[Figlio di Moros]

Exactly. You are unable to define them.

Actually, you understand the terms well enough. If you didn't, the rest of your response wouldn't exist. As I said, there's no point in defining them- they're already generally understood to the point we can discuss them. You're just angling for a semantic argument, so it's pointless to provide you one.

What is good health? Freedom from illness? It could be possible to make a person immune to certain diseases, but would that be prudent? What would happen if we removee the genetic code that causes sickle cell anemia in Africans?

Sickle-cell is a specific, we'd have to ask if it's prudent to remove it; outside of malaria-plagued Africa, yes. However, considering you explained it as "freedom from illness", that's a good answer. Asking if a specific case is prudent, such as in subsaharans, is different then discussing if the general rule is.

Intellect is also very hard to define.

Only because you're unable to accept people aren't equal, and the results of quantifying intellect.

Fitness? This is so vague I am not even going to try. I will simply point out that generations of biologists have debated what is meant by "survival of the fittest".

Right, because I didn't already adress disease and mental health... Gee, I wonder what sort of "fitness" I could be refering to now?

[Pants-of-dog]

Actually, you understand the terms well enough. If you didn't, the rest of your response wouldn't exist. As I said, there's no point in defining them- they're already generally understood to the point we can discuss them. You're just angling for a semantic argument, so it's pointless to provide you one.

Exactly. You are unable to define them.

Sickle-cell is a specific, we'd have to ask if it's prudent to remove it; outside of malaria-plagued Africa, yes. However, considering you explained it as "freedom from illness", that's a good answer. Asking if a specific case is prudent, such as in subsaharans, is different then discussing if the general rule is.

Genetics does not work that way. Humans are not equally susceptible to all diseases. If you want to make an individual more resistant to disease through genetics, you have to address those diseases to which the individual is more genetically susceptible, like sickle-cell anemia for sub-Saharan Africans.

Only because you're unable to accept people aren't equal, and the results of quantifying intellect.

Insulting me is not an argument. Why don't you explain how the ability to quantify intellect gives us an indication as to which intellectual strengths would be useful in any environment or socio-political situation? The thing is you have no clue what the future holds, so you need something that is good in any possible situation, and I am not sure that any intellectual strength is good in all situations.

Fitness? This is so vague I am not even going to try. I will simply point out that generations of biologists have debated what is meant by "survival of the fittest".

Right, because I didn't already adress disease and mental health... Gee, I wonder what sort of "fitness" I could be refering to now? [/quote]

[CounterChaos]

We don't know enough about genetics to control it to our benefit. More likely to screw things up. Anyway, it's irrelevant, moral people will be good at what they do, ignorant people won't. Effectively gene's don't matter.

I agree and disagree with you here Suska...I agree we don't know enough about it and should stay away from utilizing it; but, I disagree that it is irrelevant by your explanation. We are living in a world that is becoming more and more chaotic everyday. Unfortunately, chaos is not the realm of morality. Pick your chaos in America, any one of them. Be honest with yourself and pluck out the movers and shakers. You will find that human eugenic practices, already is relevant.

[Suska]

You will find that human eugenic practices, already is relevant.

Yeah, selective breeding could be taken for eugenics and is filial matters it's important. What I said was that genes were irrelevant. That isn't where life is, that isn't where we come from.

[Bramlow]

An interesting discussion. I agree with the premise that we shouldn't discard eugenics out of hand just because it's had some nasty supporters down the line.

My belief is that if eugenics programmes can practicably be used to improve the gene pool, then we should pursue them.

The problem is that this is a big 'if', because:

1. The science is extremely basic right now, as Maxim highlights. There is no 'scientist gene', 'soldier gene', and so on.

2. It's far from clear how such programmes can be practicably implemented right now. I don't think anyone is advocating the forced sterilization of below-average-IQ adults, and voluntary incentives to get the 'good gene' people to breed more and the 'bad gene' people to breed less seem hard to put much faith in.

3. What 'improve the gene pool' means is not entirely clear

4. We don't know enough about genetics to do this without inviting unintended consequences. Is there some longer-term benefit to having a mixture of genes - not all 'good' - for instance?

I think it more likely that genetic engineering and 'designer babies' will catch up with us before any decision can be made on these matters. If we can programme babies at conception to be fitter, smarter, healthier, and so on, and without unintended second-order consequences, then great. This is still a long way off, though.

[Suska]

In 2 million years of selective breeding all we've achieved is Chinese, Scandinavian, Italian, etc etc. You show me a race of people that has some kind of physical advantage. It just doesn't work that way.

[Figlio di Moros]

In 2 million years of selective breeding all we've achieved is Chinese, Scandinavian, Italian, etc etc. You show me a race of people that has some kind of physical advantage. It just doesn't work that way.

You assume HBD doesn't exist. However, there's statistical differences between each race. Whites have an avg. IQ of 102, blacks of 85, and Ashkenazim Jews of 110. Mediteranean whites are less prone towards alcoholism than Northern Europeans, who are far less likely than Indians or Aborigines. Northern Europeans also are far less likely to be lactose intolerant. Obviously, there's been some impact on the evolution of the different races of men.

1. The science is extremely basic right now, as Maxim highlights. There is no 'scientist gene', 'soldier gene', and so on.

That's not true, unless you speak about reprogenetics specifically- this can be mended by increased research. However, most "traits" are inheritable, from alcoholism, intelligence, crohns disease, athleticism, metabolism. Yes, there's no "scientist gene", but it's an incredibly juvenile way of viewing genetics.

2. It's far from clear how such programmes can be practicably implemented right now. I don't think anyone is advocating the forced sterilization of below-average-IQ adults, and voluntary incentives to get the 'good gene' people to breed more and the 'bad gene' people to breed less seem hard to put much faith in.

There's various forms of soft-eugenics we can implement, from tax breaks/subsidies for larger families, to conditional visectomies/birth control for addicts/low-IQ welfare recipients.

3. What 'improve the gene pool' means is not entirely clear

Fair enough- I'm assuming we're keeping the discussion hypothetical, so no need to quantify anything too specific. For now, we have a common enough perception of intelligence, health, and physical fitness to say they should generally be endorsed.

4. We don't know enough about genetics to do this without inviting unintended consequences. Is there some longer-term benefit to having a mixture of genes - not all 'good' - for instance?

To a certain extent- if we were all clones, for instance, it'd generally be considered a weakness. However, after a certain point genetic diversity doesn't necessitate a direct "advantage"; it's a shallow diversion in ignorance of improved stock.

[Suska]

You assume HBD doesn't exist. However, there's statistical differences between each race. Whites have an avg. IQ of 102, blacks of 85, and Ashkenazim Jews of 110. Mediteranean whites are less prone towards alcoholism than Northern Europeans, who are far less likely than Indians or Aborigines. Northern Europeans also are far less likely to be lactose intolerant. Obviously, there's been some impact on the evolution of the different races of men.

Racial differences don't amount to much if anything, compared to personal character - unless you're racist, which is pretty much just a long term breeding plan. You're like, oh let's be smarter and faster and sexier, but those are things that people DO, the only connection it has to genes is in people's expectations.

[Figlio di Moros]

I never said "faster", but those are all largely heriditary features. I was a good long distance runner in high school, but I'd never have been fast no matter how much I trained. I'd never have made a great shotputter, either, despite lifting. I have intelligent people on both sides of my family, and there's strong indication it's generally heriditary.

What else? Diseases? Alcoholism/addiction? Height? Metabolism? Is there really a dispute to if any of these are inheritable?

[Suska]

I'm not disputing heritability, I'm disputing its value. Are you less of a person for not excelling in track? No, you do something else. Had you been a superstar, would your life have been free of worry? The two things have nothing to do with each other.

[Figlio di Moros]

Had I ran a hundred in under 8, I'm fairly certain my scholarship prospects would have shot up. Of course, you're using red herrings- you're the one who brought up speed. I mentioned metabolism, IQ, and inheritable disease. Does being smarter, in better shape, and less prone to a variety of diseases no help a person, nor strengthen their society?

[Suska]

Those things don't come from genes, nor do the actually important things in life.

[Figlio di Moros]

Had I ran a hundred in under 8, I'm fairly certain my scholarship prospects would have shot up. Of course, you're using red herrings- you're the one who brought up speed. I mentioned metabolism, IQ, and inheritable disease. Does being smarter, in better shape, and less prone to a variety of diseases no help a person, nor strengthen their society?

Those things don't come from genes, nor do the actually important things in life.

Inheritable diseases, don't come from genes?

[Pants-of-dog]

...Mediteranean whites are less prone towards alcoholism than Northern Europeans, who are far less likely than Indians or Aborigines....

Please provide evidence that there is a genetic cause for higher rates of alcoholism in indigenous communities. Thank you.

Also, you mentioned metabolism. Do you think a high metabolism is good, or a low one?

[Bramlow]

There's various forms of soft-eugenics we can implement, from tax breaks/subsidies for larger families, to conditional visectomies/birth control for addicts/low-IQ welfare recipients.

I actually accept most of your points on the science of this, but the above is where we disagree on the practicality of things.

As a pragmatist, I can't see how I'd be able to get these sorts of laws passed and accepted by the population in a western state. It seems a recipe for political disaster.

Presumably you'd need an authoritarian political system, or a radically different set of cultural beliefs, if you were to implement something like this?

[Suska]

Inheritable diseases, don't come from genes?

You really aren't following what I'm telling you. The perspective that genes are a source of anything is silly. It's really blaming the messenger. It's as though say I wrote a note to you that disturbed you, now you think note passing is a disturbing practice.

[Zerogouki]

I've already mentioned my enthusiasm for Transhumanism, so expressing my beliefs about eugenics here would be redundant. Instead, I am simply going to rectify some bullsh.

For instance, we could use eugenics to create elite groups of people such as soldier elites, engineer/scientist elites, doctor elites, teacher elites and so on, dramatically improving the objective quality of population.

This is a fundamentally sound idea; sort of like how ants have workers, soldiers, and breeders. However, I doubt that it could be implemented with the level of specificity that you imply, and a person who is genetically best-suited for one task might be interested in doing something completely different.

The different castes of elites would not be allowed to interbreed in order not to dilute their unique DNA.

Dumb idea. When it comes to DNA, it's not a matter of "diluting" so much as "shuffling". If a soldier elite breeds with a doctor elite, for example, you might get chaff, but you might also get the best battlefield medic who ever lived. If a soldier elite breeds with a science/engineering elite, you might get chaff, or you could get someone who is brilliant at designing new weapons, armor, vehicles, and other military hardware. If you cross-breed a doctor elite with a teacher elite, you're just about guaranteed to get someone smart, but more importantly, you could get the perfect med school professor. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Once again I would like to underline, that participation in such eugenics program would be voluntary, nobody could be forced to be part of it.

It's funny how so few people read this part.

Another point is, that people with genes dangerous for society (psychopaths, sadists, serial killers and such) would be sterilized so their bad genes are not propagated in society. This would in a longer run decrease crime and asocial behaviour.

Take this, for example. The dumb who wrote this obviously didn't read... oh wait, you wrote this, didn't you? So what was all that stuff about the program being 100% voluntary?

All kidding aside, there are at least 4 reasons why this is a dumb idea:

1) There is no evidence of a genetic predisposition for criminal/sociopathic behavior.

2) Regardless of genetic predispositions, people choose their own actions.

3) I'm pretty sure that life in prison accomplishes the same goal.

4) You may want to keep aggression genes around if you want to make a true soldier caste

Bad, I dont really trust the judgement of a bureaucrat to decide on whether I should live or die or whether I should have the right to put children into this world.

Reading comprehension fail. The program would be voluntary.

I am against such a programme run by those few who are in control of millions upon millions of human beings.

Reading comprehension fail. The program would be voluntary.

For some ideological shaping of humanity: Rather not; potential benefits are not even anywhere near worth the risks.

What risks? We'd obviously try all genetic modifications on nonhumans first.

Ethical issues in relation to the person that is the recipient of euthanasia- similar to the ethical issue of disigning people eugenics involves interfering with potential people.

First of all, potential people don't count for . Secondly, how is this at all comparable to euthanasia?

Ethical issues in relation to people who are forced or pressured into not reproducing- this is an interference with their freedom and needs justification.

Reading comprehension fail, unless you were referring to the mandatory sterilization of sociopaths.

Slippery- ridiculously complicated at an evidential level.

1) the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy

2) You're not making any sense.

Fascinating- a planner's paradise, endless utopian justification.

How is this a problem?

Maybe it's just too early days to start interfering with our blueprint directly?

We've already made glow-in-the-dark tobacco, super-smart mice, golden rice, and all sorts of neat stuff. We could have been genetically enhancing human embryos a decade ago.

Also liberal eugenics sort of defeats the point of eugenics in that the genetic health of the species is a social goal that requires social co-ordination.

Social coordination is impossible without Big Brother doing it for us? That's a pretty stupid argument.

There's a "science gene" and a "soldier gene"?

Well, obviously not. However, we have identified genes that, when over-expressed, enhance intelligence (NR2B) and athletic performance (PEPCK-C).

Using it to make a superior class(smarter, stronger, faster) of people, would be bad. It would be too easy to turn into something that could be abused.

Slippery slope fallacy. You lose.

Utopia will never be realized unless all races become homogeneous by spreading their seed willingly. Select genetic manipulation is unethical, has no mutual value and creates inequality in a heterogeneous society

1) Where is your evidence for this?

2) Utopia is not the end goal. As Colonel Corazon Santiago said, "Man has killed man from the beginning of time, and each new frontier has brought new ways and new places to die. Why should the future be different?" The goal here is progress; improvement. The goal is humanity's self-directed evolution and possible diversification into multiple species.

3) Homogeneity is the enemy of evolution.

Envision a world where one race would refuse to be a part of a homogeneous society and through genetic manipulation developed on their own in an entirely different direction than the rest of our species

That sounds fing awesome.

Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese, and, tmk, Jews, continue eugenic cultural practices

Say what now? I've heard that North Korea forces abortions on women carrying half-korean, half-chinese babies, but since when have those other societies been eugenicist?

Eugenics is a lot more than just abortion.

It would include matchmaking

Not matchmaking per se, but I recently posted a thread in Gorkiy about the usefulness of a Transhumanist dating site...

and prohibition.

Say what now?

Human eugenic practices where a superior intellect is the result, will doom the world to chaos. It upsets the balance of nature, an appendix that was never needed in our natural world. Like over-fertilizing a plant, the society will grow fast, but its roots will remain shallow, its stem will be brittle and weak, not allowed to slowly weather. An intellect needs to feed and once it has mastered our natural world, all that is left to temper the intellect is chaos. Chaos has a beginning but it does not have an end, the perfect realm for the insane.

Okay, seriously... what are you smoking and where can I get some?

The largest problem with eugenics is neither technological nor moral. It is the fact that we cannot see the future.

That's not a problem at all, because eugenics is about shaping the future. The ability to see what would happen if we didn't adopt eugenics is completely useless to a eugenicist. However, we can guarantee this much: If we do not evolve, we will continue being the same miserable dumbfs that we are now.

We don't know enough about genetics to control it to our benefit. More likely to screw things up.

Bullsh. If we replaced our non-functional gulonolactone oxidase pseudogenes with functional genes that produced functional copies of the enzyme, how would that screw anything up? Most mammals seem to do just fine with it. If we over-expressed the NR2B gene, how would that screw anything up? The mice and rats suffered no ill effects. If we gave ourselves a complete metabolic pathway (which has been studied and identified) for vitamin B1 after testing it on chimps to ensure its safety, how would that screw anything up?

Effectively gene's don't matter.

Somebody flunked 5th grade science...

I am not interested in so called 'smart genes' - we don't want a world full of geniuses as that would be rather boring.

Irrelevant. Most of the world's population would not be able to participate in this program.

Down Syndrome, for instance. If someone came up with a way to ensure that this defect could be bred out of existence

Not possible. It's caused by an error in meiosis, and is not generally inherited from a parent with the condition.

I do agree with sterilising those people who are mentally retarded.

A human's genetic worth is not limited to their intelligence. A person might be mentally retarded but physically gorgeous and athletically talented with an immune system that would make Wolverine jealous. Would you really want to eliminate such a person from the gene pool?

What you advocate is not fundamentally different from sterilizing Stephen Hawking just because he has Lou Gehrig's Disease.

What would happen if we removee the genetic code that causes sickle cell anemia in Africans?

Most Africans can't even afford to properly feed, clothe, and shelter their kids, much less genetically manipulate them. However, if you want to breed malaria-resistant humans, there are MUCH better ways of doing it than making everyone heterozygous for sickle-cell anemia, ensuring that 1/4 of the next generation of humans will suffer from it. The traditional treatment for malaria has been quinine, an extract from the bark of the cinchona tree (fun fact that I learned from Amazon Trail. RIP, The Learning Company). Why not find the cinchona genes responsible for the production of quinine, insert them into the human genome, and get rid of that sickle-cell crap?

Intellect is also very hard to define. Do you mean someone who can remember facts? Someone with good logic skills? Someone who is capable of synthesising many different bits of information into a coherent whole?

Those traits are usually found together. It's pretty rare to find someone who has some of those traits but not the others.

Fitness? This is so vague I am not even going to try.

It's not a hard concept to understand. First, look at Linda Hamilton in Terminator 2. Then look at Rosie O'Donnell. Then go back to watching Linda Hamilton doing pull-ups. Then go back to watching Rosie O'Donnell being fat and demanding that everyone else pay her medical bills when she gets a heart attack. Keep doing this until you get a clue.

Alternatively, you could read this.

We are living in a world that is becoming more and more chaotic everyday.

Quite the opposite; the world is more stable than it has ever been. Hell, do you have any idea what the world was like in 600 AD? Europe was a mess. India was a mess. China was a mess. Japan was a mess. we basically had the Byzantine Empire, a thousand tiny nation-states that were constantly at war with each other, and barbarian/viking/mongol/etc. raids everywhere. Compare that to the modern era, in which Iraq can't even annex Kuwait without the UN saying "NO! FUK U!" and the US coming in to restore the borders to what they were before.

What I said was that genes were irrelevant. That isn't where life is, that isn't where we come from.

Again, someone obviously flunked 5th grade science...

You show me a race of people that has some kind of physical advantage.

Go to a basketball game sometime. Count the number of black players and the number of non-black players. Compare that to the percentage of the U.S. population that is black. You'll notice a pretty big discrepancy.

Similarly, look at the past 6 record-breakers/setters/holders for "world's fastest human". All six of them are black.

Are we noticing a pattern yet?

Mediteranean whites are less prone towards alcoholism than Northern Europeans, who are far less likely than Indians or Aborigines.

Don't forget that about half of East Asians have defects in the gene that codes for acetaldehyde dehydrogenase, so even small amounts of alcohol will give them an hours-long hangover-like effect, dramatically reducing their chances of becoming alcoholics (but dramatically increasing the negative health effects when they do drink).

You're like, oh let's be smarter and faster and sexier, but those are things that people DO, the only connection it has to genes is in people's expectations.

Yeah, people just choose to be more intelligent and better-looking. Kiefer Sutherland doesn't look at all like a young Donald Sutherland and the NR2B gene does nothing

How old are you? Like, 8 maybe? 10 at most?

I mentioned metabolism, IQ, and inheritable disease. Does being smarter, in better shape, and less prone to a variety of diseases no help a person, nor strengthen their society?

Those things don't come from genes, nor do the actually important things in life.

The perspective that genes are a source of anything is silly

[CounterChaos]

Okay, seriously... what are you smoking and where can I get some?

..You must be one of those Libertarians that I have heard about that hangs around here. I must admit, I have yet had the opportunity to lock horns with one of your ilk. By the childish colorfulness of your last post and the noticeable lack of intelligent response to what I posted though; tells me that a productive debate between us will probably be-sadly limited. In good fairness though, I will offer you the opportunity to respond to what I posted with an intelligent question if that is possible. I will even post it again for your convenience.

Human eugenic practices where a superior intellect is the result, will doom the world to chaos. It upsets the balance of nature, an appendix that was never needed in our natural world. Like over-fertilizing a plant, the society will grow fast, but its roots will remain shallow, its stem will be brittle and weak, not allowed to slowly weather. An intellect needs to feed and once it has mastered our natural world, all that is left to temper the intellect is chaos. Chaos has a beginning but it does not have an end, the perfect realm for the insane.

[Invictus_88]

@OP: Please would you put a poll up? I think it would add to the value of this thread.

[Suska]

Somebody flunked 5th grade science...

Somebody overwrote 5th grade science with advanced philosophy and an intolerance for stupidity.

Go to a basketball game sometime.

There is an expectation about blacks in American basketball that effectively makes it three times harder for a white person of equal talent to get anywhere in the sport. We don't even have to talk about the pros to see that. It happens in high schools, it happens in scholarships.

Are we noticing a pattern yet?

Are we? Ask yourself that question. You've never noticed how chaotic the world is or how despite that every jerkass who's proud of their brain thinks they've got the one and only true answer?

How old are you? Like, 8 maybe? 10 at most?

Says the one who types with emotes.