EUGENICS – Is It Really Bad ?

[Belle Catherine]

I found an interesting article about eugenics:

http://alexdracon.blogspot.com/2011/08/ ... baths.html

What do you think about the ideas expressed in this article?

[wolfhnd]

In the case of human species, just think about how many men felt the psychological pain of rejection and humiliation when refused or disdained by women.

That is really weird. That's like saying that advertising is cruel because it causes psychological pain and humiliation with all the unobtainable luxury that is displayed.

There is nothing wrong with Eugenics just Eugenicist, and there is nothing wrong with cocaine but there is a lot wrong with the cocaine addict. Eugenics is one of those things society has deemed too dangerous to consider, knowing the weakness of human beings.

[Belle Catherine]

In the case of human species, just think about how many men felt the psychological pain of rejection and humiliation when refused or disdained by women.

That is really weird. That's like saying that advertising is cruel because it causes psychological pain and humiliation with all the unobtainable luxury that is displayed.

This is an unfit comparison. We are not talking about commercial products. We are talking about the most important mechanism of evolution: reproduction and the complex feelings and behaviours triggered by the innate instincts linked to this process.

The pain of rejection can be enormously more excruciating than that of not affording to obtain luxury items. There are people who even commit suicide after rejection.

There is nothing wrong with Eugenics just Eugenicist, and there is nothing wrong with cocaine but there is a lot wrong with the cocaine addict. Eugenics is one of those things society has deemed too dangerous to consider, knowing the weakness of human beings.

Car drivers kill many people. Why most people still use cars ?

Although rarer, women in love also can be rejected and it is even more painful than what men feel.

If eugenics is based on pseudo-science and twisted ideologies it can do bad things.
However, rational eugenics based on deep scientific knowledge and wise planning can be a good thing.

Only people who are intellectually incapable of making this distinction resort to stereotyping eugenics.

[CanadysPeak]

Dear God in Heaven! Get a grip, Alex! Rejection is a pain, but good for you. It's how you learn what not to do.

[Belle Catherine]

Dear God in Heaven! Get a grip, Alex! Rejection is a pain, but good for you. It's how you learn what not to do.

CanadyPeak, I am afraid Alex Dracon can't see your comment here.

Men are evolutionarily pogrammed to always try to approach a woman. It is not easy for them to apply the lesson of psychological pain because the lack of women also can cause problems to them ( mainly in young men ).

The unfairness of nature causes some few lucky gifted men having lots of women and the remaining having a hard time to get just one. Not to mention those who, as result of sexual selection, become bachelors during their entire life.

Nature is not equalitarian and nor benevolent. Is it ?

[Lincoln]

There is a biological issue with eugenics. If you cull out a specific trait, it is possible that said trait will have a beneficial effect on future generations. For instance, cull out sickle cell anemia and then see what happens when the mosquitos take over the world.

This is a simplified case, but there is a biological reason for genetic diversity. Plus, of course, what constitutes "inadequate genetics?" No blond hair? Too light a skin?

Personally I don't believe in absolute rights and absolute wrongs, but I do believe that people will impose their values and weed out "obviously undesirable" traits. The problem is that there is very little that is "universally obvious." Given that, I prefer not to dabble too much in this realm, lest the power structure decide that dazzlingly-handsome and brilliant scientist types are undesirable....

[owleye]

I suppose 'rejection' could be compared with the alternative 'acceptance', which, I suppose from the standpoint of eugenics, vis-a-vis, natural (sexual) selection, amounts to the stark realization that one is not going to be reproductively successful. As such, it is devastating. (Infertility may have the same reaction when encountered.) Some might not be able to take rejection on that basis and resort to other means in order to be successful. I would think, in human societies, the usual pairing off that occurs that lead to being reproductively successful, on the basis of a "dance" that occurs among adolescents (and I suppose all of us) who are seeking a compatible mate, which has the effect of minimizing the pain of rejection, need not be perfect. Some will be left out entirely, some will find unhappiness with the wrong selection, etc. Life is not always fair, is it? Though we might not think this is a workable alternative, there's some solace that could be found in the offspring of a close relative.

Notwithstanding all this, I think the issue is more complicated than mere sexual selection. I think one can find meaning in one's life apart from bearing children.

James

[wolfhnd]

I'm actually for Eugenics. There are a few conditions that test can be ran for that people should consider when making a choose of mates. Society should offer whatever help it can in making the choose of a mate one that results in happy, healthy children. I understand this is Eugenics with a small e but it could make life better for a few people. Any attempt to engineer the human race will suffer from the problems Lincoln mentioned. If you take domesticated animals as an example reduced diversity has already caused a few problems.

[Forest_Dump]

There is some irony here because as it turns out my recent readings have included some older (pre Derek Freeman) critiques of Margaret Mead's work. So, one comment caught my eye:

Men are evolutionarily pogrammed to always try to approach a woman. It is not easy for them to apply the lesson of psychological pain because the lack of women also can cause problems to them ( mainly in young men ).

No, it is not "evolutionary" it is purely cultural. This was a point behind Mead's "Coming of Age in Samoa" and despite things like Freeman's critique, I would call it universally agreed upon that there is no uniformity in how pubescence happens, which gender is more aggressive, what the "sexual selection" is directed towards, etc., in part because, by whatever standard is used to judge "beauty", even the uglier people can and do have kids together (not to mention the genetic mixing alcohol can sometimes lead to). But of course, given all of this, there are also behavioural variations in every culture so that what works in one place and time, however defined, etc., will not work in another place and time. Simply, given all the variables that go into cultural pressures, norms or mores, psychological "types" (and I am not a fan of that kind of idea either), etc., there will always be differences in reactions and consequences.

As it goes, I am not a fan of eugenics either for the kinds of reasons given by Lincoln and owleye plus a few more.

[CanadysPeak]

Dear God in Heaven! Get a grip, Alex! Rejection is a pain, but good for you. It's how you learn what not to do.

CanadyPeak, I am afraid Alex Dracon can't see your comment here.

Men are evolutionarily pogrammed to always try to approach a woman. It is not easy for them to apply the lesson of psychological pain because the lack of women also can cause problems to them ( mainly in young men ).

The unfairness of nature causes some few lucky gifted men having lots of women and the remaining having a hard time to get just one. Not to mention those who, as result of sexual selection, become bachelors during their entire life.

Nature is not equalitarian and nor benevolent. Is it ?

You partly correct. I suspect you're a woman, so you might not know. Trying hard not to be crude, we men are evolutionarily programmed (your words) to approach almost any and all women. In the absence of a stable monagamous relationship, we are capable of walking in front of a car just to see if we can hit on the EMT while she's giving us CPR.

No, nature is not benevolent. If you're like me and as homely as the south end of a mule walking north, you learn (through rejection, often) to put up with 1s, 2s, and even 0.7s while waiting for a 10. Though I'll tell you that a smart, sexy 6 beats a dumb 10 any day of the week.

Women face the same problem, just not in the same way. For one thing, they're not as crude, nor as desperate as we. Yet, in the end, there are many good matches for most everyone. You have to approach it the way hospitals and first year residents do - put down your top five choices in order, then maximize for both. Very utilitarian, but all black cats do look alike in the dark.

[Marshall]

I'm actually for Eugenics. There are a few conditions that test can be ran for that people should consider when making a choose of mates. Society should offer whatever help it can in making the choose of a mate one that results in happy, healthy children. I understand this is Eugenics with a small e but it could make life better for a few people. Any attempt to engineer the human race will suffer from the problems Lincoln mentioned. If you take domesticated animals as an example reduced diversity has already caused a few problems.

There is nothing wrong with Eugenics just Eugenicist, and there is nothing wrong with cocaine but there is a lot wrong with the cocaine addict. Eugenics is one of those things society has deemed too dangerous to consider, knowing the weakness of human beings.

I agree with most or all of this. I went to Alex blog and typed this and then discovered I could not post it because I do not belong to AOL or OpenID or whatever, so I just copy it here

I am responding to Alex who seems to present LITTLE e eugenics examples where there is no top-down institutional involvement, only individual choice. I guess BIG E eugenics is where some larger entity like the State takes a hand. Alex confuses things because he writes Eugenics and talks examples of eugenics. He mixes things up. I use his definition in talking to him:
==quote to Alex==
You give examples of individual choice in mate selection that involves selection for heritable characteristics.

You define that as a form of Eugenics.

For many people I think there is no problem with individual choice. The problems only come to mind if one pictures the Government stepping in.

I approve of what you imply on two levels:

1. On the individual and family level I would like people to have the means to choose the sex of their babies and voluntarily eliminate harmful genes if they want to, and use genetic testing, and whatever gene technology can be devised so that they get babies which both have the characteristics they feel are theirs and also to a reasonable extent the features they desire. I think there is a right to this.

I know a family that is very happy where the man was infertile and they got an anonymous donor from a sperm bank with excellent profile and the match was perfect and they are all three magnificent people very close ideal family.

2. State involvement is another issue and very complex and thorny. Society has a legitimate interest in human reproduction, first of all if there is a problem of overpopulation because this can be a major cost to the society. also if there is an issue of genetric disabilities, which can also cost the society heavily. I don;t have answers. Maybe if the State sees that every family has the TECHNICAL MEANS and also the education/understanding to make informed choices about reproduction then people would spontaneously make decisions that are good for both themselves and for society. Then the State would not have to impose anything top down,

however if that does not work there might need to be some Government interference. You might have to get a license to reproduce. Like a drivers license. And some people can only drive they are wearing their glasses etc etc or during the daytime. The State has a legitimate interest in some things and it must be balanced against individual right.
==endquote==

[xcthulhu]

@Marshall: I'm actually in favor of "bottom-up" eugenics (ie, granting people certain rights to tamper with the DNA of their offspring).

I can see a reasonable rôle for state government as well: to protect genetic diversity. This is in line with Lincoln's concerns. What I have in mind is something like the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, only for human DNA.

@Belle Catherine:

Men are evolutionarily pogrammed to always try to approach a woman. It is not easy for them to apply the lesson of psychological pain because the lack of women also can cause problems to them (mainly in young men).

I'm guessing you don't have any gay friends.

[afterword]

I assume it would expensive. It would be a product just like any other product, money, money, money, and with high demand. The wealthy would be able to afford it and the not so wealthy would not. A divide between the wealthy and the not so wealthy already exists. How much larger would that divide grow?

The wealthy would grow healthier and smarter. The resentment that already exists for the wealthy by the not so wealthy would grow. In their new height of superiority the apathy that already exists by the wealthy for the not so wealthy would grow.

Might be a problem.

[Paralith]

Dear God in Heaven! Get a grip, Alex! Rejection is a pain, but good for you. It's how you learn what not to do.

CanadyPeak, I am afraid Alex Dracon can't see your comment here.

Men are evolutionarily pogrammed to always try to approach a woman. It is not easy for them to apply the lesson of psychological pain because the lack of women also can cause problems to them ( mainly in young men ).

The unfairness of nature causes some few lucky gifted men having lots of women and the remaining having a hard time to get just one. Not to mention those who, as result of sexual selection, become bachelors during their entire life.

Nature is not equalitarian and nor benevolent. Is it ?

These statements about males are, I think, more accurate if you're talking about the general pattern mammal males follow. They are less universally applicable if you're talking about humans specifically, as several others have already mentioned. Human men and women are programmed to do and try a lot of different things in pursuit of the ultimate goal of maximized lifetime reproductive success; sometimes that may indeed involve ruthlessly pursuing members of the opposite sex, and sometimes it may not. "Lucky gifted men" may date more women but they may or may not have greater ultimate reproductive success than men you might call "unlucky and ungifted". The qualities that make "lucky gifted men" bounce from woman to woman may or may not make them good fathers that will raise healthy, successful children. It terms of sexual selection and evolution, it doesn't matter who a woman has child-less flings with. It matters who she settles down and has a family with.

Canadys' comment is more on point than you may think. There is a difference between asking a woman out to dinner and being rejected, and reproductive success. In particular, consistently and strongly skewed reproductive success that actually has the potential to change the genetic composition of a population of people.