Saw something the other night in TV that got me wondering about eugenics. Theselective breeding of humans to encourage/discourage certain traits has had some bad press in the past and for good reasons. I am not trying to defend the human abuses it has been used to justify. There were two examples given in the program of where it had been used over a long period of time to breed genetic purity.
1) Jewish Eugenics - There was a genetic disorder that was common among the Jewish population of New York that led to a lot of children being born and dieing before their 6 birthday. This bloke set up a voluntary scheme where people were DNA tested to see if they carried the defective gene. When they met someone and decided they may want to marry and have kids both people were tested and told the results. They could then choose whether or not to continue.
2) US Eugenics - The goverment applied their criteria to women to see it they were likely to produce off-spring that were weakening US society. If they were then the women were forceably steralised. This happened from 1920s to 1970s.
Result 1 - Virtual irradication of the genetic defect
Result 2 - Inconclusive as to many new immigrants arrived to keep records.
Are these both good programs or both bad or what?
I blame Hitler!
Slight difference, the US Eugenics program included sterilisation of 'undesirables'. After WWII and what they found out about the baddies this was all hushed up.
Other slight difference the Jewish programme is voluntary the American programme was enforced against the will of the 'victims/participant' by the rule of law
Well, number 1 presumably "worked" because they were dealing with a population which typically bred within a quite restricted group anyway. What that programme does is to reduce the harmful effects of selective breeding by selecting only healthy specimens from within an already highly selective breeding population.
2) US Eugenics - The goverment applied their criteria to women to see it they were likely to produce off-spring that were weakening US society. If they were then the women were forceably steralised. This happened from 1920s to 1970s.
Out of curiosity, where can I find out some more about this- I was vaguley aware that a lot of countries had practiced sterilisation of mental patients- a grey and dubious practice, but wasn't aware of this program.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#United_States ]US eugenics[/url]
vinney - I think it was Andrew Marr on Darwins Dangerous Idea.
I feel the difference was the voluntary aspect that made the Jewish programm acceptable.
Is the idea behind the US programme acceptable today? These people are unable to make informed decisions or choices about breeding so 'we' should make those decisions for them.
Imagine if we could irradicate 50% of the inherited conditions over a 60 year period. No-one should value people less for their disabilities (my brother is severely disabled) but equally I wouldn;t wish an debilitating or fatal inherited condition on anyone.
interesting - didn't realise advocacy of it was so widespread- even in countries that we regard today as liberal- Canada and Sweden. And good old Churchill was a proponent.
This is a bit extreme though:
Sterilization had, in fact, been carried out to prevent masturbation in mentally ill patients since the 1820s, long before the eugenics movement
So is eugenics itself unethical, or just the implementation of it.
Bet there's a few advocates of it on here too, judging by the comments on the obese, unemployed, immigrants, celebrities etc.
Well done Vinney, that is my question:
So is eugenics itself unethical, or just the implementation of it?
they were likely to produce off-spring that were weakening US society.
what does that actually mean ?
Virtual irradication of the genetic defect
when did this happen ? Isn't DNA testing too new for the results of this to be evident yet ?
Wasn't the great war hero Winston Churchill involved in some kind spponsorship of a "feeble minded persons" bill in the early twentieth century? A great leader in time of crisis but clearly a bit of a nutcase in other facets.
Well done Vinney, that is my question:
Sorry for being off the pace a bit there.
So is eugenics itself unethical, or just the implementation of it?
Both.
Now call me cynical, but when it comes to disability I get the impression that the advocates who want to prevent the conditions being inherited are looking at this purely from a financial point of view. These people cost money to look after.
The other thing is class. Eugenics has been going on for many a year, either Government backed or just through personal choice.
Professional couples largely university educated, in well paid jobs, living in affluent areas, Who then want to get their offspring into the best schools. Not a bad thing.
But what happens when "designer babies" become more of a reality? Those who can afford to equip their future children with more intelligence etc, will do it.
That in itself is a form of eugenics, its not advocating the large elimination of "feeble minded people" or the Disabled, or even the kind of people who turn up on Jeremy Kyle on weekday mornings, but it will equip the future affluent with even more of an advantage they already have.
And thats when the trouble starts.
Ooh I had to debate this topic at Bristol.
I actually won the vote only by scare factors and costs for disabled people e.g. £100,000 a year.
Sometimes dodgy genes are useful e.g. sickle cell can protect against malaria f.p.
We need variation for survival too.
Also what about the medical info? should insurance companies have access to these when providing life insurance?
Virtual irradication of the genetic defectwhen did this happen ? Isn't DNA testing too new for the results of this to be evident yet ?
IIRC they quoted the results from a major Jewish hospital in NY that had closed the ward they used for treating the kids with the defect because there are so few cases now.
The other side of this though was the point that BD made about the 'in-breeding' of the Jewish community. I'm no geneticist but would the selective breeding increase the chance of the defect becoming more prevalent than if they bred with the wider community.
Erradication of a clinical defect can hardly be labelled as eugenics!!
Eugenics is a flawed idea. I believe in Darwin's theories of evolution, but he was often misunderstood. The phrase "survival of the fittest" was abused by journalists and Darwin found himself in the midst of a big controversy about religion and how this potentially could undermine the establishment. He endured a lot of ridicle from people who were frankly, ignorant! Darwin wanted to keep his thory secret until after his death because he feared what it might lead to.
Darwin actually believed in survival of the most adaptable, which makes absolute sense. Eugenics is the stuff of intolerant meglomaniac dictators and true to Darwin's own theories, these people have all failed - GOOD! They never understood the science!
The influencial people of history who hijacked Darwin's ideas and twisted them to their own political ends did nothing but wreak havoc and suffering on humanity!
An adaptable society needs a mix of different personalities/traits. Variety is an essential part of what makes us what we are. It is because we all have different strengths that we compliment one another. This collectively makes us stronger and more adaptable than any other species.
If Eugenics were applied, we would all become clones, loose our adaptability and ultimately this would finish us off.
Spogebob - selective application of Eugenics can remove undesired genetic traits as demonstrated by the NY Jews. General eugenics to narrow the genetic pool too much is where the trouble starts and eugenics gets a bad reputation.