Is liberal eugenics accepted here?

[AutoDas]

Liberal eugenics is an ideology which advocates the use of reproductive and genetic technologies where the choice of the goals of enhancing human characteristics and capacities is left to the individual preferences of consumers, rather than the collectivist priorities of a government authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_eugenics

[M House]

Okay I'm all for free market science and all but I'm not exactly getting what this even means?

[Kotin]

...

Gattaca!!!!

[M House]

So it is just basic eugenics or is it like choosing to say screen for an embryo with certain characteristics before birth which we simply do now in fertility clinics?

Well not entirely positive what we can do now. I know we sometimes look for disorders and things.

[Sergeant Brother]

I'm all for it. I believe in eugenics in general, though my big problem with how the word is often used is that it implies government force to restrict people's rights - something I find objectionable. But if it were practiced voluntarily, particularly if it became widespread and popular, then I think it would be a great thing.

Personally, I think that the powers that be are currently encouraging dysgenics so that less intelligent people will have more children and so that the intelligence of the population will decrease and make them easier to control.

[dr. hfn]

i like the idea, but wouldn't the rich and powerful try to oppress the people

[hypnagogue]

I can't say what 'here' believes but the use of genetic therapies to prevent diseases or disorders I can only assume would find a welcome reception from most free thinking individuals. Also, I see no ethical objection to the use of genetic therapies to improve the lives of our children, whether that's making them more athletic or intelligent or both.

The only debatable issue, as I see it, is whether it is morally permissible for a parent to make choices regarding the genetic makeup of their children for aesthetic reasons. This too, I believe, is permissible. Though, there is far less of a case for it being morally imperative, it in no way hurts the child, so long as these aesthetic modifications do not alter the child's traits beyond the human norms. The category of beyond the human norms can only be defined by exclusion, so I offer as examples, hair color, skin color, and eye color, though there may be less obvious others such as (being totally frank here) penis size or breast size.

I believe this is permissible for the fact that this in no way diminishes the free choices of the child. Neither in this day and age nor in the day that parents may make such selections does the child have any say in the genetic hand that he is dealt. So, as I have said, while there is no moral imperative to make such choices, there is no harm done so long as the child is not altered to lie outside the range of natural human norms.

[nate895]

I think that people shouldn't manipulate genes of their children on the grounds that the child has rights, and the child cannot consent for his/her very DNA to be changed (or to selectively breed certain embryos), and therefore it should be illegal because the person being affected cannot consent, especially in the case of embryos which are aborted because they aren't the desired result.

[AutoDas]

i like the idea, but wouldn't the rich and powerful try to oppress the people

How would they do that? The rich could create a race of humans who are stronger and more intelligent than the poor, but how does that oppress the poor in any way?

By the way, I'm a supporter of this.


I think that people shouldn't manipulate genes of their children on the grounds that the child has rights, and the child cannot consent for his/her very DNA to be changed (or to selectively breed certain embryos), and therefore it should be illegal because the person being affected cannot consent, especially in the case of embryos which are aborted because they aren't the desired result.

I think people shouldn't take psychedelic drugs, but I'm not going to ban them.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I think people shouldn't take psychedelic drugs, but I'm not going to ban them.

Sorry, red herring. You are comparing a completely voluntary act with one that is entirely involuntary. Its a mild form of aggression against one who cannot consent. A fairer comparison is say Male Circumcision, as its done for entirely 'aesthetic' reasons (women find it more appealing is one of the oft heard excuses), though its an entirely aggressive act. Manipulating your child's DNA for things other than life improvement (in otherword, getting rid of diabetes, heart disease etc) is unethical. If your child decides one day when they can make an informed choice to have a gene therapy to change their hair from brown to blonde, that becomes THEIR decision. We are, after all, talking about someone else's body.

[nate895]

I think people shouldn't take psychedelic drugs, but I'm not going to ban them.

Difference is, there is an actual victim beyond the person making the decision.

What if a child would have rather been athletic with blond hair and blue eyes, rather than intelligent with brown hair and hazel eyes?

Also, if the law of unintended consequences takes effect, the inevitable result will be, if the procedure is cheap enough, a bunch of really smart, really athletic children who can't take jobs lower on the totem pole because it literally rots intelligent people's brains, or watch their muscle tone slowly wither away because they can't get a job or enough time to exercise properly for their athletic build. On the other hand, if the procedure isn't readily available to all, you will wind up with a pseudo-caste system, where children who did not get the procedure done cannot rise above the children of wealthier families because those children are athletic and smart, while you are limited to the possibilities of natural biology.

[Xenophage]

I can't say what 'here' believes but the use of genetic therapies to prevent diseases or disorders I can only assume would find a welcome reception from most free thinking individuals. Also, I see no ethical objection to the use of genetic therapies to improve the lives of our children, whether that's making them more athletic or intelligent or both.

The only debatable issue, as I see it, is whether it is morally permissible for a parent to make choices regarding the genetic makeup of their children for aesthetic reasons. This too, I believe, is permissible. Though, there is far less of a case for it being morally imperative, it in no way hurts the child, so long as these aesthetic modifications do not alter the child's traits beyond the human norms. The category of beyond the human norms can only be defined by exclusion, so I offer as examples, hair color, skin color, and eye color, though there may be less obvious others such as (being totally frank here) penis size or breast size.

I believe this is permissible for the fact that this in no way diminishes the free choices of the child. Neither in this day and age nor in the day that parents may make such selections does the child have any say in the genetic hand that he is dealt. So, as I have said, while there is no moral imperative to make such choices, there is no harm done so long as the child is not altered to lie outside the range of natural human norms.

I mostly agree with this post, except the part about "natural human norms." In my opinion, it should be illegal to create life that lacks the physical capacity to sustain itself independently: e.g., an immobile human, or one with certain "aesthetic" modifications that actually endanger its own health and wellbeing. Other than that, I see no moral problems with creating a green skinned person, or one with a tail and vulcan ears.

As a matter of fact, it could be very positive for our species. It could completely alter how we define what is or is not "human." It could significantly alter what it means to be "attractive." It could eliminate a great many forms of bigotry. I might finally be able to have sex with a Star Trek alien.

Then again, I find it more likely that most people will choose to give birth to regular ol' perfect 10 maxim models, and there'd be a rare occasion that someone get turned into something fugly... much like parents name their children today. Having green skin and a tail might not be so great if there aren't also plenty of multi-eyed penis-nose people walking around as well.

Also, with all the aesthetic manipulation, we're quite likely to have a society of exceptionally dull looking people that resemble one another. What is considered "attractive" in society is generally whatever is the most "average," as shown in some science-y article thing I read a long time ago.

Interesting thoughts.

[hypnagogue]

What if a child would have rather been athletic with blond hair and blue eyes, rather than intelligent with brown hair and hazel eyes? The point I tried to make a few posts back is that this is no different from how things are today. I have hazel eyes. Maybe I want blue. Tough luck, that's not how things turned out. There would be zero change in this situation if my parents had chosen hazel eyes for me.


Also, if the law of unintended consequences takes effect, the inevitable result will be, if the procedure is cheap enough, a bunch of really smart, really athletic children who can't take jobs lower on the totem pole because it literally rots intelligent people's brains, or watch their muscle tone slowly wither away because they can't get a job or enough time to exercise properly for their athletic build. On the other hand, if the procedure isn't readily available to all, you will wind up with a pseudo-caste system, where children who did not get the procedure done cannot rise above the children of wealthier families because those children are athletic and smart, while you are limited to the possibilities of natural biology. The first half of this supposition seems to be totally implausible to me. The idea that people would become too qualified to perform simple tasks is, I believe, untenable. There is nothing that prevents a person from performing simple maintenance for their livelihood while running marathons on the weekends and writing essays in the evening. I can see no conflict. Perhaps if you could produce an example.

The second part, regarding the development of a class system, is an argument which can be used in our current situation regarding the issue of inheritance. A wealthy family can provide for their children many advantages which the poor do not have access too. Yet it is largely held, particularly by free market types, that it would be unethical to interfere with a person's ability to give to their children whatever advantages they may possess. Additionally, the period in which only the wealthy could afford such procedures would almost certainly be transitional. It is the invariable nature of technology to become increasingly available and inexpensive. The only obstacle to that trend is always government interference. Such interference is a very real threat, unfortunately. The advent of such genetic therapies would be a great political challenge, but it would be one, which when overcome would yield fabulous rewards. In the end, no government may act upon a people in such a way that they will not bear. To deny to the great majorities such a valuable asset for their children would not be stood for. Societal disintegration would be the inevitable outcome.

[nate895]

I mostly agree with this post, except the part about "natural human norms." In my opinion, it should be illegal to create life that lacks the physical capacity to sustain itself independently: e.g., an immobile human, or one with certain "aesthetic" modifications that actually endanger its own health and wellbeing. Other than that, I see no moral problems with creating a green skinned person, or one with a tail and vulcan ears.

As a matter of fact, it could be very positive for our species. It could completely alter how we define what is or is not "human." It could significantly alter what it means to be "attractive." It could eliminate a great many forms of bigotry. I might finally be able to have sex with a Star Trek alien.

Then again, I find it more likely that most people will choose to give birth to regular ol' perfect 10 maxim models, and there'd be a rare occasion that someone get turned into something fugly... much like parents name their children today. Having green skin and a tail might not be so great if there aren't also plenty of multi-eyed penis-nose people walking around as well.

Also, with all the aesthetic manipulation, we're quite likely to have a society of exceptionally dull looking people that resemble one another. What is considered "attractive" in society is generally whatever is the most "average," as shown in some science-y article thing I read a long time ago.

Interesting thoughts.

I noticed you were from Vancouver, whereabouts in Vancouver? Would you know who Nathan Evans or Chris or Penni Evans is?

[Josh_LA]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_eugenics

is that literally just free market and free choice?

[hypnagogue]

I noticed you were from Vancouver, whereabouts in Vancouver? Would you know who Nathan Evans or Chris or Penni Evans is? Shall I assume nate895 is Nathan Evans, relative of Chris and Penni Evans?

[hypnagogue]

I see no moral problems with creating a green skinned person, or one with a tail and vulcan ears. Let's relate this to our current situation. Would you in all honesty find no fault with a parent who took their newborn child and had them dyed green and their ears surgically sculpted into points? Two fully permanent procedures.

[nate895]

The first half of this supposition seems to be totally implausible to me. The idea that people would become too qualified to perform simple tasks is, I believe, untenable. There is nothing that prevents a person from performing simple maintenance for their livelihood while running marathons on the weekends and writing essays in the evening. I can see no conflict. Perhaps if you could produce an example.

I know that is illegal for people with a high IQ (I think 100 is the limit, but don't quote me on that) to work in a toll booth because scientists found out that intelligent people who would work such jobs would literally go insane.


The second part, regarding the development of a class system, is an argument which can be used in our current situation regarding the issue of inheritance. A wealthy family can provide for their children many advantages which the poor do not have access too. Yet it is largely held, particularly by free market types, that it would be unethical to interfere with a person's ability to give to their children whatever advantages they may possess. Additionally, the period in which only the wealthy could afford such procedures would almost certainly be transitional. It is the invariable nature of technology to become increasingly available and inexpensive. The only obstacle to that trend is always government interference. Such interference is a very real threat, unfortunately. The advent of such genetic therapies would be a great political challenge, but it would be one, which when overcome would yield fabulous rewards. In the end, no government may act upon a people in such a way that they will not bear. To deny to the great majorities such a valuable asset for their children would not be stood for. Societal disintegration would be the inevitable outcome.

Inheritance is a slightly different manner than genetic alterations. Sure, wealthy children have a foot up because of their wealth, but they have no biological superiority over their fellow man. It is easy for a middle-class, or ever poor, child to work hard and create a business and become rich with a little bit of help from investors in this day and age. As far as limiting it to the the wealthy, I specifically said wealthier as opposed to wealthy. There is bound to be some people who would find it hard economically to afford among the lower class. That shouldn't be a problem for the child, since there is no possibility to better his situation because the middle and upper-classes (and even, maybe, some in the lower class) have a genetic advantage due to their wealth compared to the average janitor. It is already hard enough for those people to better their situation, we shouldn't be making it near impossible.

[nate895]

Shall I assume nate895 is Nathan Evans, relative of Chris and Penni Evans?

Son of Chris and Penni, yes

[hypnagogue]

I know that is illegal for people with a high IQ (I think 100 is the limit, but don't quote me on that) to work in a toll booth because scientists found out that intelligent people who would work such jobs would literally go insane. My googling produced no results. You're going to have provide some sort of corroboration before I believe that. It's simply too wild a claim for me to accept.


Inheritance is a slightly different manner than genetic alterations. Sure, wealthy children have a foot up because of their wealth, but they have no biological superiority over their fellow man. It is easy for a middle-class, or ever poor, child to work hard and create a business and become rich with a little bit of help from investors in this day and age. As far as limiting it to the the wealthy, I specifically said wealthier as opposed to wealthy. There is bound to be some people who would find it hard economically to afford among the lower class. That shouldn't be a problem for the child, since there is no possibility to better his situation because the middle and upper-classes (and even, maybe, some in the lower class) have a genetic advantage due to their wealth compared to the average janitor. It is already hard enough for those people to better their situation, we shouldn't be making it near impossible. First, I think the distinction you've made between a material advantage and a biological advantage is irrelevant to this discussion. The effect is entirely the same; an increase in expediency for the individual to achieve. I could even argue that these material advantages are in fact of a greater impact than biological advantages. How many brilliant individuals in this day achieve little because they do not have the means or influence to make use of their ideas? The concept of the frustrated, impoverished genius is so pervasive as to be cliche.

I think it extremely useful to find current analogies to help understand future developments, so let me use another to illuminate the problem of availability. The exact same argument could be used in the case of education. Were it not for the providing of education via taxation there are, I'm sure, a great many people who would be hard pressed to provide for their children an education adequate to the needs of their times. I'll even argue that education is more important than both material advantage or biological advantage. We face the same question regarding education that we would with genetic therapies; shall we allow some to be left behind or shall we ensure that everyone receives the same start through government? It's very popular on these boards to leave those who can not or will not provide education to their children to their own devices. Why then, would our opinion differ regarding gene therapy?

It's important to keep asking these questions, in my opinion, in order to strip away the emotional charge that the idea of genetic supermen conjures, so that we are left with only the real nature of the issue.

On a side note, I personally have no qualms with the providing of education or healthcare by the communities in which a child lives, though that's a separate argument. It's only that I think it is useful to think of genetic therapies in the same category that we think of all healthcare.

[angelatc]

Let's relate this to our current situation. Would you in all honesty find no fault with a parent who took their newborn child and had them dyed green and their ears surgically sculpted into points? Two fully permanent procedures.

I would find fault, ut I'd still support their right to do it. Children do not belong to the state.

[hypnagogue]

I would find fault, [b]ut I'd still support their right to do it. Children do not belong to the state. True, but they do not entirely belong to their parents either. Surely you would not argue that a parent has the right to lop off their child's arm, or even more extreme to kill the child. Hopefully we all recognize that this is part of the due protection of the child's rights that government justly provides. A threshold still must be determined where the rights of a parent to act upon their child ends and the rights of a child to be protected from harm begin.

[nate895]

My googling produced no results. You're going to have provide some sort of corroboration before I believe that. It's simply too wild a claim for me to accept.

I can't find anything online either, but I know it is either California state law or Federal law. I don't feel like reading the entire code tonight.


First, I think the distinction you've made between a material advantage and a biological advantage is irrelevant to this discussion. The effect is entirely the same; an increase in expediency for the individual to achieve. I could even argue that these material advantages are in fact of a greater impact than biological advantages. How many brilliant individuals in this day achieve little because they do not have the means or influence to make use of their ideas? The concept of the frustrated, impoverished genius is so pervasive as to be cliche.

I think it extremely useful to find current analogies to help understand future developments, so let me use another to illuminate the problem of availability. The exact same argument could be used in the case of education. Were it not for the providing of education via taxation there are, I'm sure, a great many people who would be hard pressed to provide for their children an education adequate to the needs of their times. I'll even argue that education is more important than both material advantage or biological advantage. We face the same question regarding education that we would with genetic therapies; shall we allow some to be left behind or shall we ensure that everyone receives the same start through government? It's very popular on these boards to leave those who can not or will not provide education to their children to their own devices. Why then, would our opinion differ regarding gene therapy?

It's important to keep asking these questions, in my opinion, in order to strip away the emotional charge that the idea of genetic supermen conjures, so that we are left with only the real nature of the issue.

On a side note, I personally have no qualms with the providing of education or healthcare by the communities in which a child lives, though that's a separate argument. It's only that I think it is useful to think of genetic therapies in the same category that we think of all healthcare.

On the inheritance side, it isn't insurmountable. Sure there are impoverished geniuses, but the ones I have met are that way because they are lazy or were lazy when they were younger when it would have counted, it isn't because they are kept down by rich people. Inherited wealth is an advantage, but it is entirely natural, and is possible to overcome. It isn't possible to overcome a genetic advantage, it is in a whole other ballpark of advantages. With education, the reason I oppose government intervention is because it means that the government can teach the children whatever they want. Charity can solve problems in both education and health care.

Besides, this argument is entirely conjecture anyway. The American public is, buy and large, scared of eugenics, and I don't blame them. It has been used and abused by past governments, and the potential for abuse is right there when it is done privately as well.

[hypnagogue]

On the inheritance side, it isn't insurmountable. Sure there are impoverished geniuses, but the ones I have met are that way because they are lazy or were lazy when they were younger when it would have counted, it isn't because they are kept down by rich people. Inherited wealth is an advantage, but it is entirely natural, and is possible to overcome. It isn't possible to overcome a genetic advantage, it is in a whole other ballpark of advantages. With education, the reason I oppose government intervention is because it means that the government can teach the children whatever they want. Charity can solve problems in both education and health care.

Besides, this argument is entirely conjecture anyway. The American public is, buy and large, scared of eugenics, and I don't blame them. It has been used and abused by past governments, and the potential for abuse is right there when it is done privately as well. Charity can help, but it will never produce the level of service that government can. We should be up front about that when we make arguments that charity will help alleviate some of the coverage gaps that reduced government would create. Let's try and avoid that argument though. I admit I brushed up against it in my previous post and got it started.

I'd like to challenge the assertion that genetic advantages are "in a whole other ballpark." Let's preface this by stating that when I speak of genetic therapies I am thinking of producing a level of intelligence which is well above average, but does not proceed into a realm of thought outside of human comprehension. For example the variance in intellect between that of a dolphin and a man. The dolphin it is likely can not even fathom the way in which a man thinks, and it must be assumed that it is possible for there to be intelligence in the same order of magnitude greater than ours as ours is over the dolphins. I think we're venturing into the realm of science fiction with that line of thinking. I am speaking of very smart human beings and nothing more. Not even geniuses. I think the phenomenon of genius is the product of a great many more factors than simple genetics.

It has been shown time and again, in studies of intellect and success that the two do not correlate directly. Those who experience the greatest success in various fields are more often those possessed of a greater personal drive or ambition in combination with foresight and creativity rather than those who only excel in academic pursuits. Indeed, intelligence is so far from an indicator of success that it is sometimes even considered an obstacle, should the individual be simply too advanced in his thinking for his times. In opposition of your reference to lazy geniuses, I'll offer the figures of Kafka or Galileo. Neither of whom were lazy, both of whom were geniuses in their own fields, and both of whom were ridiculed in their own times. I don't think it could be shown that a genius, so long as they are not lazy, succeeds. The factors contributing to success lie across a much broader spectrum, of which intelligence is but one part, and potentially a lesser one.

You further suggest that this is all conjecture, though I think the term you were looking for was perhaps theoretical. No objection. The discussion of theoretics can both serve the role of anticipating changes as well as shedding light on some current problems.

I must make a strong objection to your injection of an argumentum ad populum. It can provide no evidence for either case. If popularity of opinion were our measure of truth, we'd all have gone home by now. You suggest that this popular fear is warranted because past governments have abused 'eugenics.' The truth is that no government has ever used gene therapy. The 'eugenics' practiced in the past were nothing more than pseudo-scientific breeding programs. The fault in these programs lay not in the fact that they were trying to improve the genetic makeup of an individual but that they denied individuals the freedom to produce children and required others to produce many children regardless of the individual's will.

Were gene therapy to be used by a future government against the will of it's recipients or for purposes beside the health and welfare of the recipients, then that too would be a violation of their human rights, and therefore would be wrong. That's not what's being suggested here. I am making the case only that it would be morally permissible and generally a good for humanity that an individual should be allowed to improve the genetic makeup of their offspring via medical techniques. It is only by the interference of government that such practices could be restrained from becoming the norm instead of the exception.

What abuse do you suggest would be possible if this practice by free individuals were to be allowed to occur, because in truth the only other option would be to ban it by law. Which raises a further point; could such a practice even be prevented? If our war on drugs is any indication of the power of government to prohibit something which has a high demand market behind it, I would have to say no. All a ban could produce is crime and an increase in cost. Such an action would only exacerbate the issue if it is fear that segments of the population would have no access to the same procedures that spurred passage of the law.

[SeanEdwards]

Should blind parents have a right to genetically select for blind offspring?

[AutoDas]

Should blind parents have a right to genetically select for blind offspring?

Yes.

[nate895]

Yes.

And that is where most people depart from libertarians and think they are insane.

[SeanEdwards]

Should parents have a right to turn their offspring into transgenic organisms by splicing in recombinant DNA sequences from other species?

[M House]

Sounds cool but it would have a hard time living. Women have a hard enough time just getting a male thru their reproductive track with a single foreign chromosome.

[Truth Warrior]

Is liberal eugenics accepted here?

Only by the very sparse RPF "liberal eugenics flock".<IMHO> < LOL! >