I don't think this is a debate that can be solved unless the actual details of what would happen if the global community decides to go along with this.
I'm talking about what traits would be considered sub-standard and which would qualify for acceptance, how the change is implemented, etc.
Let's assume that we want to promote genes that give people great potential for things like growth and brain development. Of course, this is very general and broad, but it can serve as a starting point. What would we get as a result of limiting the breeding of people with little potential growth and brain development?
- smarter, healthier population
- less total population, reducing our environmental impact on Earth
- a population less susceptible to general diseases- riots, property damage, and political unrest
- a population potentially more susceptible to new diseasesI'm sure there are more positive and negative effects, but those are some basics. Let's look at all of those effects individually.
A smarter and healthier population would allow the human race to develop and progress physically, but also technologically through intellectual development. Such progress could lead to developing better technology that lessens our impact on Earth, new cures and treatments to various infections and diseases, or potentially a "Golden Age" for the human race, much like the one during the Renaissance. Overall, this is a very beneficial outcome to eugenics for the human race. I think we can all agree that an intelligent and healthy human race will
likely prosper.
Less people being born because of eugenics means
less total population, reducing our environmental impact on Earth. I think most people have heard that our planet is overpopulated. There are
many negative effects of overpopulation: resource distribution, pollution, disease, environmental destabilization, and ultimately extinction. Eugenics would directly help us keep our planet's population down, preventing, or at least slowing all the adverse affects of overpopulation.
Eugenics, executed according to the criteria listed above, would create
a population less susceptible to general diseases. When I say "general," I am talking about the common cold, the flu, etc. Healthier people will naturally be able to withstand diseases due to better immune systems. This also means less likelihood of such a disease spreading and infecting other individuals. More intelligent people might also do things such as wash their hands more often or choose to eat healthier food, further decreasing the chances of disease infection. Overall, this means general productivity goes up and economic strain on healthcare goes down.
As with all controversial subjects, such a "radical" approach to human lives ultimately leads to
riots, property damage, and political unrest. This is not so much a "counter-point" to any pro-eugenics argument, but it is an effect we must consider. Is total turmoil worth the positive changes by implementing eugenics?
This, on the other hand, seems to be a major counter-point against pro-eugenics arguments:
A population potentially more susceptible to new diseases. I admit that preventing the creation of "poor" or potential-less genes
may extinct our race due to those genes allowing immunity or treatment, but it does not mean that it
will. In fact, eugenics does not necessarily mean a genocide of people that another group of people find inadequate. What it means is generations of preventing genetically inferior people to reproduce. However, what prevents us from simply taking these genes from the given "inferior people" and storing them in the case of something like a race-wiping virus or disease? Besides that, it is unlikely that these genes specifically will be the ones that could prolong our race.
From these points,
let's assume that eugenics would have a high
chance of bettering the lives of
most and prolonging the human race.
The question that remains is the ethical one. Should we deny
some people the right to experience the joys of raising a child? Should
some people never get to feel a unique connection to their offspring? These are moral questions that are up for debate, a much more difficult debate.
However, I believe the scientific debate, whether it would benefit the human race as a whole or not, is much simpler. It would benefit the human race in many different areas while only negatively affecting it short term (riots, etc) or chance-based. Granted, the meager five points I listed above are not nearly all of the possible effects, but I hope I've listed at least a few major points (at 5:51am).
_____
With that said, I'd like to address Hercanic's post on page 2 against eugenics.
This post made me question my stance on eugenics, but I still think eugenics is scientifically a good choice.
Just because we don't "know everything," doesn't mean we don't have the ability to learn more about the subject. Naturally, this depends on our timeframe. When would eugenics be implemented? Now? In 20 years? In 300 years? However, if we assume we would implement it now, then I would partially agree with you: we do not know enough to do such a potentially negative thing to our race, but I do believe we know enough to begin to practise eugenics with simpler genes. Not knowing everything should not stand in front of progress because we can decide to do things based on potential. There is great potential for eugenics to be a positive effect on our race, but I doubt there is nearly as much potential for a negative effect on our race.
_____
With THAT said, do not look at this as a "Hitler/Stalin/Crusade/Genocide" type of thing, but more as a gradual genetic improvement of the human race as a whole. It is not nearly as barbaric as some of you picture, but there is a tinge of cruelty embedded in the concept of denying the ability to reproduce, though of course besides the moral question, there is always the execution question - how would we implement eugenics?
Anyway, that's my 6 AM banter.
None.