Good Genes: An Argument for Eugenics

Post Reply New Topic

Hitler was the most well known proponent of eugenics and killed people who did not fit his ideal. It's hard for an idea to recover from such a poor practical use. But I will argue that the idea is good; and when put into practice responsibly would be beneficial to civilization.

Eugenics at it's most basic is practiced when we choose a mate who we believe will produce healthy offspring. "Eu" is the root word for "good," eugenics literally means good genes. And why wouldn't we want to produce offspring that are the best that they can be.

If every fetus that was conceived was brought into being, our population would be unmanageable. Further, when children who are defective are brought into the world they will be a drain on society without contributing much or getting much out of life themselves.

If we only bring healthy babies into the world the cost of taking care of them will be less and their contribution will be greater. And the enjoyment of life will be greater for the person.

Forced abortion is wrong, but a financial incentive may be enough for parents to abort unhealthy fetuses.

I know that every life has a glimmer of value and enjoyment, but that does not mean that the person's entire existence is worthwhile.

Shouldn't life be for those that can get the most out of it?

I don't think widespread eugenics is a good thing. It devalues disabled lives.

There are some genetic conditions that should be eradicated if possible: Tay-Sachs, Huntingtons, sickle cell. These can be severely life limiting and are reliably caused by a single allele, and I would support giving carriers the right to genetically screen their embryos. They should also be given impartial information; even people with Huntingtons and homozygous sickle cell can manage their conditions and live good lives.

Beyond these limited circumstances, I am strongly opposed to screening for genes "associated" with characteristics such as, say, intelligence or athleticism.

Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and intelligence is hard to identify. I mean more like the ailments you have mentioned.

Personal anecdote: I met a family once with a child with Down Syndrome. The were well-off and had several family members who could support her. She was probably in her 20s and was like a toddler. She was happy enough in her environment, but dependent on it's support. Having such a child would not be feasible for a lot of people.

Does the act of screening for such conditions devalue the lives of those with them? Again, it would be wrong to kill people who have these conditions as they are "persons" and have a right to their lives. But surely a life that experiences all the good things life has to offer is more valuable than one filled with challenges.

What is "defective" or in todays wimpy language a "not optimal" quality? Some things including the stuff you listed seems obvious, but so many things that were nearly universally believed to be defective are now thought of as positives or being a mixture of both good and bad today.

We probably will not have a repeat of Nazi eugenics because people are too squeamish for that stuff today especially because everybody will see it happening in real time. But eugenics which is already creeping back in will be more subtle and called by another name. I am utterly convinced by history and present events it will not be applied just to people with present and future horrible diseases.

My parents were much more supportive and accepting of my differences then was common in the 60's and 70's. If they had the option to abort and had full knowledge of autism in 1957 would they have aborted me? Probably. If knowledge of how to predict autism had been around and the Nazi stigma did not exist WP membership would be a fraction of what it is now.

I realize that a lot of people, not just on this forum, but everywhere, would have been aborted. But they weren't and they are here, so that's not a concern as I'm not talking about killing people.

I just think that if civilization wasn't held back by having to support those who are not optimal it could achieve more.

Nice to see another pro-eugenics aspie! I always felt that I shouldn't have been born. I probably could have been a semi-functional member of society in the agrarian age or even the early industrial age, but not now. I see many many kids being born who are sickly and severely mentally ret*d, people who will never be able to contribute to society, and I wonder what the point is. I love to poke around thrift stores, and frequently the "adult day care" centers will take their charges to thrift stores so the guys aren't isolated all day, and these people are barely functional at best. They live in group homes and spend their days sitting around a day care center. Like Ann, I don't approve of genocide, but I do think that parents should be evaluated for their fitness to have and rear contributing members of society, and only then get a license to procreate. I also approve of measures to control overpopulation, which is imo the number one problem facing humanity. If we don't control our birthrate, nature will do it for us with war, famine, disease. Handing out long term birth control methods such as Norplant is a vastly better option.

I believe the environment (as opposed to genes) has way more impact on the evolution of civilization.

Something's value should not be measured by its "usefulness." The disabled has the right to experience life. Life after all is something to be experienced, not "utilized." To bite one's conscience is bad.

Exactly. And financial incentives to not reproduce could work too.

I think a lot of poor people are mentally disabled. They (I) simply can't function the way unchallenged people do.

I wrote a long essay, only to delete it for fear I would be banned for "bigotry". Let's just say that I agree that many poor people are so intellectually challenged that they simply don't process stimuli the way the rich can. I personally have a "slow" brain, it takes a very long time to process information and come to a solution while non-AS people can do so much quicker. I can't make "snap judgments", and when I try I tend to screw up. I trained to be a computer repairman, but failed to hold a job because of this.

In addition to being intellectually and mentally challenged a lot of poor people have developed destructive coping mechanisms like alcohol and drug addiction. Not all, but if my building is any indication, it does happen.

If I could have things the way I want them, I would want everyone to slow down to my speed. Linger in the moment for a while, but NTs are on a constant march forward. People who have difficulties can't keep up.

China says that when the technology becomes available they are prepared to genetically alter humans to create "super" people. If this happens, say 200 years from now, can you imagine what the world would be like?

The problem with eugenics is that it often means that small populations are bred together. This lack of genetic diversity leads to massive issues and disease.

You only have to look at dog breeds to see how problems can arise. The English bulldog was once a very proud and trim dog but now due to the lack of diversity it has become short, fat and suffers from so many problems it's just cruel.

There is an innate flaw in trying to create the 'perfect' human as there are not enough 'perfect' gene variants to allow for the diversity that is needed.

Also reproduction is one of the key factors that decides of something is 'living'. By that fact to take away takes away the persons label as a living thing. I can explain that a bit more if I didn't explain it well

If eugenics is such a great idea, according to some, I say "let you and yours be the first in line."

Many hateful ideas can be destroyed with the phrase "you first."

A person who frequents an autism website (and whom presumably is dxd as ASD) advocating eugenics.

That's rich!

What stunt are you planning next?

Going to a Klan meeting wearing a BLM tee shirt?

Or maybe going to a BLM meeting wearing a Klan hood?

Pugs, too, and German Shepherds. Their hind quarters have been bred to be too low and this causes lots of hip problems.
I would have to think that such things could be accommodated for with science, but it's really is over my head.


Oh, I'll go first; no worries. My parents were very irresponsible to have me. They didn't take child creation seriously and both passed along a host of genetic malfunctions.


It would be rich if I had put it in Autism Politics Activism and Media, but I didn't. I put it in PPR where it is appropriate to discuss such things.

I really have a strong dislike for eugenics.

People constantly transcend their alleged "origins."

And the progeny of "smart" people, many times, don't come out "smart" at all.

That's exactly what I was thinking. I should try that on such people and see how it works.