Hacker News Reader

Comment by henriquez | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Can you name what's wrong with eugenics exactly?

It is simply misguided:

“No such program of eugenics could work: there is no lasting agreement about desirable mental or physical qualities; an individual’s worth depends on other, incalculable ingredients. Environmental conditions mingle with inherited characteristics to make us the way we are.” - Out of Our Minds, Felipe Fernandez-Armesto

Like “human rights” and “education”, it is much easier to be for “desirable qualities” than to say what they are.

Thus it is misguided to pick a mate based on desirable qualities? Or it is OK for the individual but not individuals at scale?

> Or it is OK for the individual but not individuals at scale?

Yes, that is precisely the case.

Of course what follows then is the implication the individual is not misguided in selecting for desirable traits.

You're basically arguing perhaps for something like decentralized eugenics rather than authoritarian eugenics.

Have groups of individuals been any less misguided?

Eugenics is one of those ideas that might sound good in theory, but a world in which the government has absolute control over one of your most basic human instincts is a horrible world.

I don't think eugenics is worth debating because it's a pointless broad term. The implementations have not been great though. Usually there are some vaguely good intentions and then deciding it's easier to get rid of the bad traits than to encourage the good traits.

If we can create stronger horses through selective mating, why do you believe that would not carry over to intelligence if applied to humans? Why would it not be worth having stronger, healther, and more intelligent humans?

The issue is: who decides who is fit for breeding? You?

Maybe you do a good job, but this sort of power will inevitably become corrupted by a failed art student sooner or later.

The tribe. It could be enforced at the local level, and/or elevated to a higher level. Also that artist was correct, it's just taboo to admit it.

How will you be handle being told that you're inferior and that you're not allowed to breed?

I don't mean that as an insult. I mean it as an inevitability.

Everyone who promotes eugenics always imagines themselves as being the superior one.

I would rather have a world where we strive to create the best of us, rather than rolling the dice with perpetuating hereditary diseases and leaving our future to blind luck.

To answer your question : If I were born with a horrific disease that has a significant chance to pass that down to the next generation, it would be my responsibility to not pass that down to the next generation. I would understand.

There are always superior people and inferior people depending on a multitude of variables : time, genetics, intelligence, environment, training, etc. Ignoring genetics as an essential pillar of this is irresponsible.

But if someone told you today, that you were not allowed to procreate, what would you do?

You do not have to hand it to the Nazis on Eugenics. Preventing the "wrong people" from breeding always seems to devolve to genocide.

Contraceptives prevent "the wrong people" from breeding, and is a form of Eugenics. Where is the resulting genocide?

Sure, I can. Both the people in the article have glasses.

They are inferior and should not be producing 7 children.

Can you see the problem? I bet they can't.

By advocating for selective breeding and genetic engineering, eugenics promotes the idea that some individuals are inherently superior to others based on their genetics, which is a dangerous and discriminatory notion.

Furthermore, eugenics often relies on subjective criteria to determine which traits are desirable or undesirable. This can lead to the marginalization and discrimination of certain groups based on factors such as race, ethnicity, or disability. Eugenics has a long history of being used to justify discriminatory policies, such as forced sterilization, segregation, and genocide, which have caused immense harm and suffering to countless individuals and communities.

Finally, eugenics assumes that genetic factors are the primary determinants of an individual's traits and abilities, ignoring the complex interplay between genetics and environment. This reductionist view of human biology is not only scientifically flawed but also ignores the importance of environmental factors such as education, social support, and access to resources in shaping an individual's life outcomes.

Your argument is riddled with strawmen. Eugenics is clearly helpful if you have a strategy selected (breeding for intelligence, strength, etc) and is witnessed in horse breeding, dog breeding, etc, and why top dollar is paid for the offspring of prize winning horses when they are studded out. You should instead attempt to make a compelling argument how it does not apply to humans. That would be worth reading, instead of strawman arguments.

I'm sure my account will be banned soon, so let me just leave one pondering here:

Does many generations of slavery and the associated genetic selection for winning survival strategies impose shifting genetic attributes to the surviving population?

---------

re: below [due to rate limiting]

Appreciate the honest reply.

>The death rates for slaves was 1.8%

Ah but I suspect this was after arrival in the mainland. There was a "seasoning" process in the "west indies" where as much as 50% of slaves perished before arriving to market. And I don't think that includes the long voyage across the Pacific nor between capture and initial sale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasoning_(slavery)

It's my understanding during slavery, assuming we're thinking American Black slavery here and not something else like Egyptian slavery etc, slaves were allowed to have their own families which they picked and were not selected for some sort of "superior" trait in children. The death rates for slaves was 1.8% and for whites was 1.2%, so I don't think that would have been a factor either.

I wonder if any previous human civilization did actually select slaves that were stronger to try birth stronger slaves... horrifying to think about really, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been done.

> Slave breeding was the practice in slave states of the United States of slave owners to systematically force the reproduction of slaves to increase their profits.[1] It included coerced sexual relations between male slaves and women or girls, forced pregnancies of female slaves, and favoring women or young girls who could produce a relatively large number of children.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_S...

Is assortative mating eugenics?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com