Eugenics in 2021 as 'fix' for social problems

[Alias]

[Alias - "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?

A 'scale' means compared to others in the same category. Somebody who's coughing up blood is relatively less healthy than somebody who can wield a pickaxe all day without getting winded. College test scores rank the intellectual attainment of students relative to the course of studies. Olympic events compare the athletic ability of competitors relative to the sport.

Health and athletic prowess are just as relative as race when it concerns 'human evolution'.

Not precisely. A healthy Chinese-African couple has a reasonable chance of producing healthy (and quite beautiful, imso) offspring, who will go on to contribute sound DNA to the species at large, whereas a hemopheliac couple, whether of similar or different ethnicity, have little or no chance of making an impression on the human genome.

My argument is that the fight to overcome problems makes humanity stronger.

The Shadow option: make em duke it out till the fittest survive. OK.
So, you're against all medical intervention and social services?

[Alias -- 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.

The concept may be universal; the specifics of what 'optimum' entails is not.

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.

You mean with the nature we're rapidly extinguishing, or with a putative 'human nature'?

Morality would enable humans to achieve such a state, by addressing the simple question "what is 'good'?".

I'm sure morality is busy doing just that. Meanwhile, millions of people with Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and Huntington's are languishing in long-term care facilities, a heavy burden on their communities.

[Alias -- What is the "fundamental level" of the issue?]

Fundamental level would be "a priori" or "before value". One can address it using philosophy.

Prior to what event? Using which philosophy?
What's all this palaver to do with fixing defective genes?

"What may I hope?" is a question that is posed in light of "what is 'good'?" relative to the individual.

That's what I said. Individual good is easy to catalogue. Collective good is difficult. Comprehensive good is impossible.

[Alias -- 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.

Profound implications, maybe; practical effect on the genome, no.

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).

Would making medical and technological innovation qualify?
How about control of one's own reproductive function - is that 'a win'?

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

That one doesn't end. So we'll never know the answer.

Evidence my be cows that have been driven to extinction due to how humans have applied eugenics.

Cows? What were they originally meant to be - in Nature, or by nature?

The way we breed cows is setting them up for extinction
https://qz.com/1649587/the-way-we-breed ... xtinction/

Excellent! Also: Of course. We bred dairy and beef cattle to produce food for us. Once we don't need that cruel, wasteful and polluting food-source, we can safely allow the artificial sub-species to lapse. It would be nice to think their wild cousins are still grazing the prairies and mashes of the Earth, but... No; we've taken over their habitats.

[LuckyR]

The odd thing about this topic is that under current conditions the trait that humans are selecting for genetically isn't better health, good looks or strength, it is ignorance.

[Alias]

Gullibility and credibility have always been highly prized trait in civilized populations.
Critical, thoughtful, self-confident voters, levies and consumers are far too troublesome. All elites learn this early in the ascendancy: Even under the most severe oppression or pervasive indoctrination, there are always enough intellectual anomalies to build cathedrals, invent new weapons and count the tax revenues.

[psyreporter]

A 'scale' means compared to others in the same category. Somebody who's coughing up blood is relatively less healthy than somebody who can wield a pickaxe all day without getting winded. College test scores rank the intellectual attainment of students relative to the course of studies. Olympic events compare the athletic ability of competitors relative to the sport.

Yes, a qualitative state of the human is evident and applicable in its sphere of existence, such as health, sports and academics. At question however, is whether and/or how these performances relate to what actually matters for successful (longer term) evolution.

An athletic, healthy and beautiful body provides an appearance of success. When it is 'given' as a property however, the story of The Tortoise and the Hare may apply on a biological level.

My argument is that the fight to overcome problems makes humanity stronger.

The Shadow option: make em duke it out till the fittest survive. OK.
So, you're against all medical intervention and social services?

No, that's not the idea. Medical intervention and social services are also part of the fight to survive.

At question in this topic would be whether eugenics would be a wise method.

My argument is that eugenics could be compared to fleeing instead of overcoming problems which could result in increased weakness over time. Filtering out / preventing defects or selecting for properties that provide short term advantages, may not provide the human with what is vital for successful longer term evolution (e.g. resilience).

[Alias -- 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.

The concept may be universal; the specifics of what 'optimum' entails is not.

I am not certain if that is correct. Perhaps philosophy is able to provide answers. When fundamental questions are answered, individual (groups of) human(s) can extrapolate an applicable concept of optimum.

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.

You mean with the nature we're rapidly extinguishing, or with a putative 'human nature'?

I personally would argue on behalf of fundamental Nature (philosophical), but Nature would be a part of it, as the human.

Morality would enable humans to achieve such a state, by addressing the simple question "what is 'good'?".

I'm sure morality is busy doing just that. Meanwhile, millions of people with Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and Huntington's are languishing in long-term care facilities, a heavy burden on their communities.

As it appears, humans haven't even started to master morality for guiding their progress.

(2020) How we make moral decisions
The researchers now hope to explore the reasons why people sometimes don't seem to use universalization in cases where it could be applicable, such as combating climate change. One possible explanation is that people don't have enough information about the potential harm that can result from certain actions, Levine says.
https://phys.org/news/2020-10-moral-decisions.html

The scientists write that they "hope" that humanity / science will investigate the reasons why people sometimes do not use the "universalization principle" for moral considerations and decisions. In 2020, the universalization principle appears to be the only method that is considered available for guiding human action and science.

The strive to prevent diseases is naturally good. At question in this topic is whether eugenics is a wise method.

[Alias -- What is the "fundamental level" of the issue?]

Fundamental level would be "a priori" or "before value". One can address it using philosophy.

Prior to what event? Using which philosophy?
What's all this palaver to do with fixing defective genes?

Well, one is to be able to make a case for either the plausibility of eugenics or why it may not be a wise choice.

My argument was based on the precursor argument that human evolution is relative to the 'unforseeable future' and that reflection (retro-perspective) based selection of properties may not provide the best guiding mechanism for human evolution.

"What may I hope?" is a question that is posed in light of "what is 'good'?" relative to the individual.

That's what I said. Individual good is easy to catalogue. Collective good is difficult. Comprehensive good is impossible.

Perhaps better is possible

It may be possible to achieve comprehension through implications.

Would making medical and technological innovation qualify?
How about control of one's own reproductive function - is that 'a win'?

Yes, it can be seen as progress, however, when one considers the idea that life exists / evolution is driven by random chance, that could result in the idea that thinking isn't needed and that anything random counts as 'good'.

Humans figuratively speaking started out of a cave and when weighing the potential for natural disaster against not making progress sufficiently fast could be in favor of the latter by definition. At present times however, an argument could be that humans should evolve further and put intelligence before practice.

The potential for exponential growth could heighten the risk. A mistake can potentially cause a disaster for the human species or even Nature on earth.

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

That one doesn't end. So we'll never know the answer.

I am not convinced that an answer is not possible.

[psyreporter]

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.

Do you believe that the removal of pain and hardship 'improves' the species?

At question in this topic is the practice of eugenics in general. Embryo selection can be adapted on a mass scale so that the impact can be profound.

[LuckyR]

Gullibility and credibility have always been highly prized trait in civilized populations.
Critical, thoughtful, self-confident voters, levies and consumers are far too troublesome. All elites learn this early in the ascendancy: Even under the most severe oppression or pervasive indoctrination, there are always enough intellectual anomalies to build cathedrals, invent new weapons and count the tax revenues.

Very good point. It helps the elite remain at the top of the pyramid by stocking the environment with rabble.

[psyreporter]

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.

I do not believe that an intent to mislead can be made evident. The source that I shared, a post on Washington Post, clearly denotes that the 11,000 scientists argued for eugenics.

The source linked in the post on Washington Post is https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... mate-alarm

The scientists present their case in light of global warming and climate change but with a clear scope: "there needs to be far fewer humans on the planet."

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.

[Robert66]

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.
[/quote]

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.

[Alias]

What does 'politically fraught territory of population control' entail?

Any measure that offends or threatens an entrenched power-bloc.

From the perspective of a politician, it would be eugenics.

Why? It just means a reduced birth-rate over the entire population; selection doesn't come into it.

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.

Except, the politician is not confronted with a question of who at all.
He's confronted by women and who want to control their own fertility and their male allies vs an ultra-conservative/ religious bloc that wants to prevent women having control of their fertility and adolescents learning how to do it.

[psyreporter]

Why? It just means a reduced birth-rate over the entire population; selection doesn't come into it.posting.php?mode=quote&f=5&t=17062&p=378559#

...

Except, the politician is not confronted with a question of who at all.

In my opinion it would be naive to believe that politicians will remain unbiased. When the task is set to 'reduce' and control the population, by means of birth control and otherwise, surely, powerful lobbyist groups will steer measures for the purpose of eugenics-like selection, for the advancement of a 'superior race', or simply for racial preferences.

One just has to pose the question: why not? Will politics logically prevent inequality in population control?

New York Times columnist Natasha Lennard mentioned the following:

"There need be no explicit policy of forced sterilization for a eugenicist system to exist. Normalized neglect and dehumanization are sufficient. These are Trumpian specialties, yes, but as American as apple pie."

https://theintercept.com/2020/09/17/for ... s-history/

[Alias]

In my opinion it would be naive to believe that politicians will remain unbiased.

In what way? It's unlikely for an entire congress or parliament to be in accord as to their preference.

When the task is set to 'reduce' and control the population

Except, that wasn't the question, either. That Republican judge was mouthing off against women's right to decide not to have babies. That's it; that's all.

powerful lobbyist groups will steer measures for the purpose of eugenics-like selection, for the advancement of a 'superior race', or simply for racial preferences.

In countries where genocide is accepted practice, birth control is just part of a larger policy of repression. Where it isn't birth control is as universal as anything else: the rich do as they please; the poor do what they can.
Lobbies all want something, but even if they win a local victory, it's a different one in each locale: Muslims want more Muslims, Catholics want more Catholics; communists and capitalists want to outbreed each other. It won't make a difference to the racial or genetic composition of the population of the world.

Besides, what's ever been invented that wasn't, sooner or later, misused by a power bloc?

[psyreporter]

In my opinion it would be naive to believe that politicians will remain unbiased.

In what way? It's unlikely for an entire congress or parliament to be in accord as to their preference.

An entire congress or parliament isn't an absolute when it concerns the outerly effects of a policy. The effects could be subtle (on a large scale) and the mere political contention around an idea can be a justification for groups of people to perform in a certain direction.

When the task is set to 'reduce' and control the population

Except, that wasn't the question, either. That Republican judge was mouthing off against women's right to decide not to have babies. That's it; that's all.

This topic is about the plausibility of the consideration that 'eugenics' is an emergent topic in recent years, with official references in the media as 'New Eugenics' (movement).

NY Mag Intelligencer: Will the 2020s Be the Decade of Eugenics? - Eugenic Ideas Never Really Went Away
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01 ... -away.html

The cited 11,000 scientists in the OP specifically argued that the worlds population should be 'reduced'. Such a goal would require profound measures.

How would the goal to be achieved on the ground in a short time scale? Politicians may seek "big wins" and target groups of people. They may also 'turn a blind eye' in some occasions.

In essence, all that is required for eugenics to arise in practice, is political contention and established acceptance of the practice on one of the sides.

powerful lobbyist groups will steer measures for the purpose of eugenics-like selection, for the advancement of a 'superior race', or simply for racial preferences.

In countries where genocide is accepted practice, birth control is just part of a larger policy of repression. Where it isn't birth control is as universal as anything else: the rich do as they please; the poor do what they can.
Lobbies all want something, but even if they win a local victory, it's a different one in each locale: Muslims want more Muslims, Catholics want more Catholics; communists and capitalists want to outbreed each other. It won't make a difference to the racial or genetic composition of the population of the world.

The ideas that would drive eugenics would be tied to (an attempt to) control or mastery of human evolution.

[Alias]

An entire congress or parliament isn't an absolute when it concerns the outerly effects of a policy. The effects could be subtle (on a large scale) and the mere political contention around an idea can be a justification for groups of people to perform in a certain direction.

isn't absolute; could be; can be; certain direction
Sounds pretty vague, regarding a government policy which would first have to be articulated, drafted, legislated, promulgated and implemented at the level of local medical practice (which is where the conception and birthing take place). How long could, can, might all this take, and what would be its net effect on a society?

This topic is about the plausibility of the consideration that 'eugenics' is an emergent topic in recent years, with official references in the media as 'New Eugenics' (movement).

I thought the topic was whether eugenics can fix social problems. My contention is that it could in theory, but not in practice.
If the topic were concern that permitting some gene modification will slippery-slide into 'designer babies' and eventually wholesale improvement of the species (I could not access that linked article, but read the one in The Guardian), my position is that
1. that ship has sailed: the rich are already able to make the best babies money can buy. As always, if something can be done, somebody's already doing it before there's regulators start debating it and regulation doesn't stop them anyway.
2. The rich are just as vain as regular people and would prefer tiny replicas of their own imperfect selves.
3. The technology is too costly to service anyone but the well-to-do, even in the long term.
and 4. Given our slow maturation, it would take at least two centuries to make any real difference, even if it were widely available,
and we just don't have another two centuries to waste.

The cited 11,000 scientists in the OP specifically argued that the worlds population should be 'reduced'. Such a goal would require profound measures.

Yes. Political and economic change. Disarming the churches and patriarchists. Not fussing with mitochondria.

How would the goal to be achieved on the ground in a short time scale?

The world-wide, universal empowerment of women and making all forms of birth control freely available to all.
Reduction of the birth-rate would automatically improve the species, simply by making more resources available for the nurture of the new generation, as well as its mothers. But that's not what conservatives fear. Is it?

Politicians may seek "big wins" and target groups of people. They may also 'turn a blind eye' in some occasions.
In essence, all that is required for eugenics to arise in practice, is political contention and established acceptance of the practice on one of the sides.

What's a "big win" in Ukraine? What's a "big win" in the UK? What's a "big win" in India? What, exactly, is each of those governments required to turn a blind eye to, and for how long, in order for scientific intervention to change the genetic makeup of their populations sufficiently for a measurable improvement? What makes you think they'd wait on the excuse of reproductive science to carry out 'ethnic cleansing' programs?

The ideas that would drive eugenics would be tied to (an attempt to) control or mastery of human evolution.

Somebody might maybe someday be able to influence human evolution? Well, what do you suppose humans have been doing for the last 6000 years?

[psyreporter]

isn't absolute; could be; can be; certain direction
Sounds pretty vague, regarding a government policy which would first have to be articulated, drafted, legislated, promulgated and implemented at the level of local medical practice (which is where the conception and birthing take place). How long could, can, might all this take, and what would be its net effect on a society?

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.

New York Times columnist Natasha Lennard mentioned the following:

"There need be no explicit policy of forced sterilization for a eugenicist system to exist. Normalized neglect and dehumanization are sufficient. These are Trumpian specialties, yes, but as American as apple pie."

https://theintercept.com/2020/09/17/for ... s-history/

'Mass forced sterilizations' at ICE happened on Trump's watch. But they're America's problem.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/m ... cna1240238

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.

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.

How would the goal to be achieved on the ground in a short time scale?

The world-wide, universal empowerment of women and making all forms of birth control freely available to all.
Reduction of the birth-rate would automatically improve the species, simply by making more resources available for the nurture of the new generation, as well as its mothers. But that's not what conservatives fear. Is it?

As mentioned, I am not into politics so I cannot comment on that regard.

Would a reduced birth rate improve the species? If the motive for that idea were to be natural resources only, I would question the validity of the idea. What about improved farming technologies? What about improved behavior to save resources? Would one logically choose to control people's reproduction before those options?

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.

It would come down to the Nature-Nurture debate.

An example story is that of Susan Polgar, world's first female chess chess grandmaster from New York.

NGC: My Brilliant Brain - Nature or Nurture?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wzs33wvr9E

Her father, László Polgár, performed a unique educational experiment to prove that children can make exceptional achievements in life if trained in a special way from a early age.

The story of Jabob Barnett from Indiana, USA shows a similar story.

Upon the diagnosis autism doctors told his parents that he would probably never be able to tie his own shoes. His mother didn't accept the generally accepted disease perspective and instead, decided to let her son be himself. His mother decided to educate her son at home and at 14 years old his IQ was estimated at 170, higher then that of Albert Einstein.

The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing, Genius, and Autism
https://www.amazon.com/Spark-Mothers-Nu ... B009QJMV8A

In 2012 Jacob attended a TED talk in which he explained that any normal child can become a genius, by thinking differently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq-FOOQ1TpE

Actual evidence in favor of Nurture is mounting as well.

Learning one’s genetic risk changes physiology independent of actual genetic risk

In an interesting twist to the enduring nature vs. nurture debate, a new study from Stanford University finds that just thinking you’re prone to a given outcome may trump both nature and nurture. In fact, simply believing a physical reality about yourself can actually nudge the body in that direction—sometimes even more than actually being prone to the reality.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562- ... -behaviour

Politicians may seek "big wins" and target groups of people. They may also 'turn a blind eye' in some occasions.
In essence, all that is required for eugenics to arise in practice, is political contention and established acceptance of the practice on one of the sides.

What's a "big win" in Ukraine? What's a "big win" in the UK? What's a "big win" in India? What, exactly, is each of those governments required to turn a blind eye to, and for how long, in order for scientific intervention to change the genetic makeup of their populations sufficiently for a measurable improvement? What makes you think they'd wait on the excuse of reproductive science to carry out 'ethnic cleansing' programs?

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.

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".

The effects could be subtle. In some hospitals in the UK, doctors placed involuntary DNR (Do-Not-Resuscitate) on COVID patients with certain 'properties', such as people with learning disabilities.

Fury at ‘do not resuscitate’ notices given to Covid patients with learning disabilities
Vulnerable people have encountered ‘shocking discrimination’ during pandemic, says Mencap charity
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... fficulties

The ideas that would drive eugenics would be tied to (an attempt to) control or mastery of human evolution.

Somebody might maybe someday be able to influence human evolution? Well, what do you suppose humans have been doing for the last 6000 years?

While humans have mastered their environment to serve them that does not imply that humans can master life itself.

Morality is quickly forgotten when one views human history but for evolution itself it may be key.

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

At question would be whether the facts of science can possibly be a guiding principle for life/Nature. If not, then eugenics, when taken to the extreme, may potentially cause disastrous flaws in evolution.

From a human talent perspective, I believe eugenics is wrong and may serve the wicked desires of weak people that crave relief for their weakness by the idea that they can 'master' life and acquire qualities using the certainty that they believe to have found in the facts of science (atheism, the opposite of a religion for people that know that they are naturally prone to be exploited by religions for their weakness).

[psyreporter]

atheism, the opposite of a religion for people that know that they are naturally prone to be exploited by religions for their weakness

* weakness = inability to define the meaning of life.

Authenticity and finding meaning in life may be a key for talent, art and human performance.

Many talented and top performing people have struggled with the question "What is the meaning of life?", which shows that the origin of the question may be something fundamental and that despite having success, thousands of friends and a rich social life, the question (or inability to answer it) is just as critical.

Atheism is a way out for people who would potentially (be prone to) seek the guidance that religions promise to provide. By revolting against religions, they (hope to) find stability in life.

The extremity developed by atheism in the form of a dogmatic belief in the facts of science can result in practices such as eugenics. The desire for a 'easy way out' by people that attempt escape exploitation of their weakness (read: inability to define the meaning of life) would result in corruption to 'acquire qualities' in a way that is immoral.

An analogy may be the story about the Devil that attempts to overturn God with trickery and deceit. It describes a weakling that tries to become stronger than a perceived strength in others by attempting to escape nature with corruption. A choice for evil.

I personally do not believe in weakness, only in good intent and prevention of corruption. It is easy to not care. It takes strength to choose a righteous path. Life is a fight. Every person can be the strongest and serve life in the best way, by their intent.