Eugenics, yay or nay ?
Published 1 year, 8 months ago in My life.If you thought euthanasia was a difficult question try this one. Would you or do you support eugenics ? The purported goals of eugenics have variously been to create healthier, more intelligent people, save society’s resources and lessen human suffering. In its early days the means were focused on selective breeding but even then there was support from people such as Alexander Graham Bell, George Bernard Shaw and Winston Churchill. Unfortunately the cause was severely damaged by the Nazi ideals of WWII to create a ‘master race’. Today the same or similar means can be achieved by genetic engineering.
Similar technology has been applied by humans to animals and plants for centuries. Beef, chickens, potatoes, wheat, rice, even grass, the list goes on. None of these are as they were 100 or 200 years ago. All have been bred selectively to our advantage.
What are the advantages ? For meat and veg it is obvious: more fruitful, greater yield, more disease resistant etc. If the ideals of eugenics had been followed 50 years ago perhaps today the downs syndrome gene might have been bred out of the human race? On the other hand, if no-one with motor neurone disease was allowed to survive we might not benefit from the wisdom of Stephen Hawking.
Is it right that a large proportion of the health budget and resources should be spent on those just beginning life whose quality of life will in most cases be questionable or would society on the whole be better off if those same resources were directed towards better or more freely available treatment of otherwise healthy people ?
This may at first sound selfish but if no-one required life-time care because the genetic causes had been bred out, how much further would our race have moved forward from where we are now ? By striving to support all human life, however difficult, are we not stifling the natural evolution of mankind .
It’s a complex question and I can see both pros and cons. On the one hand, to endorse the concept may be the first step on a slippery slope; you start with the compulsory abortion of all foetuses with two heads and end up aborting all those with ginger hair ! On the other hand, the prospect of removing the incurable criminally insane rather than paying for their upkeep does hold some appeal.
What do you think ???
13 Responses to “Eugenics, yay or nay ?”
Leave a Reply
Your reply will not appear on the site until it has been approved
Have cut and pasted this post, and will give it due consideration- and of course, post my reply
theshadow aka john
There are definite pro’s & con’s to Eugenics.
With our active intervention into the survival and maintenance of all we may have disrupted Natural Selection which would have naturally weeded out those that were inferior or genetically unsuitable.
The deliberate termination of those that are a genetic anomaly, a burden on society, even those of a parasitic nature would be extreme but perhaps curtailling the deliberate intervention to maintain these people has to be considered.
To go one step further, considering the state of our planet with global warming, dwindling resources etc. Do we consider what a blight on this planet humanitiy is and actively curtail the expansion of our species with particular emphasis on those that are the biggest users and/or the most destructive.
Nah, i thought i would just trust my instincts, so here goes.
If we ran with mainstream thinking, we would never have discovered penicilin, radiology, the list goes on. Maybe we would still be worried about falling off the edge of our flat earth.
Pioneering is a daring business. It is a gamble. Unless we are positively, without any fear of uncertainty, 100% sure of the outcome, we must tread carefully.
I suspect, i would have a limited trial period, and gauge the effectiveness, and morality, by the results obtained. Obviously, like the drug thalidamide (spelling?) sometimes these things take a generation to appear.
Good question, would hate to be the person making the decision.
theshadow aka john
In favour, naturally. In fact I would probably be further in favour than almost anyone. A world without cripples, without idiots, without midgets (both physical and mental), without the morbidly obese, a world where the hospitals (and possibly prisons) were half empty intead of overflowing. A world of fit, beautiful, intelligent people. This is the Utopia that awaits us if only we have the nerve to pursue it.
The decrease of human suffering.
That is the goal of medical research.
Medicine is perverting the course of human life millions of times a day , and it is the reason we now live to 80 rather than 30 , as used to be the case.
The elimination of genetic problems is the future , and its a very certain future.
the ethics and control of what people filter out …. thats the troubled waters..
Natural selection of human beings has been throw way off course already from strictly “natural” causes.
And this is the next stage in the evolution of man.
I don’t believe we can answer this and other similar BIG questions without first making a determination on the value of human life. If we are nothing more than a product of a emotionless, perfunctory, mechanical naturally selecting evolution then we should observe and obey the laws of that nature without question. Leave the weaker to die, fight for the right to reproduce, and because we’re smarter, abort the unhealthy, eliminate the genetically imperfect, sterilize couples at risk of passing on genetic defects, clone the good ones. Why don’t we do these things? Could it be that we’re NOT the end product of a MINDLESS evolution.
I received this email today, sort of fits into the discussion.
2 tough questions - are you ready?
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?
Read the next question before looking at the response for this one.
Question 2:
It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts. Here
are the facts about the three candidates.
Candidate A.
Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologist. He’s
had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a
day.
Candidate B.
He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon , used opium in
college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.
Candidate C
He is a decorated war hero. He’s a vegetarian, doesn’t smoke, drinks an
occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.
Which of these candidates would be our choice?
Decide first… no peeking, then scroll down for the response.
Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Candidate B is Winston Churchill.
Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.
And, by the way, on your answer to the abortion question:
If you said YES, you just killed Beethoven.
Makes a person think before judging someone.
QUOTE:”Could it be that we’re NOT the end product of a MINDLESS evolution. ‘
We are indeed the result of mindless evolution , but the mindlessness ended with our self-aware conciousness , which allows us to step in on evolution.
for better and worse.
Without the downies what would the carers do? Without a need for carers there wouldn’t be a need for the organisations that organise them. That’s a lot of people out of work and a whole industry that celebrates good will towards human kind through action gone.
Downies rock. When I was a kid my Nan used to take me ballroom dancing and there were some downies there. They were really cool. Dancing with the old biddies, pulling their chairs out for them to sit down, punching out Grandpa when he got too randy…
And - how would we know how cool wheelchairs are if we didn’t get to see them in action?
thanks for the joke of the nook name change to little fella as for me well im built like a door and stand 6-2 and most people call me big fella i dont know if they have been looking over my shoulder but all jokes aside we will stick with the name love your posts very interisting keep up the good work
Highly controversial..
I don’t like the idea personally. I would think that to some extent - if we are able to create societies which are more peaceful, educated and intelligent - then natural selection will take exactly that - a NATURAL progression towards a healthier stronger society: without the tinkering of authorative human judgement values providing guidelines on who should be let to live and who shouldn’t in this scheme of things.
How do we suggest that this eugenics system would work? Would pregnant women go and get themselves ’scanned’ to determine possible undesirable qualities in the fetus? Would these undesirable features be limited to searching purely for health defects, diseases or what exactly?
Of what interests exactly does this process benefit a. society? b. the pregnant mother? c. social perceptions? d. the health system? e. the legal system? f. natural evolution
These are the sorts of questions I am interested in!!
Thanks for all the thoughts guys, a difficult question I know. Not many votes outright against. The problem for those who are for is how do you control it ? Who decides what is good for society ? Unfortunately, in what is supposed to be the age of democracy, too many of the people who have the power to act are only interested in themselves and the short term future of their own popularity. If only we had a dictatorship. …..
Personally, yes I believe the human race, as a whole, is being held back, is not yet reaching its full potential, by our desire to try to sustain all forms of life.
The caricatures of candidates A, B and C are just that, not even skin deep and certainly not enough to make a judgement upon. And would the world be a better or worst place without Beethoven, who knows ? Or who knows what happened to the other kids ?
Nobody would go as far as the Orwellian world of Dr Fell (yet ?) but a world without disease or illness does hold appeal. And if the world population continues to grow perhaps selective breeding will ensure that we can at least devote our finite resources towards a narrower target rather than the present buckshot approach !
So, my conclusion is that eugenics will inevitably have a place in the future of mankind, if only to ensure the future of our existence.
As for Dr ‘Strangelove’ Fell, well he must be either joking or a direct descendant of Herr Mengele ( Dr is not the correct way to address this creature).
I became interested in eugenics whilst researching the origins of WW1 and am amazed that the western world lays the blame for racial purity on the shoulders of a failed corporal.
Typical of the generals to pass the buck.
It seems uncle Adolf(to some) and loyal husband was merely trying not so much to follow the ‘order’…(get it) of the time as to be topman in Eugenics.
I believe he was also very good to his mother.
Question:
When viewing the way we were conned into the gulf wars, does the panel think that millions of working class men were sent to there eugenic deaths by the inter related kings of Germany, England and Russia on the eve of a world wide socialist revolution?
Love to know
Mick
PS my grandfather was killed in action on 9th September 1916 in the battle of the Somme.
His battalion marched to their objective whilst british shells rained down around them due to a mix up in communications.