Sure we should have a severe loss. But maybe we have had millions of severe loses over the centuries.

I'm feeling we both are speaking about the same thing, but with an different accent. We both feel eugenics is wrong in the ways it has been executed by certain regimes. However eugenics can also be used in a more ethical way by taking away the source of the problem. Thereby preventing it from happening.

I actually mentioned prevention, and I wonder if it truly can be regarded as moral. Also, to raise somthing of a sub-issue here, is it sensible? Genetics is a highly complex and delicate field, and it may be that by narrowing the Human genetic code, we destroy our capacity to produce brilliant people.

Genetics of course is complex. But if we don't try we would never get anywhere. It's ethical yes. Sensible, yes. In a way at least. Say and i'm making assumtions that you have parts of your DNA structure that are quite irrelevant and only stil there because it has to remove itself steadily by evolution. But maybe this part of DNA causes 90% of all diseases, and limits our knowledge to an IQ of 200. If we remove it it's sensible.

The otherway round, that part of DNA could also be responsible for our brains. Removal isn't so sensible anymore. We can narrow our genetic code. But as they always say; less is more.

Still we are talking decades ahead of our times before genetic modification of humans really takes of.

but genetic modification using breeding is what is proposed by eugenics, and by sterilizing(i.e. removing the genetic input of) those we regard as 'undesirable' could potentially do unforseen harm.

Eugenics, Seems like another form of human curiosity. Where you take it from there............

If abortion is Eugenics, then it is self evident, that a moral dilemma rises. Obvious, i know. But where does the bottom line of Eugenics come from? I would say human curiosity and willingness.

Arguments made after this, rests in individualism and acceptance. Comparison also is a natural statement.

My main question is, With growing examples in this field, how does it apply to a better human condition?

The use of the term eugenics is debatable. For example, the thread starter calls abortion eugenics, but this use of the term is highly controversial.

Perhaps we should hammer down what the word means and move from there.

I don't understand what you mean by 'curiosity and willingness', as surely in narrowing the human genetic structure to fit a norm, Eugenics is the very opposite.

Handicapped people by no means are a waste of skin like some people want us to believe, but still they are a burden to modern society.

I actually mentioned prevention, and I wonder if it truly can be regarded as moral. Also, to raise somthing of a sub-issue here, is it sensible? Genetics is a highly complex and delicate field, and it may be that by narrowing the Human genetic code, we destroy our capacity to produce brilliant people.

If you've ever loved someone, you can envision the counterargument: that protecting and caring for the people we love is integral to our happiness as families and individuals, and it is therefore in the state's interest to support that. Not everything comes down to the balance sheet.

If you've ever loved someone, you can envision the counterargument: that protecting and caring for the people we love is integral to our happiness as families and individuals, and it is therefore in the state's interest to support that. Not everything comes down to the balance sheet.

We can do this two ways -- we can either NOT screen for cystic fibrosis, sickle cell, down syndrome, etc, and let these kids be born and die anyway -- or we can screen for them, institute some early interventions (mostly NOT limited to pregnancy termination) so that they have productive and healthier lives.

And you know, sickle cell disease has arisen 5 times independently in Africa because of the advantage heterozygotes have against malaria. It's a pretty sloppy genetic solution to a problem that on a population level is far more devastating.

So in the US and in Europe, where endemic malaria has been all but gone for 50 years, is there any advantage to a higher gene frequency of the sickle cell gene? Knowing how bad sickle cell is, there has to be UNBELIEVABLE selective pressure from malaria in order for that disease to independently arise 5 times. (This is known by linkage analysis of sickle cell haplotypes in African populations).

Genetic evolution has not stopped, but it has been superseded by a different kind of evolution, the evolution of the information we teach and learn. Our learned behavior now makes a much bigger difference than our inborn behavior in almost all human endeavors, reproduction included. While the information of genetic evolution is contained entirely within our genes, the information of didactic evolution is diffuse, contained in our minds, our books and hard drives, the designs of our houses and schools, layouts of our cities, etc - in our culture. While even the smallest change in genetic information requires a reproductive cycle, didactic information can be changed as fast as it can be spoken and heard, written and read.

Our primate ancestors were like people standing still on a moving walkway at an airport, along for the ride at about 2 mph, occasionally taking a step forward. Today, we're sprinting along the walkway at 20 mph, and it almost doesn't matter whether or not the walkway itself is moving at all. Eugenics and genetic engineering are when we start tinkering with the walkway.

I realize this analogy is ripe for misinterpretation. Evolution (genetic or didactic) is not a steady, linear progression toward any specific goal. It is a random, branching process with lots of dead ends and backtracking. And of course, evolution has no awareness of any goal by which we observers might choose to define "forward" or "backward" progress. Nonetheless, genetic and didactic evolution have both made forward progress toward the goal of increased complexity.

I'll use "genetic manipulation" as a blanket term for voluntary eugenics (you choose your mate based on genetic profile, if you want) and voluntary genetic engineering. So, what are the issues surrounding genetic manipulation, in terms of tinkering with a conveyor belt at the airport?

1) Where should the new conveyor belt be going? What goal should we have for our genetic manipulation? There are some controversial goals, but I think there are also a few goals most of us can agree on, such as reducing disease. I'm referring to the issue of goal independent of implementation; perhaps by reducing our susceptibility to one disease, we'll increase our susceptibility to another, worse disease, but the goal of reducing disease is still noble. What should our goals be, assuming we can implement them effectively?

Personally, in addition to reducing disease, I think we should be improving intelligence, strength, etc. I'm always surprised at how controversial this is. Considered as a goal in and of itself, why should we not be stronger, smarter, etc? This brings me to the next issue.

2) Who gets to ride the new conveyor belt and who gets stuck on the old one? The obvious answer, at least at first, is the wealthy get the boosted genes and the poor don't. This is certainly unfair, but look at it this way: which is better?

A) some people get boosted and some don't
B) no one gets boosted

Personally, I think A is better. The wealthy always get the new technology first, and it's always unfair, but eventually the poor end up getting the technology also, be it vaccinations, cars, computers, etc. Perhaps at first only the super rich will be able to afford designer genes, but eventually so will the middle class, and perhaps eventually it will be as simple as passing out "intelligence boosters" along with the immunizations given as aid to 3rd world countries. Also, there will be a gradual diffusion of designer genes, because sometimes the wealthy mate with the less wealthy, who sometimes mate with the less wealthy, ... , who sometimes mate with the poor.

I can see the argument for B - the size of the gap between wealthy and poor is proportional to the degree to which the wealthy can take advantage of the poor and make their lives worse, and genetic manipulation would be one more wedge to widen that gap. I won't argue with that now. But consider the overwhelmingly positive effect technology has had on human quality of life over the history of our species. (This is a whole other discussion, and if you want to debate this, you should probably start a whole other thread.)

Ideally, wealth would be distributed equitably, and perhaps someday it will be. But pragmatically, throughout history thus far, there has always been a wealthy minority and a poor majority, and the former has always taken advantage of the latter. And nonetheless, average quality of life for both groups has improved over the course of time - the disparity between rich and poor does not negate the benefit a new technology provides for both. Perhaps this amounts to no more than a vague impression that "technology is good", but I find this more sensible than the converse.

3) Will people get motion sickness on the new conveyor belt? Certainly, there will be unexpected side effects to genetic manipulation, some negative, some positive. If we increase the rate of our genetic evolution to anything near the rate of our didactic evolution, the human race and human nature will change in profound and unpredictable ways. Scary, and exciting.

In the earliar half of the twentiath century Eugenics was official government policy not just in nations like Nazi Germany but also in every major western nation, including the USA and Britian. Few at the time opposed it, and it was only after the horrors of world war II and its links with the halocaust that it was stopped. Now with genetic engineering on humans a realistic concept, abortions of disabled babies and euthanasia, we are looking at an admitidally less autharatarian, but nevertheless real, form of eugenics emerging again.
So in its old context was it evil? Unscientific?
What of this new form? Is it better? But still morally questionable? Is it more informed?
I think that this modern version is at root no better, but I would be intersted in your views.

Eugenics has gotten a pretty bad name due to the misinterpretation, misuse and misunderstanding of it. Eugenics, Darwinism and Nietszche's Ubermench have all been called the root of Nazism, or any other "non-moral" group that is active this day and age. But neither of them are primarily bad.

Eugenics in it's own way does not endorse genocide, etnocide, infanticide or other form of killing selected groups of people, like Hitler killed the Jews, and the shootout in Mumbai recently was primary on foreigners. However it is often used in this form by facists, racists and militia or government and thats why eugenics is highly ethical these days.

Eugenics is a highly moral and ethical debate. Who are we to choose who's to live and die for the sake of human advancement. But still I think eugenics should be taken, and considered as serious business.

The risks are high, but the payouts can be even higher. What if by using eugenics we create a new human superrace with IQ's of 189 points and up, immune for the terminal deceases like cancer and as a bonus leaving a smaller carbon footprint on the earth. It would be a great advancement for humans, and not much different from evolution. Humans and superhumans can live side by side, until finaly we have a mix that is better than the averages we have now.

The mindless killing that has been called eugenics to this day was primarily just people feeling better than others. I feel like i'm shifting towards transhumanism.

What we do not have is the wisdom to be certain that a bad gene will not in some sense be associated with a benfitial quality... Since humans do no know what nature will throw at us we need to be prepared for anything... That does not mean we should let something like diabetes run rampant in society, but rather, invest in discouraging breeding of ill people, which is no mean feat...

Part of my problem is that as much happiness as eliminating, say, diabetes would cause, how much misery would the cure of eugenics lead to? Indeed this is my entire objection to a teleological view of ethics. How can the end justify the means, when ultimatly you are adding more pain and suffering to the universe. Unless your means are in line with your ends, then you are being self defeating. In the case of eugenics, preventing people who love each other from having children is gross and unatural, with the result of destroying freedom and creating misery. You may have less diabetes, but you have another problem instead. Sure on a permanent basis it won't last, but if it is a lifetime of regret, then that is like saying- your entire life will suck but your grandchild won't have a child with a medical condition that by then might be curable. That doesn't sound great to me. Rather like communism, eugenics sounds great in theory, if you consider only the end result, and not the problems, misery and pain that come inbetween.