Rethinking eugenics: Moving beyond the Hitler zombie
4/12/2008 | 2:04 PM | Evolved Rationalist
Whenever I mention that the time has come to rethink eugenics in light of modern science, people immediately jump in and accuse me of being a Hitler-supporting Nazi. Despite repeatedly pointing out that the old eugenics arguments, such as the expected effects of selective sterilization and the results of interracial mating are simply based on bad science, there is apparently no stopping the invocations of the Hitler zombie.
I have noticed that despite the usual Hitler/Nazi absurd hysteria, none of the objections I have encountered so far contained any good reason to oppose the modern idea of eugenics. Every anti-eugenics argument was solely based on the idea that since Hitler supposedly supported eugenics (again, his ideas were based on bad science), all of eugenics must be bad by default, and we should never be allowed to even consider the possibility. As one theistard said: You should be arrested for this depravity!
What depravity? The theistard that I spoke to again does not offer any reasons for why eugenics is a depravity apart from foaming about Hitler, Nazis and the Holocaust. I am not saying that there are totally zero good arguments against eugenics, but the time has indeed come for us to stop denying the possibility of eugenics simply because of some vile madman who died more than half a century ago. As in the case of the creationists and their Hitler zombie, it is time to put the Hitler zombie of eugenics to rest.
Some people might argue that allowing eugenics is akin to starting on a slippery slope. Nevertheless, what most eugenics opponents don't seem to realize is that the eugenics revolution is already well under way. The fact that screening of embryos for genetic defects takes place legally is a testament to the current eugenics revolution. For example, genetic screening in the case of Tay-Sachs disease for pregnant mothers eligible for an abortion has reduced the incidences of the disease by an estimated 95 percent. This is in line with the eugenics idea that inferior genes should not be allowed to perpetuate in society. For those who are just waiting to invoke all kinds of zombies in vain, I will again make it clear that what I mean by 'inferior genes' does not have any bearing on gender or race. Inferior genes (in the above case) are simply genes that are more prone to diseases or harmful mutations.
Could the reason that there is no immediate condemnation of the very word 'genetic testing' and its' implications be due to the fact that the word 'eugenics' is not mentioned in discussions of genetic testing? Would the whole situation change if eugenics and its' possibilities were brought into the question? Isn't the only reason eugenics has become a dangerous idea is simply because of the Hitler zombie? Isn't it silly to halt the progress of science because of some dead, irrational madman?
I again stress that they may be good arguments against eugenics, but let's hear them, then. Let's have some good arguments and have a rational discussion about eugenics without the silly invocations of Hitler and the Nazis. Are we really that afraid of merely posing a simple 'if' question because the Nazis did some unethical things due to their acute misunderstanding of the matter at hand?
If there is indeed a way to breed humans for certain abilities, what's stopping the next eugenics revolution (this time based on modern science) from happening? Should we or should we not attempt to stop it? What are the arguments that might lead us to conclude that it is or is not a good idea? Why are we so opposed to eugenics being applied to humans (if the means and the know-how are in place), when we have bred animals for preferred traits as long as anyone can remember?
After more than half a century, and in light of modern science and genetic advancements, we should be able discuss this matter in a rational light without the cloud of the Hitler zombie. Truly, the time has come to rethink the idea of eugenics.
Posted in
Science
|
Ever wonder why the media portrays mad scientists? Read this post and the answer will be revealed.
What about "mad media" ? Seems to me it's far more dangerous than "mad scientists", by promoting all kinds of bullshit.
You don't need to be a "mad scientist" to do eugenics.
Every individual has been doing eugenics since evolution invented sex.
When I choose to have sex with that hot redhead I meet in the club I'm already selecting for a certain set of features... (at least in priniple).
I agree but...
My psychic powers tell me that "Creationist" is going to start rambling about "nazi-darwinism" again. Wait for it... wait for it...
Shalini has shown us what will happen if atheist Darwinists are in control.
Nazi sympathizer!
Comprehension fail, anonytroll?
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2008/03/12/image3931676.jpg
The trolls are coming out of their dungeons, aren't they?
DEMON!!!!!!!!
I FOUND THIS BLOG AT FRIENDLY ATHEIST AND SHALINI I WAS HOPING THAT YOU DIED BUT YOU ARE STILL HERE DEMONNNNNNN!!! WHEN YOU CLOSED YOUR BLOG I HOPED GOD ANSWERED MY PRAYERS BUT NO YOU ARE A DEMONNNNNNNNNNN!!!
I HOPE GOD KILLS YOU DEMONNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!
WOMEN SHOULD SHUT UP, DEMON!!!!!!!!!!
SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, no! It's JESUSFREAK!
Get rid of this troll while you still can.
Asshole trolls,
Stay on topic or die in a fire. Thanks.
Wow, this has sure been a productive discussion. Not.
Shalini Sehkar EXPOSED as a Nazi Hitler Darwinist!! EXPOSED!! The best EXPOSED news from Shalini ever!!
EXPOSED big time!! Darwinism leads to Nazism, and Shalini admitted it!!
Shalini Sehkar is arrogant like Richard Dawkins, and is now being EXPOSED!!!!
Creationist, you need to get a life.
Shalini wants to breed humans!! Nazi Darwinist!!!
Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster. I really am psychic.
Creationist, seriously. I had loads of fun laughing my ass off at the ignorant, dumb, moronic, redundant, IDiotic, stuff that you said... but seriously.
First, it was absolutely hilarious laughing at your incapability to produce one clear, rational thought supported by evidence. Then it got boring. Now it's really just annoying.
STFU
God made us in HIS image, and how dare those mad scientists try to play God? Scientists at AiG are not Satanic like mainstream Darwinist scientists! Richard Dawkins is a pawn of Satan!! REPENT!!
AiG? Scientists?
Welcome to 'Lying for Jesus' planet.
I did not tell a lie. I have a real degree from Liberty University, a premier Godly institution and I am now a scientist. What is the matter, jealous Darwinist?
You went to Liberty? My deepest condolences.
I suppose I might as well mention that Creationist was Ignunt Fool of the Week on my blog last week.
http://splendidelles.wordpress.com/
Go to categories, Ignunt Fool of the Week, you're the second one.
I am a man of GOD!
Evolved Rationalist, you are arrogant because you want to be GOD!
And does he talk to you in your mind too?
you want to be GOD!
No thanks. I prefer existing.
When I do research GOD tells me and helps me with my creationist conclusions, and I know I am right because GOD tells me so! Shalini Sehkar EXPOSED!
Shalini, stop your blasphemy, God is real and you are in danger of hellfire!
REPENT!!
Wow, creationist is winning against the atheists! Keep up the good work, creationist!
Anonymous,
Reality. You're doing it wrong.
So... you admit it. God talks to you in your mind. It's ok. The men in white coats are going to take you to a happy place. Don't worry.
No the demons cannot touch me because GOD protects me!!!!!!!!
Then why are you so worried about giving your name to us so that we can verify that you are an AiG scientist? We obviously can't harm you if God is with you at all times... which is creepy. I wouldn't want anybody following me around all the time.
Creationist
I think you are either a troll or a dimwitted teenager. Which is it?
I am a scientist at AiG! The blog author is a TROLL!! Shalini Sehkar EXPOSED as a Nazi and a TROLL!!
Nazi supporters should be arrested and jailed for evil!!!!!
creationist
what a loser you are, I think you are just a lying troll, although you may be a silly teen posing as a wacktard AIG scientist (ie theistard).
I do not lie. Lying is against the Bible. I am an AiG scientist and I worked hard at Liberty University to get where I am.
Are you Darwinists all jealous that I am a prominent AiG scientist?
Creationist is a douchebag.
The real name of this blog author is SHALINI SEHKAR!!!!
Shalini Sehkar EXPOSED!!!
Darwinist Nazi EXPOSED!!!!!
EXPOSED!!!!
Are you Darwinists all jealous that I am a prominent AiG scientist?
Darwinists? What's that? Something like a Newtonist?
Now, what the fuck is that?
Wow, getting beyond all the bullshit in the comments, I think there is a good argument against eugenics at this time, and it's the one put forward by Richard Dawkins himself.
While there isn't necessarily anything wrong with say screening for genetic defects, we run into the possibility of unintended consequences when we attempt to breed for specific characteristics.
The example I heard in the past we this: Say you wanted to have a community that was very good at the high jump. So you would take those who are best at jumping really high, and breed them, and pretty soon you get a community full of people who can jump better than anyone. But what's to say those people are dumber than rocks, or tend to die by age 40, or any number of other negative consequences.
I realize that the possibility of something negative isn't itself an argument against doing something, but I think it is a good argument for being extremely cautious and probably holding off for a while.
We don't yet completely understand the genome, even though we've mapped it. We need more understanding if such a thing were to actually be attempted.
So that's a scientific argument against eugenics.
What about a political one?
How would such a program be implemented? Would the government be controlling who can and can't reproduce?
The objections against eugenics most likely has a lot to do with issues like this more than scientific issues, which I think Dawkins also pointed out.
hmm... that sounds like I"m parroting dawkins... I suppose I am in a way, because he's right.
It seems to me that China demonstrates the problem with eugenics. With the advance of modern science and a one child policy, the Chinese are aborting female babies at an alarming rate (this has to do with cultural factors) so that at last count the ratio of men to women in China was something like 123 to 100.
People in different cultures would all want the same thing (intelligence? musical skills?) and pretty soon you'd have a society that could all play Mozart but be worthless when it came to building a basic structure or fixing a mechanical object, etc. etc. etc.
It's a pandoras box of nightmares really.
And while I'm off the subject, why does creationist sound so much like shalanonymous when she is writing (tongue firmly in cheek) as if she were a creationist? Just wondering.
John Murphy mentioned in a previous thread that he knows who the blog author is and he uses the word 'Shalanonymous'. Creationist claims that she is Shalini Sehkar.
Why am I suspicious here? Murphy, are you 'creationist'?
You know, back during the Civil War, people would pack a lunch, head out to a hill by the battlefield and watch the carnage. I love this site! Heehee.
What precisely are you proposing when you suggest "breeding humans for certain abilities"? This sounds like artificial selection to me, which involves imposing your arbitrary will upon other humans. I am morally opposed to such an idea.
josh raises another good point.
Well, as soon as you bring up eugenics you ARE inserting an artificial element into the equation. One which may perhaps work to its detriment overall. It's all well and good to pursue a single goal with selective breeding, but the problem is that I'm not entirely sure eugenics is pursuing a single goal.
It's seeking the apotheosis of the human race, right? It's one thing to cull a defective embryo before it can pose a danger to its mother. Forcibly spreading, for instance, the lipoprotein resistance gene prominent in a small Italian village across the entire world has its own set of logistical problems.
Not least of which is the fact that the human race has not thus far been guided by eugenics and managed to produce some amazing mutants. If you buy into punctuated equilibrium, that's because it's a collection of small reproductively isolated populations doing their own thing. Instituting some sort of global reproductive control organization, which is what you'd need to make eugenics work, could well tie off any future beneficial mutations with red tape.
I tend to agree with the author of the post, at least on philosophical grounds. In the future, we will be able to test for genetic defects much more easily and it could drastically reduce the amount of money we spend on health care, politicians having to pay so much attention to this, etc. At the same time, we can test for diseases like Huntington's but many people don't get tested because of the stress it could put on their lives knowing they have an incurable degenerative brain disease, and then they have children. And that is their right.
It's probably been said over and over, but it seems to me the author is talking about genetic testing in the womb, and deciding whether it is best to keep the child or abort it. I think the religious would be well to recognize this, though I know abortion isn't really one of (many of) their favorite things either.
It just gets hairy where you draw the line. Many disorders are nature and nurture. Some people with the genetic sequence for some diseases won't develop it because their environment doesn't have the stressors that would turn these genes on. So how do you decide whether to abort this child or to keep it and your hope?
There is also legislation that is going through at this time (originally by Wellstone) that would say insurance companies can't discriminate against people who have genetic predispositions to disorders, recognizing the importance and impact the human genome project could have on future testing. The bill is called the Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act (link: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1424)
Interesting topic. I wish I knew more.
I both agree and disagree. I have nothing against the science and can see where it could be very useful in embryo screening, especially for people who know they are carriers for a genetic 'disease'. However, I see lots of dangers with this politically and socially, like with the euthanasia debate.
While it's under the individual's control and up to individual choice it's fine, but I can't see how you can keep government and big business fingers out of it. They will find a way to use this technology to 'improve' things for the good of society and the shareholders. They can write all the laws they want, but it won't stop it being abused and eventually the abuse will likely become mainstream because it is such a useful tool, everyone will want to use it. The insurance company doesn't have to tell you they reject your application for health coverage for the genetic reason, they just have to make up some stuff about you not meeting their 'conditions'.
Regards Katkinkate