Eugenics.

[Atheist]

Can anyone explain what they think eugenics is? Preferably in cold scientific terms without expressing moral or social opinions.

[woofgang]

https://knowgenetics.org/history-of-eugenics/

[woofgang]

basically as a "movement" its the idea that only healthy people should be allowed to breed.

[Atheist]

Thank you Woof. It seems to me that selective breeding under human control could change the human race, possibly for the better, if it was widespread. But there are big problems; who would decide what was better? who would decide who should be sterilised or allowed to breed? I think the main problem would be the feeling of many people that they should not be deemed undesirable and therefore able to be got rid of without their own consent. I'm sure that eugenics would work in a tchnical sense, but would not be acceptable socially.

[Spicerack]

Popular with the early UK socialists and the Rockefellers.

[Spicerack]

There's some very interesting/surprising videos about eugenics on the net. Can sort of see some of the attractions (and the drawbacks)

[woofgang]

Athiest it doesn't work technically either. Not all problems are so definitely inherited and if you try to "breed out" or "breed in" what is seen as faults or excellences, you risk losing other attributes or fixing problems....and that's before you get to the social, moral or ethical aspects.

[woofgang]

oh PS and I think that the MAIN problem would be the control being in the hands of people who think its a good idea!

[Atheist]

Woof, I think that one of things that spurred me to ask my question is that Dawkins thinks that human selection would work much as natural selection has done; we have clever dogs and fast race horses and high producing milk cows and they were all brought about by human selection. He doesn't say that we should therefore do the same things as a society, but he has been castigated for saying that it is scientifically possible.

[woofgang]

I wonder what Dawkins thinks about the dogs born with no eyes or deaf in order to get white coats and blue eyes. Google merle gene if you want to know. What you see with animals are the successes; the failures end up in the incinerator. Natural selection does the same thing but I would be very wary indeed of any human who thinks that they, or any other human, should take on that responsibility. Our knowledge of genetics has enabled certain things. Ethnic groups who have a higher incidence of certain genetic illnesses can be screened to avoid carrier to carrier marriages and pregnant women can have the embryo screened to confirm freedom from certain issues such as Down's syndrome. In every case though, its the people who are screened or the parents who risk having a child with Down's who have the choice about what to do. I think whether you think that eugenics is scientifically possible depends on your definition of "scientifically possible"

[Atheist]

Woof, I see what you mean, but it certainly has worked on domesticated animals, albeit with loads of false trails and failures. I'm old fashioned and I don't think we should be trying to guide human evolution, although I suspect it will happen.

[Spicerack]

I suspect that if the globalists get their 'One World Government' a eugenics programme won't be far behind.

[woofgang]

Atheist, define "worked"

[Atheist]

Woof, by worked I mean that we have high yielding milk cows, obedient and useful dogs, tame and high protein cows, etc.

[jno]

there was an interesting (fictional) film, Gattaca, 20 years or so ago. Broadly, what it posited was that there's only so much tweaking genes can do. You might at birth have a 95% chance of turning out to be an ubermensch and still turn out to be an idiot.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0

[jim360]

That presupposes that such traits are useful, and I'd suggest that the animals don't think they are. If cows weren't milked so regularly then they'd struggle to lug those bloated milk sacs around; chickens are now bred to lay themselves to death, etc.

It's a very human-centric view, then, to regard selective breeding as "successful".

[woofgang]

Horse and cow breeding is largely done by insemination and not by natural breeding. Where mares do go to the stallion, they go to a carefully chosen stallion, should carefully chosen men stand at stud? Cows are not tame, dogs are still not genetically obedient.

[Spicerack]

If you could make it not so carefully chosen, I'll throw my name in the hat.

[Old_Geezer]

Successful in as much as what was desired and aimed for, was achieved.

Well I'd be willing to try being a stud, but the mothers to be must be specially chosen.

[pixie374]

Even if it technically succeeded, always, it's quite subjective as to what would be "desirable". Should you get rid of everyone with a so-called "disability" or condition... ?

[AZardoz]

Uh oh.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8727849/RADA-students-demand-George-Bernard-Shaws-dropped-drama-schools-theatre.html

If you have any claim to fame, careful what you say here.