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
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 12th, 2021, 12:55 pm
chewybrian wrote: February 12th, 2021, 12:08 pm China has more than a birth control program. In fac,t, I think that has largely gone away. But they do have an ethnic cleansing program that is active.
...
And, of course, none of it is relevant to the topic, because there is no comprehensive attempt for or against specific traits.
In China eugenics is called yousheng and has a culturally positive connotation.

From the source on Nature.com that I shared before:

Then there are concerns about the push to select for non-disease-related traits, such as intelligence or athletic ability. The ever-present spectre of eugenics lurks in the shadows. But in China, although these concerns are considered, most thoughts are focused on the benefits of the procedures. “There are ethical problems, but if you bring an end to the disease, I think it’s good for society,” says Qiao.

In the West, PGD still raises fears about the creation of an elite genetic class, and critics talk of a slippery slope towards eugenics, a word that elicits thoughts of Nazi Germany and racial cleansing. In China, however, PGD lacks such baggage. The Chinese word for eugenics, yousheng, is used explicitly as a positive in almost all conversations about PGD. Yousheng is about giving birth to children of better quality. Not smoking during pregnancy is also part of yousheng.


https://www.nature.com/news/china-s-emb ... ns-1.22468

Ethical dimensions of yousheng (healthy birth or eugenics): the perspective of a Chinese ethicist
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15587510/
PsyReporter | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
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 »

Successful (healthy) evolution may not be just about transferring individual genes or 'properties'. The complex coherence of genes provides in more than humans can possibly 'see' in it (the future cannot be foreseen). Therefor, a human based concept or idea cannot logically be a guiding principle for life.

While humans have mastered their environment to serve them, which some perceive as parasitic behaviour, that does not imply that humans can master life itself.

I believe that a basis of respect for nature is essential for successful evolution.

Filtering out genetic defects and unwanted properties logically results in weakness in evolution. The reason is the essentiality of resilience, the ability to overcome unforeseeable problems, not just the ones that can be predicted.

Overcoming problems is essential for progress in life. Some perceived defects may be part of a 300 year evolutionary strategy that is essential to acquire solutions for longer term survival. The fight to overcome the defects or diseases makes humanity stronger in the future. Filtering out genes (eugenics) would be like fleeing instead of overcoming problems and thus logically results in increased weakness over time.

An easy life or offspring with genes linked to prosperity (financial, career, intelligence etc) may not be what is good for longer term human evolution.

It may be essential to value what it takes to perform like Stephen Hawking in life. Despite a genetic condition, he has contributed to human existence in ways that few others may have could.

In the case of Stephen Hawking can be seen that things may turn out differently than expected and for resilience to be served, a basis of respect should exist to allow people like Stephen Hawking to perform in life the same as others.

The struggle with a disease can result in solutions that enable humanity to survive on the long term. Not giving up could be essential and should be valued and rewarded socially to be effective.

It may be best to serve life instead of to attempt to stand above it.

Some hints:

Down syndrome: occurs 1 in 700 births, genome called "Super Genome".

(2018) The Down syndrome 'super genome'
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 090148.htm

Huntington's disease: 80 percent less cancer than the general population.

(2018) Huntington's disease provides new cancer weapon
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 084458.htm

(2007) Biologists Link Huntington's Disease To Health Benefits In Young
A new hypothesis has been proposed to explain prevalence of the disease by suggesting that people with Huntington's disease are healthier in childbearing years and have more children than general population. Huntington's strengthens the immune system during most fertile years allowing them to produce more offspring.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 130029.htm

At question could be: would it be possible that the presumed (genetic) diseases/disorders serve a purpose? Perhaps in a time-span that is difficult to comprehend from the limited individual human's perspective?

It is logically good to intend to prevent disease. Perhaps there are good use-cases for eugenics when certain fundamental questions are addressed and kept in awareness. As it appears however, the idea that the human can 'master' life itself is based on a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism (the idea that facts are outside the scope of a human perspective), which can potentially result in disastrous flaws in human evolution.

An attempt to stand above life as being life logically results in a figurative stone that sinks in the ocean of time.
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 14th, 2021, 6:17 am
In China eugenics is called yousheng and has a culturally positive connotation.
And the results, so far? Is the Chinese population at large healthier, smarter or more athletic than any other nation's?
Everybody wants healthy, strong, handsome and happy children who do well in life. The elite class of every society has always had children with better odds of success than the other 99.9% (except for that little glitch in 19th c European royalty). But that also makes them easier to identify and kill off in a revolution. They are such a tiny, transient drop in the human gene pool as to make no difference.
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 646
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

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

Post by NickGaspar »

Eugenics could be used as a great tool for our societies, but not under our current pseudo philosophical social organization systems.(economics and politics as we know it).
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 14th, 2021, 9:50 am
arjand wrote: February 14th, 2021, 6:17 am
In China eugenics is called yousheng and has a culturally positive connotation.
And the results, so far? Is the Chinese population at large healthier, smarter or more athletic than any other nation's?
A similar question would be: is a Chinese person better than a US, European, Russian or Turkish person? When it concerns comparative qualities, that which is evaluated would need something to reflect.

How would it be possible to reflect a state of affairs for what lays in the future (aspects that matter for long term survival)?

At question therefor is: does eugenics serve long term evolution in the best way? One is obliged to address the issue on a fundamental level, universally or from the individual's unique perspective relative to (unforeseeable) 'future performance/survival'.
Alias wrote: February 14th, 2021, 9:50 amEverybody wants healthy, strong, handsome and happy children who do well in life. The elite class of every society has always had children with better odds of success than the other 99.9% (except for that little glitch in 19th c European royalty). But that also makes them easier to identify and kill off in a revolution. They are such a tiny, transient drop in the human gene pool as to make no difference.
The wish (strive) is of course naturally good, however, from a philosophical perspective the 'method' could be at question.

My argument would be: "one cannot float towards success on a cloud", i.e. "life is a fight". A choice to top-down control human evolution for short term self interests (an 'easy' life) may not be a sound choice in light of what matters for successful long term evolution.
PsyReporter | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 5950
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

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

Post by LuckyR »

There's a huge difference (both ethically and in effectiveness) between selective breeding and sterilizing the "defective". They should therefore not be discussed interchangeably.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 397
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

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

Post by Robert66 »

'It appears to be an emergent topic in recent years and in 2019 a group of over 11,000 scientists argued that eugenics can be used to 'solve social problems'.'

No, they didn't. Check your own link, Arjand. Your credibility was lost at the start.
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 17th, 2021, 10:07 am [Is the Chinese population at large healthier, smarter or more athletic than any other nation's? ]

A similar question would be: is a Chinese person better than a US, European, Russian or Turkish person?
That's actually the unfocused version of the same question. "Better" is non-specific and impossible to assess, whereas health, intellectual attainment and athletic prowess are comparable on scales that already exist and are in use.
How would it be possible to reflect a state of affairs for what lays in the future (aspects that matter for long term survival)?
Nohow.
At question therefor is: does eugenics serve long term evolution in the best way?
Or in any way? That depends on what you want the outcome to be and how you go about achieving it.
There is no absolute or universally accepted goal.
One is obliged to address the issue on a fundamental level, universally or from the individual's unique perspective relative to (unforeseeable) 'future performance/survival'.
What does that mean? What is the "fundamental level" of the issue? How can one address a universal? An individual's unique perspective could be taken into account - but every individual's might take too long to catalogue. Perform what? Survive how long?
[Everybody wants healthy, strong, handsome and happy children who do well in life. The elite class of every society has always had children with better odds of success than the other 99.9% (except for that little glitch in 19th c European royalty). But that also makes them easier to identify and kill off in a revolution. They are such a tiny, transient drop in the human gene pool as to make no difference.]

The wish (strive) is of course naturally good, however, from a philosophical perspective the 'method' could be at question.
What 'method'? I merely said the people who can do it are too few to matter.
My argument would be: "one cannot float towards success on a cloud", i.e. "life is a fight".
Who made that an unbreakable rule?
A choice to top-down control human evolution for short term self interests (an 'easy' life) may not be a sound choice in light of what matters for successful long term evolution.
No top-down control would ever put easy life for the peons at the top of its agenda. The elite already have an easy life - exactly because the peons don't. If the elite wanted everyone to have an easy life, we'd have it already.
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 »

Robert66 wrote: February 18th, 2021, 4:30 pm 'It appears to be an emergent topic in recent years and in 2019 a group of over 11,000 scientists argued that eugenics can be used to 'solve social problems'.'

No, they didn't. Check your own link, Arjand. Your credibility was lost at the start.
A restricted focus on individual aspects may not provide a ground for sound assumptions.

The source was the Washington Post that mentioned: Last year, a group of 11,000 scientists signed a statement urging population control to slow human exploitation of Earth's fragile resources. Now that climate change is finally a topic of urgent debate, some have argued that limiting population growth, if not eugenics, could be part of saving the planet.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... s-problem/

It is important to see the broader context. There are many events around this 'individual fact' (the advocacy of 11.000 scientists for population control). For example, scientist Richard Dawkins tweeting that eugenics "would work", a UK government adviser resigning over comments supporting eugenics, et cetera.

From that perspective, the post on Washington Post with the title "Eugenics is trending. That’s a problem." makes it evident that the topic is in fact 'emergent' and worthy of consideration from that perspective.

p.s. argumentum ad hominem is a lowly tactic. You are the first from which I noticed it on this forum.

What has my credibility to do with the topic? Emotions have nothing to do with the subject. Even if the information in my OP is incorrect, you can simply make it evident and the purpose of the topic is served.
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 »

You do realize that's an opinion piece?
The author seems to be okay with widespread starvation, war and disease reducing 'vulnerable populations', but not with birth control measures. Mentions (repeatedly) some instances of growth reduction - where women were prevented from having babies - but neglects the (far more prevalent) instances of women being to have babies they don't want and can't support.
None of the breeding programs have been about a better race of humans; all of them were aimed at the kind of population a particular government has wanted. That's not eugenics; that's racial cleansing - a very different proposition.
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 397
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

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

Post by Robert66 »

'if not eugenics'

- now we are getting somewhere. Just lose the 'if'.
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 397
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

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

Post by Robert66 »

Falsely enlisting 11,000 scientists to support your argument is more than incorrect information, it is a blatant attempt to mislead the reader. However I am sorry should have written 'Your argument's credibility was lost at the start', rather than being rude to you personally. A lesson learned - my thanks.
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 19th, 2021, 1:37 am That's actually the unfocused version of the same question. "Better" is non-specific and impossible to assess, whereas health, intellectual attainment and athletic prowess are comparable on scales that already exist and are in use.
Comparable relative to what? Health and athletic prowess are just as relative as race when it concerns 'human evolution'.

My argument is that the fight to overcome problems makes humanity stronger. From such a perspective, actual health may be found in 'potential' for resilience, to win in unforeseeable circumstances, in any condition.
Alias wrote: February 19th, 2021, 1:37 amOr in any way? That depends on what you want the outcome to be and how you go about achieving it.
There is no absolute or universally accepted goal.
The applicability of the moral question "what is 'good'?" is evidence that the concept 'optimum' is applicable.

From a short term human perspective,'optimum' may be found in 'flow' and its corresponding mental extasis (an ultimate state of performance as a human being).

As a specie, and even as 'part of Nature', there is logically a similar 'optimal' state. For longer term survival, it may be important that the human is able to achieve synchrony with the optimum state of Nature.

Morality would enable humans to achieve such a state, by addressing the simple question "what is 'good'?".
Alias wrote: February 19th, 2021, 1:37 am What does that mean? What is the "fundamental level" of the issue? How can one address a universal? An individual's unique perspective could be taken into account - but every individual's might take too long to catalogue. Perform what? Survive how long?
Fundamental level would be "a priori" or "before value". One can address it using philosophy.

Man cannot know the value of what he cannot know beforehand (a priori), which explains why it can be difficult to formulate a reason why, for example, morality is worthy of consideration.

The assumption that the laws of physics (Nature) are static and that facts differ from truths on a fundamental level is a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism. Therefor, all that can be seen in the world is value.

Morality as a concept is a retro-perspective (of an implied 'goal' or 'purpose') for the origin of valuing which cannot be value because of the simple logical truth that something cannot originate from itself. Therefor, while it can be made evident that morality is worthy of consideration, it cannot be said that it 'exists' in an empirical sense.

Emannuel Kant argued that although it is not possible to have knowledge of morality, reflection on the moral law leads to a justified belief in them, which amounts to a kind rational faith. In answer to the question, “What may I hope?” Kant argues that morality is evident.

"What may I hope?" is a question that is posed in light of "what is 'good'?" relative to the individual.
Alias wrote: February 19th, 2021, 1:37 am What 'method'? I merely said the people who can do it are too few to matter.
Method such as the choice for 'embryo selection' for eugenics motives. Like a butterfly effect, a practice or idea can have profound implications.
Alias wrote: February 19th, 2021, 1:37 am
My argument would be: "one cannot float towards success on a cloud", i.e. "life is a fight".
Who made that an unbreakable rule?
My footnote provides an explanation. It is evidence that it is required to put striving to 'good' practice, i.e. to 'fight'. (I do not mean something physical, it could be with the mind / intelligently).

The validity of the argument may come down to the debate determinism vs free will.

My logic shows that free will is evident despite that free will may not stand on its own as something that isn't determined beforehand.
arjand wrote: March 9th, 2020, 3:00 pmBy the same logic, one can pose that since it can be stated that "good" per se cannot be valued, one cannot pose that one is not free to choose with regard to the appropriation of "good". If one would not be able to choose it would imply that the indicated "good" per se has been valued, which is impossible.

Alias wrote: February 19th, 2021, 1:37 am No top-down control would ever put easy life for the peons at the top of its agenda. The elite already have an easy life - exactly because the peons don't. If the elite wanted everyone to have an easy life, we'd have it already.
I do not mean an easy life as in humans enjoying an easy life, but easy as in 'given' in the form of properties that are intended as they are given. The properties provide advantages within a limited scope of the human perspective. Emperically, the human may look strong and healthy. From a resilience perspective however, it may become desastrously weak.

Evidence my be cows that have been driven to extinction due to how humans have applied eugenics. It is a different type of eugenics, but it does provide evidence of what I intend to denote with regard to the essentially of resilience.

Cows Have Gone Extinct
WASHINGTON—In a deeply disturbing finding that has sent shockwaves throughout the nation and the world, officials from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed Thursday that cows have gone extinct.
https://www.theonion.com/cows-go-extinct-1825018199

The way we breed cows is setting them up for extinction
https://qz.com/1649587/the-way-we-breed ... xtinction/
PsyReporter | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
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 19th, 2021, 12:00 pm You do realize that's an opinion piece?
The author seems to be okay with widespread starvation, war and disease reducing 'vulnerable populations', but not with birth control measures. Mentions (repeatedly) some instances of growth reduction - where women were prevented from having babies - but neglects the (far more prevalent) instances of women being to have babies they don't want and can't support.
None of the breeding programs have been about a better race of humans; all of them were aimed at the kind of population a particular government has wanted. That's not eugenics; that's racial cleansing - a very different proposition.
If the intention is to remove a certain race in favor of another, I do not see a great difference with eugenics for an improved race.

With regard to the source, I found the following news item that shows that a federal court in the USA is worried about the existence of a 'new eugenics' agenda.

(2021) Federal appeals court warns of 'new eugenics' agenda
"One of the great curses of the 20th century was the rise of the eugenics movement. It gave a patina of acceptability to such horrors as genocide, forced sterilization, the development of a master race, and the death of millions of innocents," wrote Erickson, who was appointed by President Trump.

"The new eugenics movement is more subtle, but a state could nonetheless conclude that it poses a great and grave risk to its citizens," he wrote. "A core value of eugenics is the nation that diversity in the human population should be reduced to maximize the eventually realize the 'ideal' of a more 'perfect person.' Inherent in this concept is the goal of controlling genetic diversity of a population in order to create a super race: one that is deemed to be healthier, smarter, stronger, and more beautiful. The creation of such a cadre of people would undoubtedly lead to greater discrimination against people who are deemed to be 'inferior,' resulting in a broad attack on diversity of the human population.

https://www.wnd.com/2021/01/federal-app ... cs-agenda/
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 20th, 2021, 6:38 am If the intention is to remove a certain race in favor of another, I do not see a great difference with eugenics for an improved race.
And if the intention is to spare individuals - regardless of race, creed or station in life - pain and hardship; to apply modern medical knowledge to the relief of suffering? The species - not a race, which isn't possible anyway, as there are no distinct races - might improve by 0.00001% in the process.
If you don't see the difference, I'm sorry.
With regard to the source, I found the following news item that shows that a federal court in the USA is worried about the existence of a 'new eugenics' agenda.

(2021) Federal appeals court warns of 'new eugenics' agenda
"One of the great curses of the 20th century was the rise of the eugenics movement. It gave a patina of acceptability to such horrors as genocide, forced sterilization, the development of a master race, and the death of millions of innocents," wrote Erickson, who was appointed by President Trump.
That last phrase should tell you something about his agenda: to take away people's - mainly poor women's - reproductive freedom. What he's doing in that passage is equating legal abortion to genocide -- even though abortion rights have nothing at all to do with ethnicity or diversity and certainly don't even hint at sterilization, forced or otherwise. It's standard Repug agit-prop, and does very strongly smack of forced child-bearing.
Erickson joined an opinion blocking two abortion restrictions that Arkansas enacted in 2019: one that banned abortions after 18 weeks, and another that banned abortions obtained because of a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... rtion.html
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