Would you abort your baby if...

Post Reply New Topic

It wouldn't even be scientific. Eugenics is not based on sound scientific reasoning.

The idea that "the survival of the fittest" drives evolution is actually a popular fallacy. Trying to have only the strongest survive is a very bad idea because it eliminates genetic diversity in a species--and it's genetic diversity that allows a species to survive changing environments.

Natural selection is not the survival of the strongest. It's the survival of those who fit into their environments. And the one thing that humans are best at is adapting to novel environments. You simply can't make a species better by making it less diverse.

And let's look at the ethical angle. What does it imply, if you deliberately select some lives as worth living, and others not? You create a hierarchy of human life. You state that some people are more valuable, more worthy, than others--intrinsically. That's a dangerous judgment to make. A society that allows itself to make that sort of a judgment is a society where individual rights start to degrade, because once you say that some lives are worth living and others are not, you cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that some people are more valuable than others. If you base the value of a human life on anything other than the fact that it is a human life, you are logically forced to tie the value of human life to the ability of the individual. Applied consistently to all human beings, that idea would force you to conclude that humans are not equally valuable after all.

I understand what you are saying as regards genetic diversity, but humans are less at the mercy of their environment to evolve. We've got to the point where we now change the environment to suit us, rather than adapting. I realise that there are limitations to this; climate change, running out of resources and overpopulation will force us to adapt eventually.

However, when humans were more at the mercy of their environment - we practised a form of 'eugenics' in the form of infanticide and exposure of infants. When resources are limited and you have social species, like humans, this is common. It happens in the animal kingdom. On Nature's amoral terms, the more 'valuable' individuals are the ones that survive. Some people cannot survive without huge support from others. I know ALL humans need each other to survive, but some people really are, I hate to say it, burdens. It sounds harsh, but if you think about it objectively, can you see what I mean? I'm not saying I like this state of affairs, but Nature is what it is. So, whilst you need genetic diversity in order to adapt, not all genetic mutations are valuable. We realised this in our primitive state and we still realise this today - however, because we've mastered our environment better, we don't need to practice eugenics.

As a person, I agree with your reasoning, fwiw.

However, there are some very debilitating genetic illnesses out there (it was a morbid special interest of mine for a while). So much so, that babies born with them are not long for this world... or if they survive a few years, it can be involve intense pain. Obviously, these are very rare - but if prenatal testing was 100% accurate, I don't personally see anything unethical about terminating these pregnancies. I don't think we will ever agree on this.

Last edited by puddingmouse on 05 Jan 2012, 6:04 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Eugenics is the worst crap ever created, man trying to control a system that they cannot fathom. If nature decides that a certain set of genes does not work, then it will be removed, that's natural selection. Eugenics is unnatural, cruel, and dangerous.

Humans have got to the point where we are less at the mercy of natural selection. Civilisation is therefore 'unnatural' and most of the things we do are unnatural. The word 'unnatural' doesn't register as a negative thing to me. I don't see how it's cruel when it's practised voluntarily (it's extremely cruel when it's forced on people). I agree that it can be dangerous when we don't know enough about genetics. Humans can fathom nature and have made a lot of progress in trying to, but not enough progress, yet.

Is it voluntary when society is pressuring you, trying to make you unhappy, trying to convince you your genes are inferior, trying to make you agree that it would be better if you did not exist? Is it ok for someone to commit suicide because they were bullied?

Of course not. I don't see how that is relevant, though.

When I say voluntary eugenics, I mean just that: without coercion.

The only thing voluntary eugenics does is weed out the people who don't want to reproduce.

It gives them further justification not to, which in some cultures, where there is +++ pressure to reproduce, is much-needed.

It might also make some people (who are undecided) think twice about it, which is also a good thing. I believe humanity is heading towards a serious crisis in terms of declining resources, and we could really benefit from a few less people.

It's not as effective a compulsory eugenics, but compulsory eugenics is ethically horrible, whereas I think voluntary eugenics is ethical.

Once all the people who don't want to reproduce are gone, only the ++++ people remain. The only solution for the problem is to get it so that people continue to reproduce, just at manageable levels.

One last thing: If there is an upper limit for the human population, then the average change in pop. over the course of time WILL converge to zero, one way or another.

Voluntary eugenics: when we all agree to never name a child "Eugene".

Would you rather humans try to assert some control over that, or not?

I dunno. All I know is the math. If we reach the limit, we will either just reach zero growth, or the population is going to decrease dramatically.

Maybe I've been playing Fate of the World too much, but my money's on the latter.

Unless there is some catastrophic event caused by it I figure that as we approache the limit we will gradually get stressed more and more until we are forced to use fit into the former, at least that's what I hope will happen.