Eugenics: "Science" Gone Wrong

Post Reply New Topic

Eugenics is the practice of in layman terms, bettering the human race and it's various populations. It had reached it's height, despite moral and scientific challenges, with the rise and establishment of the German Nazis. After WWII it had fallen into disfavor but never died out. Forced sterilization laws were widespread in the U.S. They ended finally in 1981, where the last forced sterilization took place in Oregon.

Today, Eugenics is back.

This time it has reappeared in the guise of again, offering to better the human race. Various primary factors can be attributed to it's recent resurgence:

1) The large influx of Latino immigrants into the U.S. and Muslim immigrants into Europe have played on white fears. Literature like those written by Thilo Sarazzin of Germany, who wrote a book about how supposedly Germany is becoming dumber due to Turkish immigrants, was repeatedly sold out in Germany. Others, like Sarazzin, have supported and are currently supporting Eugenics.

2) The increased awareness of conditions such as "Autism Spectrum Disorders" and their growth has caused anxiety as well, thus carving out a new avenue for eugenics to try and creep in. There are already reports of "cures" for autism/aspergers in the Western World and mothers facing pressures to abort if they are revealed to have autistic fetuses growing inside of them.

There are other factors besides the two above as well.

The fact is, that Eugenism is back, after rising out of it's temporary container and low point. Immigrants, as well as our community of aspies/autistics are facing a major threat from the eugenic pseudoscience. Currently, an approximate average of 90-93% of fetuses with Down Syndrome are aborted. If these figures were to be the same for those with aspergers/autism, our numbers would be decimated.

We cannot let this happen.

Though fortunately, Eugenism still largely has negative connotations. Unfortunately, however, it's acceptance is growing. It is irrational from a sane viewpoint, but is perfectly rational from a viewpoint of a fear of a loss of purity of the community; that part of society which holds itself to be the standard and other groups which it fears are to be dealt with, often through such eugenic means.

Eugenics is a classic example of zombie science-science which is dead but instead refuses to lay down. Actual science of course, has proven beyond a doubt that all human groups are equal, but pseudo-sciences based on emotion at the same time never really care(d) for the facts.

Thus, in conclusion, Eugenics today poses a threat to potentially everyone, but especially minorities such as those which are based on simple neurological differences and those based on race/ethnicity, etc. It must be taken seriously and the scientific community needs to take steps to purge science/genetics of it.

Eugenics is a dangerous pseudo-science, that if it becomes dominant, has the potential to make manifest the movie 'Gattaca'. It should have died long ago. It now, in this era, needs to finally face it's death.

I think that your heart is in the right place, but the issue is a bit more complicated than you are making it sound.

For starters, science can only tell us what "is", it doesn't make policy recommendations. And science doesn't take sides in ethical debates. It can be used by both eugenicists and anti-eugenicists. On the eugenicist side, science has shown us that there are certain debilitating diseases that are almost entirely genetic. On the anti-eugenicist side, science has cast doubt on the idea that there are simple criteria by which you can compare people to each other and decide which people are "better".

Personally, I think that eugenics is basically a good idea when it comes to genetic diseases. I think that carriers of genetic diseases should feel a social pressure to adopt rather than having biological children. But I don't think that this should become a legal issue. When it comes to races, eugenics is incoherent. Race is not a negative feature.

"Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down, that's not my department says Werner Von Braun" Tom Lehrer.

I would in fact argue that "Eugenics" are already being heavily practiced in a reversed form, which consists of artificially keeping people alive. In nature a predisposition for a negative genetic trait would be weeded out through natural selection, however we avoid this through modern medical science and social support structures. The parents of a severely disabled child keep said child alive through medical care largely paid for by the state (in most western countries, not all), which is not a good thing either from an economics perspective.

I don't think Eugenics is completely evil. I mean, if we want to improve the human condition, why not? As long as we are not violating anyone's individual liberties and rights.

Eugenics isn't a science-
it's an ideology made manifest through the use of science.
It's like blaming SCIENCE for any other atrocity committed through the use of technology.

I'm not too opposed to the concept unless it violates someone's autononmy.

The reason why I labeled Eugenics as a science was because it sometimes is actually treated as if it is. Thats why I used Quotations.

As for the ethics of Eugenics, I can only find a few moral justifications for it, such as genetically ending immune system disorders. Once Eugenics starts to creep into other areas and starts to make people think for example to start aborting/curing people with aspergers, then that is amoral and a defense of it in that aspect is completely unjustifiable.

Trying to get rid of Aspie fetuses in the name of "bettering the human species" is like trying to do the same to any other group such as gays or racial minorities. It is evil and characteristic of Nazism.

Also, everyone has a right to reproduce. This cannot be denied to them...

I know it isn't a science. That s why I put it in this forum.

Eugenics is only acceptable if it is consensual imo.

This.

As I remember, they had tracked down a product of the Nazi breeding experiment years ago. Sure enough, he was tall, muscular, blond and blue eyed, as well as artistic (he was a ballet dancer). He was also very GAY!
Goes to show you, even when you try to manipulate genetics in order to produce a superior human, unexpected results may - and will - occur.
The human race has gotten just fine with men and women copulating through the ages with whoever the hell they like, after which they produce people as wonderfully imperfect as what had preceded them.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I don't really get the problem you are getting at. Yes, science has disproved "scientific racism" for the most part, such that most people can be comfortable basing people upon their individual abilities rather than as a group. This doesn't say anything about eugenics. While I can see why a crude effort should be hated, I can't say that I have a vehement hatred of the idea. Aspie existence isn't an intrinsic good, it is only good to the extent that AS is a good trait to exist within the population. If AS is found to significantly diminish life outcomes, then yes, I really wouldn't want AS to exist to a large scale in a population but rather be minimized using humane tools. So, let's just say that as our eugenic measure, we genetically engineer a way to cause a number of good traits to become more common in the population and to remove a set of genetic illnesses, would I be opposed? No. I am opposed to forced sterilizations, but I have nothing against good genes.

An interesting article about Down's syndrome.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/99-of- ... -downs-ba/

I will begrudgingly admit compliance with abortions for diseases which are obviously painful to the patient, but people with Down's syndrome for example appear to be happy. Is it right for parents to abort patients with Down' Syndrome, or are they just being selfish for not wanting to take care of someone with special needs? Or is it possible that they are simply ignorant that a child with Down's Syndrome is capable of living a happy, fulfilling life?

This is actually a very important ethical question that is worthy of discussion.

can somebody tell me what is wrong with paying genetic unfortunates to not reproduce? this would not be via sterilization but as a generous tax credit to be paid to people dx'ed with devastating genetic problems, renewable each year, so long as no offspring are produced, and would be strictly voluntary. that sounds win-win humane to me, by benefiting the unfortunates themselves as well as sparing any newborn spirit the travails of living in a defective body. the monies collected would pay for more research as well as help to cover the societal cost of caring for people with severe genetic problems. i would be first in line to volunteer.

Umm, it's simply wrong.

What do you mean by genetic unforunates? It is subjective or not?

If you are talking about people like this man, then I may see your point... http://www.oddee.com/item_92015.aspx

I wouldn't wish such a life on anyone.

But where do we draw the line?

would it be wrong even if i happily volunteered? they [in other countries] pay people to have babies, why not pay people to NOT have babies also?

you seem to have answered your own question there. prenatal test results reveal genetic abnormalities, and educated professionals way smarter than me are qualified to evaluate the test results and judge the likelyhood of suffering of such afflicted offspring. but the choice must be left with the individuals involved. if i knew i had a major chance for producing genetically tragic offspring, i would voluntarily avoid reproducing. compassionate folks don't want to roll the dice when it comes to the potential suffering of their potential offspring. it is one thing for noble people to care for their offspring which require 100% custodial care, but what happens when the parents pass on? who will care for those unfortunate people then? many institutions are not such happy places, IOW to be warehoused and voiceless while in pain, is something akin to a living hell.

disorders which affect quality of life would be of concern here. quality of life could mean duration of life [for example, progeria] or conditions affecting cognition and independent living. of course, with any human endeavor, there would be some people who would be "getting over" because they might well have dodged the genetic bullet somehow, or they never intended to have kids in the first place. no human system is perfect, but the goal is to at least try to reduce human suffering. thus, my suggestion avoids having to draw a hard line, as it is not mandatory, it penalizes nobody, it is strictly win-win. it is more humane even than lotteries, which have addiction issues and primarily bamboozle the poor and benefit mainly those with more money already. its humanitarian goal is simply to reduce aggregate human suffering in as non-coercive a manner as can be arranged.

Somehow I doubt that even a voluntary system would fly in todays soft, pink, everyone gets a trophy world. I kind of blame the feminist movement for this as the additional feminine influence has lead to a generation or two of children becoming wussy. Not all of the values are bad, for instance I happen to think that interaction with the father is a positive influence for boys (if their father isn't wussy), I'm also in favor of not hitting children and so on. However, a system based around "everyone is equal" as opposed to "everyone has equal opportunity" denigrates the achievers on both sides while it lauds the middle of the pack.

The new values favors unfounded self-esteem, in the sense that its very important that kids have high self-esteem but if you have high self esteem and you've accomplished f**k all, then that's called being an arrogant as*hole. Having a drive to succeed should be rewarded by an increase in self-esteem. By teaching kids that "life is fair" and "Everyone is equal" the children are ill prepared for the world outside mommy and daddy's door.