new start

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ian Woollard
wrote:
> Ryan Z wrote:
>
> > I am not really a fan of eugenics, not on the
> > principle of it, I just think it is inefficient way of
> > going to an end.
>
> I think it's utterly reprehensible. It involves killing or
sterilising
> people, when these people have commited no crime.

I'm not sure if your statement was mistyped and was supposed to be a
conditional (I think . . . IF it involves killing . . .) then I'm
sure most of us are in agreement.

If what you wrote is in fact what you meant, then we're in
disagreement about the very definition of eugenics. That it was
practiced the way you write is indeed true, and not an excuse, but
the mispractice of the past in no way must DEFINE the very concept.

As you allude to below, the act of pre-implantation embryo screening
is a eugenic act. Now you're getting into abortion issues by not
implanting an embryo, so the take is a little muddier than your
above definition depending on your personal position on when life
begins.

Looking for a mate that you fancy is the same principle but totally
innocent of the evil connotations inherent in the defintion you
raised. Add some technology to the mate selection process, e.g
screening for predisposition to cystic fibrosis, ALS, Parkinson's
disease, and you're still practicing eugenics without killing any
one. You're now just hurting their feelings by rejecting them.

So, I'm not really sure how you stand by your definition.

> If anyone has the right to do that, it is a parental
responsibility, and
> parents have been doing this sort of thing since the beginning of
time.
> I mean, women essentially choose their mates, and they choose
based on a
> variety of things, of which health is the prime one, and
personality,
> intelligence etc. They do a pretty good job on the whole.
>
> There's an assumption in eugenics that you even know that a
particular
> disability or trait is genetic, and that you can remove it by
> sterilising individuals.

Well, there has been a lot of genetic research going on during the
last century, and many advances in the last decade. We now know how
to identify specific genetic sequences for some diseases. This will
only increase.

I think we're only sticking our heads in the sands if we think that
eugenic principles are never going to be discussed in light of
research advances in genetics. Just look at the number of books
coming out on genetic screening and yes, on Eugenics. There is an
interest in it. When people are comfortable with the level of
knowledge they'll actually start implementing screening for their
new borns. This, IMHO, will be an increasing trend. The mideeds of
the past won't influence couples trying to give their children the
best start in life.

The sterilizing issue is heinous for it takes away a fundamental
human right to procreate. That is was done in the name of bad
science is unjustifiable. Look to history for guidance on how
science advances over time. We learn more and do better with that
knowledge. I don't condemn religion for the evils that it has
perpetrated thoughout history. I look to the good that some
religions can do.

Will sterilization be a tactic in the future? I hope not, but
unfortunately I think some more authoritarian regimes will probably
implement it because they want results NOW, and they care not a whit
about human rights. Look to China with its one-child policy.

Will sterilization be implemented in the Western democracies. I
think not. Lessons have been learned from the past.

More likely will be an increasing understanding of the process. If
you study intelligence, you'll note that intelligence and mental
illness have some still undefined relationship. If we start
emphasizing intelligence as a criteria we better be prepared for a
larger cross section of society coping with mental illness. As the
genetic sciences learn more about our genome, perhaps we'll be able
to isolate the two and concentrate solely on the intelligence and
factor out the mental illness component. OTOH, perhaps the mental
illness starts from the same genetic material but prenatal
influences or environmental influences after birth increase the
likelihood of occurance.

> In practice it's not always clearcut,

Indeed, it is not always clearcut.

and many
> genes code for propensities and are recessive. In those cases
you'd have
> to genetically wipe out a whole family to remove the genes from
the gene
> pool.

No you wouldn't. You'd just have to decrease their preponderance
over time. The people with such sequences have more and more trouble
finding mates and over time the issue takes care of itself. To
invoke mass killing and sterilization is a strawman. Completely
unwarranted.

Indeed many genetic disorders are becoming rarer- outbreeding is
> occuring making the recessive genes less likely to manifest. This
is a
> good thing.

The fact that they are becoming rarer, for instance Tays Sachs
diesease in the Jewish community, is a result of eugenic practices.
You'll note that the Jews are NOT killing or sterilizing each other.

http://www.join.org.au/health/taysachsmelbourne.htm

TangoMan