Eugenics

Eugenics received a negative connotation during the middle of the last century.  

Are there possible eugenic programs which might gain popular approval?

Wikipedia mentions pre-marriage blood tests to screen for genetic incompatibilities which may lead to a high risk of birth defects.  I personally advocate for the mandatory long term birth control or sterilization of felons convicted of violence crimes.  (Perhaps multiple violence crimes would make it more palatable to the liberals?  "Three strikes and we take away your bat!" ?)

Discuss.
LVL 31
Rich WeisslerProfessional Troublemaker^h^h^h^h^hshooterAsked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

Anthony RussoCommented:
>>Wikipedia mentions pre-marriage blood tests to screen for genetic incompatibilities which may lead to a high risk of birth defects.

There is an old saying I remember regarding this.

If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who
were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had
syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?

If answered Yes, you just aborted Beethoven.

Would you want to genetically engineer him to be different. The world could have lost one of it's most celebrated composers.

>>I personally advocate for the mandatory long term birth control or sterilization of felons convicted of violence crimes.

Along these lines you are saying that violent crimes are committed because of genetics. I believe more goes into it than that to support this. Or is it just a punishment to the felon?

0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
Rich WeisslerProfessional Troublemaker^h^h^h^h^hshooterAuthor Commented:
> If answered Yes, you just aborted Beethoven. [...] The world could have lost one of it's most celebrated composers.

Honestly?  I'm okay with that.  I was always a bigger fan of Johann Strauss, Mozart, and Wagner.
But reality is, this is the ultimate in rules we can't apply retroactively.  Might we lose out on a few future potential Beethovens?  Yes.  How many potential Beethovens have we never known because they were beaten to death by cruel parents in the 1800s, or are starving in a third world country today and will never even see a piano.  Do we how many greater geniuses might be born from a well directed, well meaning eugenics program?  

Along these lines you are saying that violent crimes are committed because of genetics. I believe more goes into it than that to support this. Or is it just a punishment to the felon?
Can it be both?  Punishment and improvement to the human race?
Yes, there is more than just genetics.  But if there is a statistically significant predictor based on genetics, I'd take it.  What are the other potential elements?
Upbringing -- the child of a repeat violent crime felon is statistically less likely to be raised in an environment conducive to being a positive, productive member of society, if for no other reason, one of their parents is very likely going to spend the child's formative years in prison or executed.  Can such a child overcome such an upbringing?  Certainly.  Why subject a potentially gifted child with such an upbringing to overcome?  How much more might they achieve if they could start out with a better grounding in a positive environment?

Science Fiction would show us examples of instances where this sort of program breeds the violence out of the race, leaving us vulnerable to extermination by more violence interstellar invaders.  I discount that argument, and maintain that violence and competitiveness would not be completely eliminated by removing the segments of the population which can not find other methods of expression of that gene... one that does not infringe upon the personal rights of others.
0
TlingitCommented:
>>Are there possible eugenic programs which might gain popular approval?

I think this would be a scary thought.  Humans are who they are, and their genetic makeup shouldn't be changed no matter how good you are or how bad you are.  You will always have evil people in the world and once you start messing with mother nature, or what is supposed to be natural, then you are walking on thin ice with God.  Also at what point would we stop?  If we can change this why can't we change that?

>>Upbringing -- the child of a repeat violent crime felon is statistically less likely to be raised in an environment conducive to being a positive, productive member of society, if for no other reason, one of their parents is very likely going to spend the child's formative years in prison or executed.

I think upbringing, or the influence of the home has a lot to do with how each individual turns out as an adult.  Some people are born into better circumstances than others.  Both Stalin and Hitler grew up in disfunctional homes.
0
Cloud Class® Course: Microsoft Azure 2017

Azure has a changed a lot since it was originally introduce by adding new services and features. Do you know everything you need to about Azure? This course will teach you about the Azure App Service, monitoring and application insights, DevOps, and Team Services.

Rich WeisslerProfessional Troublemaker^h^h^h^h^hshooterAuthor Commented:
> what is supposed to be natural
What is suppose to be natural?
Once, man had only limited tools?  He hunted and ate what he killed, and used the bones and skin to make more tools and clothing so he could live in areas that "weren't natural" before he had them.

Once, man had only the power of his own muscles and the few animals he eventually domesticated.  He learned to farm, but eventually he learned 'improved' farming techniques which certainly weren't natural.  He learned to improve the land.   He learned to selectively breed livestock and plants to make them better suited to his purposes.  He learned to build machines that amplify the abilities of the farmer many, many times.  I believe the scientists claim that the planet simply would be unable to support the population it has now without the tampering man has done.

Man invests far more time in the selective breeding of roses, dogs and horses than they do themselves.

Where should we stop?  Eugenics isn't even necessarily getting into direct genetic manipulation.  One element of eugenics which HAS been allowed to continue is a social (and frequently legal) taboo against incest.  Expectant mothers are usually given pre-natal vitamins which contain large quantities of folic acid, and they are advised to stay away from NSAIDs and cats during their pregnancy.  But if one extra pill could been added to the pre-natal vitamins to fix a gene which caused near-sightedness, would that be taken as walking on thin ice with God?  Or is even the consumption of folic acid during pregnancy just a little too much 'tree of knowledge' for God?

I think upbringing, or the influence of the home has a lot to do with how each individual turns out as an adult.  Some people are born into better circumstances than others.  Both Stalin and Hitler grew up in disfunctional homes.

How about a set of requirements to obtain a license to permit someone to have a child?  One has to at least pass some form of test?  It wouldn't be perfect, and folks would forever be arguing about what should be on the test, but isn't it at least a step in the right direction?  There isn't a week that goes by and I read another news report of yet another child missing or killed in some horrible way because the parent(s) are criminally negligent... or far worse.

If God really wanted to get involved in this area, perhaps he'd let the 'good people' who struggle with getting pregnant get pregnant; and not allow innocent children get into the hands of people who think locking them in the closet for days, or beating them within an inch of their lives... until they go an inch too far.  Honestly though, I think He's stopped caring, and really isn't paying attention anymore.

Is it unnatural for a child (mankind) to want to improve itself?  If the tools to improve the species are available, are you sure God didn't provide them?
0
TlingitCommented:
>>What is suppose to be natural?

Conception, nine month process, birth, and the raising of a human being from birth to adulthood, without any science or outside interference to alter the way the human is supposed to turn out.

>>If God really wanted to get involved in this area, perhaps he'd let the 'good people' who struggle with getting pregnant get pregnant; and not allow innocent children get into the hands of people who think locking them in the closet for days, or beating them within an inch of their lives... until they go an inch too far.

I will not pretend to know the mysteries of God but this much I do know is that "his ways are not our ways", which is probably a good thing.  We will never fully understand why he allows this to happen to people or that to happen.  I know a lot of people, like you said, who want children but can't and those who don't want children do have them.

>>How about a set of requirements to obtain a license to permit someone to have a child?

Communism and population control.

God has given us the freedom to choose, or free will, and once you start altering this or take it away then once again you are walking on thin ice.  Communism is a restriction on human rights, even socialism to a certain degree communism in disguise.  Liberalism is the slow road to communism.  China, at one point, controlled how many babies were born into each family, now they have an excess of two many men because they aborted or even killed their babies if they were girls.

The simple and unfortunate reality is that Chinese families can have only one child. The result is that since the 1980s, the majority of children born to Chinese families have been male. No, it isn’t that the Chinese are really good at beating 50/50 odds; instead they’re just really good at abortions.

Recently, a Chinese colleague told me he’d be taking some time off to care for his newborn daughter. I’ve known him for a number of years, so I asked about the one child policy, and whether or not he would embrace the idea of gender selection.

He replied, “JT…if there’s one thing I know, it’s that you never F___ with nature.” I couldn’t agree more.

The above excerpts are from the following article:

http://moneymamba.com/china-male-female-ratio/

My father-in-law's friends would ask him, 'How come you haven't brought your grandchild out for a walk?' He would say, 'If it was a boy I would have done. She's a girl, so I won't.'"

Chen's righteous anger is perhaps more surprising than her in-laws' disdain. China's preference for sons stretches back for centuries. Infanticide, the abandonment of girl babies and favourable treatment of boys in terms of food and health has long produced a surplus of men. In the past two decades, the gap at birth has soared: the advent of ultrasound scans has allowed people to abort female foetuses, even though sex-selective abortion is illegal.

The above excerpt is from the following article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/chinas-great-gender-crisis
0
Rich WeisslerProfessional Troublemaker^h^h^h^h^hshooterAuthor Commented:
> Communism is a restriction on human rights

You do realize, of course, that it isn't.

Communism is an economic system in which there is no state and the people own everything.  The case has been made the Garden of Eden is communistic.  If you really want to go down that road, we'll just end up with the supposition that the ideal human existence is communism.  I suppose booting the residence out for eating the wrong fruit might be a restriction of human rights...

> Liberalism is the slow road to communism.

*sigh*  And Conservatism is the slow road to fascism.  Can we get past the jingoism now please?

> Conception, nine month process, birth, and the raising of a human being from birth to adulthood, without any science or outside interference to alter the way the human is supposed to turn out.

I was born by Caesarean section.  Without it (science) I would have died, as would my mother.
Both my sons were also born by Caesarean section.  Without it (science), both they, and my wife would have also died.  You'll excuse me therefore if I take exception with the definition since by this definition my entire family is already "walking on thin ice with God."  And perhaps it's entirely correct... perhaps this is God's plan for Eugenics, and my entire family should have not been.

I think, I shall accept science instead.  Turns out that the circumference of our heads is larger than a birth canal.  Makes birth without science physically impossible.

> God has given us the freedom to choose, or free will, and once you start altering this or take it away then once again you are walking on thin ice.

So, you are saying that taking away the freedoms of people convicted of violent crimes is against God's plan?  Okay, you sold me... executions are popular in the Old Testament, we'll go with those instead.  Good old fashion stoning.  Doesn't take away any freedoms or free will.

And the above examples for China are based on a broken incentive.  The incentive in China is for one gender.  That isn't sustainable over the long term.  What if, instead of male children, they simply selected against birth defects instead?  (I don't know what the incidence of children born with birth defects in China might be.)  And those preferred children in China... what are the rates of incidence of parents abusing them to death?
0
TlingitCommented:
>>Communism is an economic system in which there is no state and the people own everything.

You are partly right.  Communism is where the State owns everything and they redistribute everything to everybody equally, so there is no one greater than the other, at least in theory.  The Bolshevik Revolution which happened in 1917 is when all power shifted from the Czars to a new form of government called the soviets which was controlled by Bolshevik.  This shift ceased all private property from individuals and went to the State.  Likewise all businesses were now controlled by the State as well.

Who controlls this redistribution?  The State, hence, Statism.  Individuals don't own property and therefore have no property rights, which is another big distinction between communism and capitalism.

>>And Conservatism is the slow road to fascism.

I don't think it would be considered fascism.  Hitler was considered fascist yet he had a well controlled form of government, which in essence was socialism.  However, if we move to far to the right, without government, then we are on the verge of anarhy, which is not good.
0
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Politics

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.