Designer babies are here.

[Kuciwalker]

An interesting question: why are eugenics bad?

[Kuciwalker]

Wiki gives most of the answer:

[Eugenics'] advocates regarded it as a social philosophy for the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of certain people and traits, and the reduction of reproduction of certain people and traits. Today it is widely regarded as a brutal movement which inflicted massive human rights violations on millions of people. The "interventions" advocated and practised by eugenicists involved prominently the identification and classification of individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, 'promiscuous women', homosexuals and entire "racial" groups——such as the Roma and Jews——as "degenerate" or "unfit"; the segregation or institutionalisation of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, their "euthanasia", and in the worst case of Nazi Germany, their mass extermination. The practices engaged in by eugenicists involving violations of privacy, attacks on reputation, violations of the right to life, to found a family, to discrimination are all today classified as violations of human rights.

[Kuciwalker]

It strikes me, therefore, that the major problem with the eugenics movement was that it resulting in institutionalized racism that grossly violated personal liberties.

Thus, when this is practiced on the individual scale, why is it bad?

[Jon Miller]

I want my children to have 6 arms!

JM

[Blaupanzer]

The pattern, if we actually can manipulate genes, will be to identify a set of genes for a certain trait and either manipulate for the feature or against the disease. Soon routines will have developed for several of these based solely on the wishes of the payor. No super race yet, but only serious money gets the service. Then, choices arise based on gene conflicts: "if I manipulate for long-lasting hair with no balding, the foetus will be quite a bit hairier all over. It's the same combo." Then, gene combinations that permit substantially longer life (slower aging process) and much higher potential strength begin moving us toward developing that master race. Concurrently, the more superficial and disease related gene manipulations will become available to everyone.

At what point do some Governments feel the need to step in "to assure the health, longevity, and competitiveness" of their population? Like the atomic bomb in its time, we have no way to put this genie back in its bottle. Forbidding our own scientists and doctors to participate in gene manipulations will succeed in leaving the US far behind while not even stemming this oncoming tide. But actual conflicts between certain genes in terms of traits regarded as highly desirable (longer life versus a lower chance of having a congenital disease) may force official intervention of some kind.

Fact is: this is all theory. Actually manipulating or replacing a specific gene is a ways off yet. Further, only testing in this way will "prove" that only six genes control skin color, etc. But the genie is out of the bottle.

[Lorizael]

It strikes me, therefore, that the major problem with the eugenics movement was that it resulting in institutionalized racism that grossly violated personal liberties.

Thus, when this is practiced on the individual scale, why is it bad?

The argument could be made that on an individual scale, sans any racism, eugenics is still bad because it deepens class differences. Individuals that are rich will be able to do this; individuals that are not rich will not be able to. And those that benefit from this will have more of an opportunity to succeed in society, which hurts the whole equal opportunity thing we like to talk about.

[rah]

Again, more good and bad that can come from science. Do we ignore all the good because of possible bad?
Where would the human race be if this was always the decision?

[Lorizael]

I said the argument could be made. I've no problem with this myself, but I'm amoral. Anyone with a sense of morals might definitely find this somewhat problematic.

[onodera]

I wonder if we'll get extra drones if we allow selective breeding to continue.

[Elok]

The argument could be made that on an individual scale, sans any racism, eugenics is still bad because it deepens class differences. Individuals that are rich will be able to do this; individuals that are not rich will not be able to. And those that benefit from this will have more of an opportunity to succeed in society, which hurts the whole equal opportunity thing we like to talk about.

Some people are naturally smarter, or stronger, or have more robust immune systems. Classically, when we talked about equality we meant equality of rights. Equality of abilities was unattainable. That might change now, albeit to a limited extent, but to say everyone must have equal abilities strikes me as perverse, even assuming that were possible.

The problem I see with "individual" eugenics ATM is the invalid set of assumptions which seem to underlie the whole concept of eugenics: that there is a set and unchanging "ideal" we strive towards, a goal or end product. Which is nonsense. Evolution has no endpoint. It's a continual process which encourages the best set of traits to respond to given environmental stresses. Those environmental stresses can change in unpredictable ways, which is why the marvelously evolved megafauna didn't survive the last Ice Age. More than that, it's an arms race, everyone shifting to keep up with everyone else, to stretch the available resources to do more.

That, combined with the absurd implicit belief that human beings actually know what the future will require of them with greater than 50% accuracy, yields eugenics. I'd say more, but I have to actually work these days. Pizza calls!

[Arrian]

Mmmm, pizza...

-Arrian

[Lorizael]

Some people are naturally smarter, or stronger, or have more robust immune systems. Classically, when we talked about equality we meant equality of rights. Equality of abilities was unattainable. That might change now, albeit to a limited extent, but to say everyone must have equal abilities strikes me as perverse, even assuming that were possible.

The possibility of genetic modification merely highlights a systemic problem. Equality of rights by itself does not do enough to ensure equality of opportunity. Richer people are generally going to have better abilities regardless of their genetic makeup due to the better food they eat, the better education they get (whether by going to private school or living in an affluent area with highly-rated public schools), the better healthcare they receive, etc. Money grants people better versions of the rights we are all due.

[Kuciwalker]

The argument could be made that on an individual scale, sans any racism, eugenics is still bad because it deepens class differences. Individuals that are rich will be able to do this; individuals that are not rich will not be able to. And those that benefit from this will have more of an opportunity to succeed in society, which hurts the whole equal opportunity thing we like to talk about.

The same argument applied to higher education.

[Kuciwalker]

The problem I see with "individual" eugenics ATM is the invalid set of assumptions which seem to underlie the whole concept of eugenics: that there is a set and unchanging "ideal" we strive towards, a goal or end product. Which is nonsense. Evolution has no endpoint. It's a continual process which encourages the best set of traits to respond to given environmental stresses. Those environmental stresses can change in unpredictable ways, which is why the marvelously evolved megafauna didn't survive the last Ice Age. More than that, it's an arms race, everyone shifting to keep up with everyone else, to stretch the available resources to do more.

I'm not sure why artificial selection would perform worse than whatever natural selection occurs now, in first-world countries.

Pizza calls!

[Arrian]

This reminds me of Gattica

-Arrian