Eugenics in 2021 as 'fix' for social problems

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Alias
Posts: 3068
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Eugenics in 2021 as 'fix' for social problems

Post by Alias »

arjand wrote: February 24th, 2021, 2:50 pm From my perspective, the effect on a single individual would be sufficient to consider the implications. In this case, potentially groups of people could be targeted.
They have been, for centuries or millennia. What's going to change?
What I intended to denote is that, considering that a desire to clean the population of certain races or to improve it for eugenics motives is evident, that when the subject is brought into the political arena and would be accepted by a side on behalf of "over population", global warming or otherwise, that it could result in an escalation of eugenics practices on the ground that could have profound effects for many people.
Supremacists are going to wait a few centuries for the gradual reduction of the populations they dislike, rather than use a handy excuse to bomb the **** out of a country? Why would they suddenly change tactics?
With regard to the potential effect on society. It could be profound for diverse reasons. Imagine that a person like Beyoncé would be affected when she was little. From a human performance perspective, it may be important to consider a loss of potential for talented people.
You mean, if no births are prevented, some babies born will be talented, some of those talented babies will survive to adulthood and a very, very few of those talented adults will find some measure of recognition?
While, if 10% of the births are prevented, 10% fewer talented babies will be born; 5% (because of increased availability of resources) fewer talented children will reach adulthood. If there are only 950 competitors, rather than 1000, for each recognized role in entertainment, sports and arts, every available position will be filled marginally faster.
I don't see that as a loss to humanity, comparable to the gain of a 5% reduction in the number [+/- 25,000 now, increasing fast due to climate change] who die of malnutrition each day.
[How would the goal to be achieved on the ground in a short time scale?]
[ empowerment of women ]
As mentioned, I am not into politics so I cannot comment on that regard.
But you have. You suppose that governments, under the cloak of increase reduction, will interfere with the racial or some other kind of diversity of their nations' population by failing to forbid contraception and/or abortion.
What about improved farming technologies?
That's gone as far as it can toward increasing food supplies. At the cost of forest, wetland, river and habitat loss, environmental degradation, catastrophic decline of insect populations and diversity in all native species. Which is pretty bad news for the planet's ability to recover.
Anyway, with all the coastal areas under salt water and all the inland areas drying up, there won't be any place for improvement in food production, except in urban hydroponic gardens and cloned meat factories. Don't think they'll be up to capacity in time to feed 10 billion by 2030.
What about improved behavior to save resources?
You mean, persuade or prosperous populations to keep reducing their consumption, in order that the continually increasing poor ones can have the bare necessities? That's considerably less likely to succeed than lifting the anti-birth-control laws.
Would one logically choose to control people's reproduction before those options?
Many 'ones' are controlling other people's reproduction now - and have been - rigidly - for many generations.
As the 'other options' are unworkable, population reduction is the only option that actually has some minute chance of producing positive results.
I would favor the protection of people like Albert Einstein, or to seek ways to promote their development, than to mess with reproduction with the motive to select for properties.
I didn't realize he was in any danger from birth control - at least, no more than Stalin was.
It would come down to the Nature-Nurture debate.
I don't see how a 100 million births per year, rather than 140 million, qualifies for that debate.
It just means that a larger percentage of the children born get a shot at some nurture. Some of them might be autistic; some might have their childhoods ruined by ambitious fathers; some will be gifted; most will be ordinary. Just not so many of each.
The origin of eugenics ideologies may not originate in individual Governments, but in a global ideology that is supported and promoted by Universities around the world.
Something may happen... The influence of universities over political decisions in the course of history suggest no imminent threat to the human genome.
When a Government is to seek methods to translate an eugenics ideology into practice, it may choose to target groups of people. For example, "poor black people".
If[in the highly unlikely event that] a government sought to improve its polity, it would likely find a faster method.
Vulnerable people have encountered ‘shocking discrimination’ during pandemic, says Mencap charity
And, where, in what era, situation or condition has that not happened? When resources are scarce, the weakest are sacrificed. Not creating so many of the weak would certainly cut down on the number of sacrificed.
Discrimination is not a new invention. If it has any bearing on birth control, it's exactly those vulnerable people - the poor and minorities - who have the least access to genetic intervention. Since they can always be jailed, marginalized and neglected to death, who needs eugenics?
While humans have mastered their environment to serve them that does not imply that humans can master life itself.
Perhaps not life itself, but their breeding options have been severely limited since the beginning of civilization. As technology evolved, it was brought to bear on human health, fertility and longevity, as well as the environment. At no point has any authority been able to draw an enforceable line at any morally determined limit to medical intervention.
Morality is quickly forgotten when one views human history but for evolution itself it may be key.
If a species drowns itself in its own toxic waste, its evolution ceases to be of any concern to moralists.
I believe that a basis of respect for nature is essential for successful evolution.
It would have been, yes. Now that we've destroyed nature, it's a moot issue.
At question would be whether the facts of science can possibly be a guiding principle for life/Nature.
What are the other candidates for guiding principle?
If not, then eugenics, when taken to the extreme, may potentially cause disastrous flaws in evolution.
Something will happen, either way.
Eventual flaws in eventual evolution are a remote threat compared to present disastrous overpopulation.
Alias
Posts: 3068
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Eugenics in 2021 as 'fix' for social problems

Post by Alias »

Correction: 10 billion by 2050, not 2030. So that's all right - still under a billion impoverished migrants coming our way.
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 869
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Eugenics in 2021 as 'fix' for social problems

Post by psyreporter »

Alias wrote: February 24th, 2021, 8:06 pm
arjand wrote: February 24th, 2021, 2:50 pm From my perspective, the effect on a single individual would be sufficient to consider the implications. In this case, potentially groups of people could be targeted.
They have been, for centuries or millennia. What's going to change?
Complete animals have gone exitinct. Citing that fact as if it would prove that those animals have been, and when extrapolated to living animals, 'are', meaningless, does not seem plausible in light of what the concept morality entails.

In that sense, a part of the problem may be that morality is taken out of the consideration and one (politics) looks at statistical 'facts' as if it were evidence for something with regard to the meaning of living beings.
Alias wrote: February 24th, 2021, 8:06 pm
What I intended to denote is that, considering that a desire to clean the population of certain races or to improve it for eugenics motives is evident, that when the subject is brought into the political arena and would be accepted by a side on behalf of "over population", global warming or otherwise, that it could result in an escalation of eugenics practices on the ground that could have profound effects for many people.
Supremacists are going to wait a few centuries for the gradual reduction of the populations they dislike, rather than use a handy excuse to bomb the **** out of a country? Why would they suddenly change tactics?
Because for the same reason that they are inclined to 'bomb' people, they are naturally inclined to follow scientists as if it were priests that guide one's path for a 'higher purpose' (of which one would assume that it matches ones conviction).

Note: I did not want to judge anything with regard to politics or 'white supremacists'. My argument was made in light of the eugenics ideology alone, which appears to have nothing to do with a political ideology per se, but with a belief that it is actually 'good' or essential that humans will take control of human evolution. The notion of the existence of for example 'white supremacists' with certain social desires was merely used to highlight a potential outerly effect when eugenics would be 'taken to stage' (put on the agenda) in mainstream politics.

Alias wrote: February 24th, 2021, 8:06 pmYou mean, if no births are prevented, some babies born will be talented, some of those talented babies will survive to adulthood and a very, very few of those talented adults will find some measure of recognition?

While, if 10% of the births are prevented, 10% fewer talented babies will be born; 5% (because of increased availability of resources) fewer talented children will reach adulthood. If there are only 950 competitors, rather than 1000, for each recognized role in entertainment, sports and arts, every available position will be filled marginally faster.
I don't see that as a loss to humanity, comparable to the gain of a 5% reduction in the number [+/- 25,000 now, increasing fast due to climate change] who die of malnutrition each day.
As my examples show, each individual person can become extraordinary and of the highest value for humanity. An example could be Stephen Hawking who, despite a genetic disease, contributed to human existence like few other humans may have could.

From my perspective, 5% people is not applicable when it concerns talent on an individual level. My argument is that 'talent' isn't a 'property' that one can acquire with eugenics.

Alias wrote: February 24th, 2021, 8:06 pm
[How would the goal to be achieved on the ground in a short time scale?]
[ empowerment of women ]
As mentioned, I am not into politics so I cannot comment on that regard.
But you have. You suppose that governments, under the cloak of increase reduction, will interfere with the racial or some other kind of diversity of their nations' population by failing to forbid contraception and/or abortion.
I never mentioned anything with regard to the contraception/abortion part, but you are correct that this topic intends to provide an opportunity to discuss the social aspects around eugenics.

Personally, the reason that I address the subject is originally merely for the fundamental theory part of it. (the simple question: can eugenics - when taken to the extreme - be 'good' for human evolution?)

Alias wrote: February 24th, 2021, 8:06 pm
What about improved farming technologies?
That's gone as far as it can toward increasing food supplies. At the cost of forest, wetland, river and habitat loss, environmental degradation, catastrophic decline of insect populations and diversity in all native species. Which is pretty bad news for the planet's ability to recover.
Anyway, with all the coastal areas under salt water and all the inland areas drying up, there won't be any place for improvement in food production, except in urban hydroponic gardens and cloned meat factories. Don't think they'll be up to capacity in time to feed 10 billion by 2030.
What about vertical farming?

What about ocean farming?

An example: Chlorella algea is the most complete food source for humans on earth. It contains all vitamins, all minerals, Omega-3-6-9 acids and protein. In theory, humans could live on a diet with only Chlorella.

Chlorella is the most used supplement in Japan and people in Japan are the most healthy in the world. NASA has studied Chlorella as a food source for astronauts.

Chlorella can be produced in large water tanks. There are many algae variants that provide a diverse range of nutrients that could potentially up-scale efficiently for the purpose of high quality food production.

How marine algae could help feed the world
https://phys.org/news/2017-10-marine-algae-world.html

Feed The World With Algae - OriginClear
https://www.nutraceuticalbusinessreview ... gae/157037

As it appears to me, the consideration that one should look to reproduction control instead of exploring an enhancement of food production, is not logical.
Alias wrote: February 24th, 2021, 8:06 pm
What about improved behavior to save resources?
You mean, persuade or prosperous populations to keep reducing their consumption, in order that the continually increasing poor ones can have the bare necessities? That's considerably less likely to succeed than lifting the anti-birth-control laws.
Yes, imagine an ultra-fast shift of humans to:

1) work from home
2) adopt Virtual Reality in their lives for both improved quality of life as well as reduced consumption
3) create a culture of awareness of the importance of certain aspects with regard to the health of the earth
Alias wrote: February 24th, 2021, 8:06 pm
Would one logically choose to control people's reproduction before those options?
Many 'ones' are controlling other people's reproduction now - and have been - rigidly - for many generations.
As the 'other options' are unworkable, population reduction is the only option that actually has some minute chance of producing positive results.
I do not believe that such an assumption is evident.
Alias wrote: February 24th, 2021, 8:06 pm
It would come down to the Nature-Nurture debate.
I don't see how a 100 million births per year, rather than 140 million, qualifies for that debate.
It just means that a larger percentage of the children born get a shot at some nurture. Some of them might be autistic; some might have their childhoods ruined by ambitious fathers; some will be gifted; most will be ordinary. Just not so many of each.
It is the idea that talent can be acquired as a 'property', as if it were meaningless.

Alias wrote: February 24th, 2021, 8:06 pm
While humans have mastered their environment to serve them that does not imply that humans can master life itself.
Perhaps not life itself, but their breeding options have been severely limited since the beginning of civilization. As technology evolved, it was brought to bear on human health, fertility and longevity, as well as the environment. At no point has any authority been able to draw an enforceable line at any morally determined limit to medical intervention.
Eugenics is a step beyond medical intervention. It is an attempt to top-down control human evolution based on the idea that natural selection can be 'mastered', i.e. that humans can master life itself. It is different from enhanced medical technologies to 'serve' human health and reproduction.

Does eugenics 'serve' human health? This question could potentially separate the practice from other forms of medical intervention. Not for nothing, eugenics has officially been named 'pseudoscience'.

Alias wrote: February 24th, 2021, 8:06 pm
Morality is quickly forgotten when one views human history but for evolution itself it may be key.
If a species drowns itself in its own toxic waste, its evolution ceases to be of any concern to moralists.
I do not agree. Any solution for a 'better world' (i.e. to get out of the toxic waste) will involve some form of moral consideration.

Alias wrote: February 24th, 2021, 8:06 pm
At question would be whether the facts of science can possibly be a guiding principle for life/Nature.
What are the other candidates for guiding principle?
That question itself is the answer. Like Kant argued, in answer to the question "what may I hope?" after considering "when I conduct my self so that I can become happy", morality is evident.

Kant’s three questions to provide evidence for morality: 1) What can I know? 2) What must I do (to become happy)? And 3) What may I hope for?

--

What is your opinion on the idea that what makes certain people cling to atheism may be at the root of the ideology of eugenics?
PsyReporter | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
Alias
Posts: 3068
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Eugenics in 2021 as 'fix' for social problems

Post by Alias »

arjand wrote: February 25th, 2021, 7:26 am [ In this case, potentially groups of people could be targeted.[
[They have been, for centuries or millennia. ]

Complete animals have gone exitinct.
You say there is a danger of groups being targeted - if... I respond that groups have always been targeted, regardless. I'm asking whether or how you think that would change with the advent of what you call 'eugenics', but is, in fact, simple discrimination. What have extinct animals to do with this?
Because for the same reason that they are inclined to 'bomb' people, they are naturally inclined to follow scientists as if it were priests that guide one's path for a 'higher purpose' (of which one would assume that it matches ones conviction).
Do you have a [credible] citation for this general statement? Can you point to a link between armed assault and a natural inclination to sciece? Would the 'higher purpose' attributed to science be matched or superceded by the 'moral guidance' exerted by religious leaders to impose their convictions?
Note: I did not want to judge anything with regard to politics or 'white supremacists'.
I didn't say 'white'. There is nothing inherently or exclusively European about the will to dominate. Arabs and Chinese behave similarly, as do some African nations toward rival African nations.
My argument was made in light of the eugenics ideology alone,
Yes, and that is problematic. You seem to attribute enormous power to this "eugenics ideology", for which I see little evidence in the real world, where all your example of it are readily attributable to other forces that have been in effect at least since the dawn of civilization, if not long before.
which appears to have nothing to do with a political ideology per se, but with a belief that it is actually 'good' or essential that humans will take control of human evolution.
Humans have controlled their own evolution through all of known history.
As my examples show, each individual person can become extraordinary and of the highest value for humanity.
There's the misconception or misdirection - in picking out the biggest, reddest cherries.
In fact, some very, very few individual persons become extraordinary, in an unusual confluence of circumstances for good or for evil, while the vast, enormous majority remain ordinarily nice, mean, mediocre, violent, passive, productive, destructive, bullies, useful, troublesome, victims, burdensome, annoying or inconsequential.
However many examples of famously positive people you produce, each one can be matched by a negative example, plus a thousand nobody ever heard of.
From my perspective, 5% people is not applicable when it concerns talent on an individual level. My argument is that 'talent' isn't a 'property' that one can acquire with eugenics.
Who said it was? It already exists in the general population, but we don't know how many examples exist, since the overwhelming majority never come to fruition. The main reason is that a far too large and growing number of humans has to compete for a small and diminishing resource-base.
25,000 a year starve to death, 10,000 of them children. Maybe ten of those dead children were exceptionally talented. We'll never know.
I never mentioned anything with regard to the contraception/abortion part, but you are correct that this topic intends to provide an opportunity to discuss the social aspects around eugenics.
No, you merely cited the conservative spokesmen who conflate population reduction with "eugenics ideology" as a scare-tactic to push their agenda of curtailing reproductive choice.
Personally, the reason that I address the subject is originally merely for the fundamental theory part of it. (the simple question: can eugenics - when taken to the extreme - be 'good' for human evolution?)
And the simple answer had nothing to do with discrimination, victimization of minorities or any of the other nonsense you dragged in. The simple answer is: It makes no difference to human evolution.
And my question is: What do you care about human evolution ten thousand years from now?
Assuming humans do continue to evolve, what makes you think a decision made today by a handful of transient national legislative bodies will have any effect on it?
What about vertical farming? What about ocean farming? An example: Chlorella....
etc. etc. Little drops in big and growing bucket.
What about flooding of coastal cities? What about widespread drought? What about pollinator loss? What about.... etc. etc.
As it appears to me, the consideration that one should look to reproduction control instead of exploring an enhancement of food production, is not logical.
Not instead of - as well as! And also carbon footprint reduction. And diverse, dispersed alternate energy. And massive recycling. And and and - not or.
I do not believe that such an assumption is evident.
You're probably right. Nothing can save humanity from humanity.
It is the idea that talent can be acquired as a 'property', as if it were meaningless.
So why prattle on about it? All I said was, talent exists in the same percent of people, whether there are few or many. Among few, it's more likely to be noticed and nurtured; among many, it's more likely suppressed and wasted.
Eugenics is a step beyond medical intervention.
Every step is a step beyond the previous step.
However, eugenics is not a step in medical - it's theory. A medical step is gene splicing - it's already happened. A medical step is in vitro fertilization - it's old news. A medical step is birth control pills - ho-hum. A medical step is comprehensive vaccination or school children against polio - yup, that's happened, too. (I do not relish the prospect of your defense of polio as a natural evolutionary aid!)
Not for nothing, eugenics has officially been named 'pseudoscience'.
If that's true, it won't work anyway.
[If a species drowns itself in its own toxic waste, its evolution ceases to be of any concern to moralists. ]
I do not agree. Any solution for a 'better world' (i.e. to get out of the toxic waste) will involve some form of moral consideration.
Once we're extinct, there will be no moralists.
[What - other than science - are the other candidates for guiding principle? ]
That question itself is the answer.
No, it isn't.
What is your opinion on the idea that what makes certain people cling to atheism may be at the root of the ideology of eugenics?
I have no opinion on that claim: it begs three questions. I'll rule on each one if examined separately.
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 397
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: Eugenics in 2021 as 'fix' for social problems

Post by Robert66 »

Robert66 wrote: February 20th, 2021, 8:21 pm
Bloomberg / 11,000 scientists wrote:The scientists make specific calls for policymakers to quickly implement systemic change to energy, food, and economic policies. But they go one step further, into the politically fraught territory of population control. It “must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity,” they write.
What does 'politically fraught territory of population control' entail? From the perspective of a politician, it would be eugenics. When a politician is faced with a choice who is to live and who's birth needs to be prevented, surely, selection in line with eugenics will be the result.
Population stabilisation and gradual reduction within a framework ensuring social integrity, and eugenics, are not the same. Your conclusion that selection in line with eugenics will be the inevitable result does not automatically follow. If some of the 11,000 scientists do argue for eugenics, let's hear what they have to say.
[/quote]
Slavedevice
Posts: 30
Joined: October 10th, 2015, 8:34 pm

Re: Eugenics in 2021 as 'fix' for social problems

Post by Slavedevice »

So, there’s no question that greatly reducing the population is the only solution to save the environment! You get deer in headlights gaze but deep down every educated person knows this. So, if this must happen, who do we KEEP? Huh? 80 IQ? Or over 120? There will soon be 8 Billion. Some experts say we need half a billion. I would be happy with around a billion or two. I have more compassion than hard core scientists who actually talk about this. People can’t stomach reality.
User avatar
-TheLastAmerican
Posts: 60
Joined: August 15th, 2021, 5:18 am
Favorite Philosopher: Myself
Location: Earth

Re: Eugenics in 2021 as 'fix' for social problems

Post by -TheLastAmerican »

chewybrian wrote: February 12th, 2021, 8:14 am
Alias wrote: February 10th, 2021, 1:08 am The human craziness is too pervasive to be gene-spliced out, and we don't have the time or the organization for a breeding program that got rid of it gradually.
China does.
And China has to rule its people by the end of a tank barrel.
Only the worst of humanity rises to the top - Myself
Stoicism is the wisdom of madness, and cynicism the madness of wisdom - Bergen Evans
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 397
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: Eugenics in 2021 as 'fix' for social problems

Post by Robert66 »

Slavedevice wrote: August 12th, 2021, 9:57 pm So, there’s no question that greatly reducing the population is the only solution to save the environment! You get deer in headlights gaze but deep down every educated person knows this. So, if this must happen, who do we KEEP? Huh? 80 IQ? Or over 120? There will soon be 8 Billion. Some experts say we need half a billion. I would be happy with around a billion or two. I have more compassion than hard core scientists who actually talk about this. People can’t stomach reality.
There is a lot to question about the statement 'that greatly reducing the population is the only solution to save the environment.' Before we face the impossible prospect of selecting which humans to cull, we could address the following:

Inequality, between nations, and within them;
Oppression of, and denial of education to, women;
The impact of industrial agriculture;
The impact of some laws and strictures enforced in the name of religions;
The relatively "free hand" given to those who destroy the environment for profit.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

Upcoming Philosphy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

Previous Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021