What if we only allowed people to breed based on their genetics?>
Our entire society would be evolving for the better. Just like when responsible breeders of animals improve them.
Society would benefit in the long run as we'd have stronger, healthier, smarter people.
As result they'd have a higher standard of living and society could move forward better.

People would get health testing.
Any person with a known genetic disease would not be allowed to breed. Among the rest of the population, a predetermined amount of breeding licenses could be handed out. People who wanted to have children could apply like we now do to go to college.
The best would be selected to have children and get breeding licenses.

The people whose genes were not good enough for breeding be allowed to live normal lives otherwise except that they would be forbidden to have children.
Just like the companion animals we spay and neuter to make sure that only the best breed. At leat under ideal circumstances. Just because we have a spayed dog, doesn't mean that indivudal doesn't deserve a good life.

The negative parts would be it would impact individual rights as someone who wants to have children wouldn't be allowed to legally if their gens were not good enough and something would have to be done with children born illeggally from genetically inferior parents. So people today would suffer as individuals so the future could be brighter for all.
Somehow I think most people are not willing to compromise their lives today so future people can benefit.

I think it's wrong to tell some people they have to have babies and others that they can't, no matter how great we think it'll make things in the future (I also doubt our ability to predict exactly how well this plan will or won't work).

We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
- Charles Darwin

It sounds like a good idea, but it makes people less human. Call me a terrible person if you want, but I personally think it would solve a lot of problems.

A couple things to consider -

When border collies were finally recognized by the AKC in 1996, my stepmother (an avid border collie/agility hobbyist) threw a fit. Before then, the breed was largely popular among people who admired or depended on their intelligence - farmers using herding dogs, agility/fly ball/obedience trainers, and so on. Its acceptance into the AKC invited new breeders, whose sole purpose is to breed for conformation (essentially, looks alone).

My point being - if we "breed" for health alone, what are we sacrificing?

Something else to consider: "nature" is only part of the nature/nurture equation. What if, by excluding individuals/couples who don't meet certain arbitrary guidelines, we exclude too many GOOD parents?

They did a movie about this kind of thing. It's called Gattaca. I got to watch as part of my 7th grade Advanced Science class. It's interesting. I'm gonna go with the whole "I've got Asperger's" spiel. I do. And if genetic testing becomes available, people like me and others on the spectrum will cease to exist. And that's saddening.

From what I see, this is about discriminating against people with inferior genetics beyond not letting them reproduce.
Assigning people a social status based on their genes is entirelly different then giving all people equal rights. except when it comes to being able to reproduce.

Originally Posted by Claudia

From what I see, this is about discriminating against people with inferior genetics beyond not letting them reproduce.
Assigning people a social status based on their genes is entirelly different then giving all people equal rights. except when it comes to being able to reproduce.

If I understand what you're suggesting... I disagree. You can't separate reproductive rights from human rights. They rest together.

I'd say it'd be pretty helpful but only if those who are partaking in the program are consenting.

I think it could be separate. Having a spayed or neutered companion animal doesn't make them any less loved by their caregivers.. They don't go around thinking my dog with inferior genes so I got them spayed/neutered.
.So I could see a person with inferior genes being just as worthy as an individual.
If not then every child- free person today is already less worthy then people who decided to reproduce.

I think most people get a negative view of eugenics because of how abusive it has been to people in the past and how people have been killed in the name of it.

Originally Posted by Claudia

I think it could be separate. Having a spayed or neutered companion animal doesn't make them any less loved by their caregivers.. They don't go around thinking my dog with inferior genes so I got them spayed/neutered.

But people obviously aren't companion animals. You can't spay, neuter, cage, "breed," or euthanize a person without their consent without violating fucking serious human rights.

Originally Posted by Claudia

.So I could see a person with inferior genes being just as worthy as an individual.
If not then every child- free person today is already less worthy then people who decided to reproduce.

Your judgment on a person's overall 'worthiness' probably means just about nil to them if you're forcing them to go undergo surgery/go childless against their will because they don't stack up to your arbitrary genetic guidelines.

Originally Posted by Claudia

I think most people get a negative view of eugenics because of how abusive it has been to people in the past and how people have been killed in the name of it.

I think most people have a negative view of eugenics because virtually all applications of it involve the mass violation of basic human rights. And, of course, because its proponents tend to plot themselves on the superior end of the spectrum.

.So I could see a person with inferior genes being just as worthy as an individual.
If not then every child- free person today is already less worthy then people who decided to reproduce.

99% of the child-free community is that way by choice. What you're talking about would take away that choice. And in my opinion, there is no such thing as an inferior gene. There are mutated genes, to be sure. But that doesn't necessarily make them inferior. Because for every one thing some can't do, there's always something they can.

It's like the kids that was born without eyes, and without the ability to straighten his arms or legs (rendering him unable to walk). He can play multiple instruments, and better than sighted children. And because his parents chose to focus on what he can do, instead of what he can't, he's never had a problem with being blind. Because he knows he's gited in other areas. What if his parents had never had him, because he was "inferior"? Maybe that was a lesson they needed to learn? Maybe he has touched so many lives that we don't know yet? And if he hadn't been born, he wouldn't have had an impact on anyone.

And that's why I believe genetic testing is stupid. If everyone is perfect, no one has anything to strive for. If every child behaves exactly how mommy and daddy want him to, then he never has a reason to think outside of the box, and grow and develop as his own person.

I think after you've had 5 kids (or something around there) , or so many abortions in a certain time frame (I used to know someone who used abortion as birth control because she was Catholic and we all know THEIR view on condoms), you should be given two options:

1. Steralisation
2. Lose all your child related benefits

I consider that a fair compromise. That way we still keep our genetic mix (which is kinda vital to prevent extinction) without being too imposing on Human rights. Also this would deter men from serially getting a woman prego then buggering off and leaving the woman with the baby. Also vice versa in case anyone accuses me of being sexist.

Just because someone has the "right genes" doesn't mean that they have the right disposition to be a parent.

Sounds good to me. And quite honestly abortion as regular birth control is awful. I don't know even who'd want to utilize abortion as birth control..

Whether someone is a good parent is another matter.

As for plotting ones self on the superior end of the spectrum...I come from another angle.
I come from suffering from a chronic illness and would prefer future people not suffer like I did.
So rest assured when I think about eugenics, it's about compassion towards future people. It has nothing to do with feeling superior.

As for plotting ones self on the superior end of the spectrum...I come from another angle.
I come from suffering from a chronic illness and would prefer future people not suffer like I did.
So rest assured when I think about eugenics, it's about compassion towards future people. It has nothing to do with feeling superior.

I understand where you're coming from Claudia, but the alternative to eugenics in that sense would be a cure, in my opinion. I don't think we should do a blanket sweep of the problem, because apart from your illness, you are an articulate, good-hearted person (this is what I've gathered from your posts), and I think if a cure can be found for illnesses such as AIDS, cancer, and fibromayalgia(sp?) then we should work for that, instead of thinking the only solution is genetic programing...

A couple things to consider:

a) Virtually everyone is likely to have some genetic tendency for some disease. They vary in seriousness and frequency, and finding a line for what is acceptable would cause no end of trouble. We have things like cancer, that's common but fairly treatable, and genetic illnesses that are fairly serious but only occur when two pairs of a certain gene meet. Which one is more important to breed out? Not to mention more nebulous concerns like mental illness.
b) Way too much potential for corruption at a systemic level. Eugenics programs have been done in the past, where people were sterilized without their knowledge. There's reasons those programs no longer exist.
c) Good luck getting this idea past the religious right.
d) Don't get me starting on race issues.

The idea of even doing the sort of genetic testing this would require scares me a bit. As a more immediate concern, that sort of information could have a very negative effect on a person's ability to get health insurance. That's a road I'm not sure we want to go down.

I understand the concern for future generations. In many cases, I think genetic testing is wise; for example, when a dozen embryos are created for an IVF patient, and only half of them are implanted, it makes perfect sense to select the embryos that are most likely to develop into a healthy person. If you're bringing someone into this world, wouldn't you want them to have the healthiest, happiest life possible?

But what we're talking about here cannot happen before fundamental rights are stripped from the populace. You can't say, "Like it or not, we're cutting you up down there. But don't worry! In every other way, you're a free woman!" Doesn't work that way.

I think this is a fun idea to toy with, the perfect plot for a comic or scifi horror, but it's just that... a scifi horror. No matter how much in may or may not improve society, it's not ethical, entirely possible, or 'acceptable' by religious or social terms... not to mention no one likes to be told what to do or how to do it, and have you ever told a other how to parent, much less not to? It isn't pretty.

Now let's say everyone was great with it and we went forward and did it. I think we'd lose a lot of our cultural differences, diversity would become a thing of the past, and eventually we'd have a world of super humans. There would probably be a lower class of 'normal people' in third world countries, ect, because we couldn't possibly control who's having sex and making babies with who across the entire world.

I could go on for pages about all the flaws in the idea, who decides what valuable traits are? What happens when we accidentally lose needed traits we thought were useless? When do we stop our 'improvements'? How strong or fast is strong and fast enough?


Edit: I totally took this overboard. XD In the smaller frame we're looking at, you simply can't control who 'breeds' with who, and while it may help to wipe out some genetic errors, at what cost? Thousands of people wouldn't be able to have children, and that's not a right you can take away from someone, no matter how better off society may be.

I think that even though it could be the best option out there... nobody's going to follow. Instead, people would start having children just to show in your face that they can and they will. At least Latin American is like that :/ It's exactly what my country does whenever there's a new law, like right now, the president ordered each and every teacher should take an exam to try evaluate why our education system is so deficient, and 90% didn't go take the exam just because they never had to before so they won't now.

I did a debate on eugenics in eighth grade (pro, by random selection). :3 I've also watched GATTACA, and that movie is kind of a hint at how out of hand this could get.

Initially I thought it would be a pretty good idea, we could redirect most of that education money spent on the handicap to something else, also it would prevent the continuous passing of bad genes. However; it would get horribly out of hand as that happens to be human nature at this point and has constantly been in the past.

The main thing I think about is at what point will we say; "Okay the gene pool's fine, pack up the chlorine."

Just want to throw into the discussion that breeding for superiority of race was what Hitler was all about. Not on the genetic level exactly, but he wanted only blonde haired and blue eyed people, and no Jews, etc. It's much the same thing...

Indeed. Hitler was actually very intent on "weeding out" the physically and mentally disabled, as well as the Jews (and other groups). First the sterilization law was administered, followed by the systematic killing of the mentally ill and the handicapped.

The reasoning was this:

Since the National Revolution public opinion has become increasingly preoccupied with questions of demographic policy and the continuing decline in the birthrate. However, it is not only the decline in population which is a cause for serious concern but equally the increasingly evident genetic composition of our people. Whereas the hereditarily healthy families have for the most part adopted a policy of having only one or two children, countless numbers of inferiors and those suffering from hereditary conditions are reproducing unrestrainedly while their sick and asocial offspring burden the community.

300,000-400,000 people were sterilized against their will under the law. Several thousand of them died as the result of the operation (mostly women - there are inherent risks with tubal ligation, the preferred method of sterilizing women).

@Jelly: Hitler based his opinion on race. He wanted a world made of arians.

When we talk about eugenics though, "eu" [good] and "genics" [genes] means having healthy, strong genes. The purpose of doing this wouldn't be to let people that have their skin within a certain melanin-production rate reproduce and ban everyone else from doing so, but to let the weak and defectuous genes die off, like it did in the ancient times.

In the old ages, if someone had seizures, they died from it. If someone was born deformed, depending on how much of the body is deformed, they could die from it. Heck, if someone with heart problems had an attack, they just died! Now you can prevent their deaths with medicine and tech chips, or give them implements that will make life adjust to them.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

@Jelly: Hitler based his opinion on race. He wanted a world made of arians.

When we talk about eugenics though, "eu" [good] and "genics" [genes] means having healthy, strong genes. The purpose of doing this wouldn't be to let people that have their skin within a certain melanin-production rate reproduce and ban everyone else from doing so, but to let the weak and defectuous genes die off, like it did in the ancient times.

In the old ages, if someone had seizures, they died from it. If someone was born deformed, depending on how much of the body is deformed, they could die from it. Heck, if someone with heart problems had an attack, they just died! Now you can prevent their deaths with medicine and tech chips, or give them implements that will make life adjust to them.

Read the above post.

Hitler wanted a world of Aryans, yes. But he also wanted them to be genetically "perfect" regarding health. The mentally and physically ailing were just as targeted as the Jews, via both forced sterilization and mass killings.

Would rather relocating them at other sides of the country have been more humanitary? :ninja:

Well, since race issues has come up...

Different groups of people are naturally predisposed to different ailments. Now that the genetic testing is prove it, it could be used as a weapon to 'weed out' certain ethnic groups, for 'the good of the whole'. The types of laws that this would create wouldn't even have to name those groups, just the ailments they're naturally more inclined to have, and it would have the same effect. This sort of back-handed ethnic cleansing is exactly what scares me about the whole idea, because it would be way too easy for someone who believes in white superiority (or any other, for that matter) to sneak in laws targeted at a certain group of people without the rest of us realizing that's the goal.

And this has kind of been mentioned, but if we're talking about sterilizing people, it's inherently more dangerous to do so on a woman than on a man. Better methods are being developed, but the most common permanent sterilization methods require surgery, while for a man it's an outpatient procedure.