, humans could breed for desired characteristics (within some limitations, since breeding doesn't seem to affect some characteristics). Would the result be *better* people? I certainly wouldn't want to pass that judgment.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,21:26   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 14 2006,18:15)
Tom Ames,

eugenics

:a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed

Is this not science?  Why has this been discredited?  Is trying to improve hereditary qualities really discredited?  What of picking and discarding embryos?  This is not eugenics?

Dude, can you just read and try to understand what you're being told? ???

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2006,12:39   

Tell me, Thordaddy, what happens to the frequency of a recessive deleterious allele if you select against individuals having the deleterious trait?

When you answer that, you'll understand why eugenics has been discredited, at least from the scientific standpoint.

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 15 2006,12:47   

Tom Ames,

Why can't you just put it in your own words and help facilitate an understanding?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2006,15:25   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 15 2006,17:47)
Tom Ames,

Why can't you just put it in your own words and help facilitate an understanding?

I'll save him the time. What happens is—nothing.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2006,12:06   

Quote (ericmurphy @ April 16 2006,18:25)
[quote=thordaddy,April 15 2006,17:47]Tom Ames,

Why can't you just put it in your own words and help facilitate an understanding?

I'll save him the time. What happens is—nothing.[/quote]
ericmurphy wins the prize.

You can't select against rare recessive deleterious alleles by selecting against the homozygote.

As an example, assume that 1% of a population has a rare disorder caused by a recessive allele at a single locus. You wish to remove the bad allele by eugenically removing that 1%. What actually happens to the allele frequency?

The population is made up of 3 genotypes (call them AA, Aa and aa). Only the aa will have the disorder and be subject to culling. If the alleles are in equilibrium (explication of the term not provided), the genotypes have the following frequencies:

AA: p^2
Aa: 2p(1-p)
aa: (1-p)^2

where p is the frequency of allele A and (1-p) is that of allele a.

Since 1% of the population has the disease (i.e., is homozygous recessive, aa) the frequency of allele a in the population is the square root of 1%, or 10%.

This means that NINE TIMES as many of the alleles are in heterozygous carriers than are in the homozygotes. (And 1% is actually a pretty big fraction for such a disease. More reasonable numbers yield even bigger disparities.)

After culling 1% of the population, you'd wait a generation and have almost exactly the same frequency of homozygous recessives as before. It just doesn't work. And if the trait is (as is more likely) determined by several genes, the situation becomes even more hopeless.

Breeding works in domesticated plants and animals because we can inbreed to get all homozygotes, and then cull a huge fraction of the offspring.

What remains a mystery is why such geneticists as Galton and Fisher were so enthusiastic for eugenics. Unless they were pursuing conservative social goals for which the scientific authority was invoked in order to lend the project credibility. Much as Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray did in The Bell Curve.

But the fact remains: eugenics is and has always been a tool for a conservative social program. The scientific basis for it is nil.

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
  46 replies since April 11 2006,10:53 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < 1 [2] >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]