h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Just thought it might be nice to have a debate that doesn't touch upon the mess the world is currently in, at least not directly.

"[Eugenics] The term was coined by the Francis Galton, the founder of the eugenics movement, in the 1860s.

Eugenics encourages reproduction from people who display supposedly "positive" characteristics and seeks to prevent those with 'inferior' genes from reproducing."
from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/genes/eugenics/eugenics_1.shtml

The right to choose abortion based on the results of tests for disabilities is a form of eugenics (in my opinion at least).

Firstly (I guess) is there any disagreement with that statement, but more interesting are the moral issues surrounding this.

What does everyone think the moral issues are, and how would you advise someone having to make such a decision. What if any, degree of disability, would cause you to ask for an abortion.

Would your answers be different if you were the opposite sex.

Various ideologies have suggested eugenics be used, to avoid the additional issues surrounding Nazi Germany, I would use as an example Plato's ideal state.
While Plato never directly mentioned eugenics, he did wish to control which of his "guardians" had children. To my mind he was suggesting using this to maintain an elite group, namely the guardians, and the philosopher rulers that were drawn from the guardians. In view of the assumption that the aim of his suggestion was to support the greater good, could his methods be justifiable.

More generaly, is it ever acceptable for a government to enforce any degree of eugenics, or is this the sole province of individual parents, or perhaps such options are entirly unacceptable.



I have tried to keep these questions neutral despite my own opinions, I apologise if I have in any way failed, regardless of my own short commings I'm sure the questions I intend can be found, and I believe the answers will be interesting.
As this has a chance of raising some strong opinions and deep feelings please remember that everyone has a right to their own opinion no matter how different it may be from your own or from the majority.

Math

I agree that it is eugenics, but I see no real problem with that. I, and R. Daneel Olivaw, will get back to you on this, but we have to eat dinner now.

"What does everyone think the moral issues are, and how would you advise someone having to make such a decision. What if any, degree of disability, would cause you to ask for an abortion."

As I see it, there is no moral problem with the idea of eugenics. The problem is deciding what genes are bad and who should decide in any particular case.

In this case, I see nothing wrong with the parents deciding to terminate a fetus because of its genes.

I think that the disability implied by a genotype does not need to be very severe to justify abortion if the parents want it. Anything that would lead to decreased intelligence justifes abortion, as does anything that would lead to a significantly lower quality of life.

Also, I think that in some cases, there is a moral duty to abort a fetus if it does not endanger the helath of the mother to do so. I would say that this is true in cases, such as cistric fibrosis (did I spell that right?) where the child would have a greatly decreased quality of life.

My complaints about eugenics on a cosmetic level (selecting hair color, for example) are twofold.

1.) Clear benefit--is it clear that the parents' choice will be prefered by the child thn if no choice is made? In other words, if parents decide to abort a fetus and try again to have a child with blonde hair, what are the chances that the child will grow up and prefer not to have blonde hair?

2.) Danger to the gene pool. Allowing too much selection in traits that do not harm a child could dangerously deplete the human gene pool. Some form of regulation may be needed to prevent this--maybe a lottery of some sort?.


I think that it is important to remember one thing--doing nothing does not absolve a person from the guilt of making a choice. Simply allowing nature to choose when you can make the choice yourself is morally the same as making the choice that nature made your self.

In other words, if you have a chance to determine if your embrio or fetus will develope cistric fibrosis and abort it if it will; you do nothing, and your child has cistric fibrosis as a result, it is morally the same as if you chose to make your child have cistric fibrosis.

just for the sake of argument:

if it is true that

"if you have a chance to determine if your embrio or fetus will develope cistric fibrosis and abort it if it will; you do nothing, and your child has cistric fibrosis as a result, it is morally the same as if you chose to make your child have cistric fibrosis."

then is it also true that

if you determine if your six month old infant will develop cystic fibrosis and you do not kill it, is it morally the same as chosing to make your child have cystic fibrosis?

And, of course, how do you feel if three years after the abortion or infanticide they come up with a wonderful cure for cystic fibrosis?


I've said it before on another thread: I'm pro-choice. But I really feel that if a person is not prepared to parent a child with problems, they're not prepared to parent and they should be spending a lot more time thinking about extremely careful birth control rather than the moral tangle that comes with abortion.

As for the eugenics side of this question, it's pretty much been covered: who decides who gets to reproduce and how often? Of course, once a eugenic system is implemented, we could all reassure ourselves with Huxley's words: "I suppose Epsilons don't really mind being Epsilons."

We seem to have covered personal choice as being acceptable, and to an extent thats how I feel. I do strongly feel that eugenics to control cosmetics would be incredably vain, and in my opinion an unsupportable position to take.

However that leaves state sponsered eugenics, can we imagine a situation where this might be acceptable, if not for an enforced system, what of encouragement or an incentive based system.

However Anhaga you seem to suggest that It's All Been Done...


I met you,
before the fall of Rome
and I bet you
to let me take you home.

You were wrong,
I was right.
You said good-bye,
I said good night
It's all been done...

-Barenaked Ladies

That music always seems to follow that thought... or maybe the music is the thought...

Anyway it seems I keep bringing up topics already discussed...
Anyone else got any ideas for new exciting and interesting debates ?
NB: the idea that I'm a muppet or idiot isn't new and wouldn't be argued either

Math

"if you determine if your six month old infant will develop cystic fibrosis and you do not kill it, is it morally the same as chosing to make your child have cystic fibrosis?"

What it depends on is when you define personhood. Unless you belive that human DNA mystically makes an egg a person as soon as it is fertilzed, then you must assume that there is suome point in time at which an embrio, fetus, or infant goes from not being a person to being a person. Once it is a person, it has rights that it did not have before. I would say that my moral duty arguement only applies befroe it is a person; afterwards it would not be a good justification for abortion or infanticide. I'm not sure quite where that limit is, but I think it is not befroe 4 months after conception and not after a couple of months after birth. I generally just assume that it is about a month before birth, but this is argueable.

In the case of a six month old child, infanticide is certainly not justified, by that point I would say that the infant is certainly a person.

"And, of course, how do you feel if three years after the abortion or infanticide they come up with a wonderful cure for cystic fibrosis?"

You feel sad, but recognize that you had no reason to expect that. Luck was against you in this case, but you made the right choice with the information you had.

"I've said it before on another thread: I'm pro-choice. But I really feel that if a person is not prepared to parent a child with problems, they're not prepared to parent and they should be spending a lot more time thinking about extremely careful birth control rather than the moral tangle that comes with abortion."

I'm not talking aboutt he parent being ready to parent the child, I'm saying that at a certain level of disability, a parent has a duty to their possible future child to not have a child with severe disabilities if they can avoid it.

BTW, I know that, I read what you said there.

The problem with eugenics is that it over simplifies genetics. There is no one gene that causes people to be mentally delinquent as the Swedes thought and started a sterilisation programme on this basis. The problem is that there are about 30,000 genes giving rise to possibly over 200,000 different proteins. The genes work with each other, either by positive or negative feedback, thus suppressing or encouraging their expression. It is also worth noting that a number of genes are only activated due to environmental factors coming into play. One that causes myopia - shortsightedness. However, this is only activated in people who learn to read. Bizarre, huh?

So this idea about getting rid of bad genes is a pile of bunk unless you can guarantee that they will expressed in such a way as to cause detrimental effects. And we're a long way from being able to tell this from someone's genetic profile, except in the case of diseases of cystic fibrosis. In such a case, would it not be better to 'fix' the genes. This is already been done by gene therapy, reportedly the fourth revolution in medicine (the other three being hygiene, anaethetic for surgery and antibiotics - though I think vaccination should be added to this list) however, gene therapy was withdrawn due to the supposed danger of leukaemia.

I personally don't disagree with abortion. However, I have qualms over the reasons some have for having abortions e.g. in Asia where girls are aborted because boys are favoured. This is an example of people choosing to use eugenics and already it has unfavourable consequences as the sex ratio between boys and girls in some of these countries is dangerously unbalanced.

"[Eugenics] The term was coined by the Francis Galton, the founder of the eugenics movement, in the 1860s. Eugenics encourages reproduction from people who display supposedly "positive" characteristics and seeks to prevent those with 'inferior' genes from reproducing."

There's a major logical fallacy in a lot of the arguments presented in the media. I think the question about whether we should have screening programmes for (say) Fragile X syndrome, Downs Syndrome etc is a very difficult question indeed, and I struggle to come to a consistant view on this.

However, the common media argument is a kind of slippery slope argument, whereby screening and aborting embryos with severe handicaps will *automatically* eventually lead to "designer babies " (I *hate* that phrase) where parents select for hair / eye colour. Yet no argument is offered for the existence of this slippery slope.

The question about disability is a very difficult one without the waters being muddied with irrelevences!

"So this idea about getting rid of bad genes is a pile of bunk unless you can guarantee that they will expressed in such a way as to cause detrimental effects. And we're a long way from being able to tell this from someone's genetic profile, except in the case of diseases of cystic fibrosis. In such a case, would it not be better to 'fix' the genes. This is already been done by gene therapy, reportedly the fourth revolution in medicine (the other three being hygiene, anaethetic for surgery and antibiotics - though I think vaccination should be added to this list) however, gene therapy was withdrawn due to the supposed danger of leukaemia."

Interesting--I wouldn't advocate my idea in every case, but in some cases, like down syndrome and cystirc fibrosis, I tink I have a point.

""designer babies ""

What's wrong with them (the idea, not the phrase)?

The strongest argument against eugenics is the fact that we cannot be absolutely certain which genes turn out to be harmful.

A prime example is the gene which induces sickle-cell anemia. Sounds like something we should be supressing, right? Wrong. Those who carry the gene are much more likely to resist malaria: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/2/l_012_02.html

A society cleansed of the defect could experience a malaria outbreak that would wipe out half the population.

Except in cases where we know absolutely that the child is going to be terribly disadvantaged (ex: Down syndrome), no form of eugenics should be practiced. And in those cases where the child will be terribly disadvantaged, the decision should between the parents and the doctor. The government should stay absolutely clear of this issue.

"However, I have qualms over the reasons some have for having abortions e.g. in Asia where girls are aborted because boys are favoured. This is an example of people choosing to use eugenics and already it has unfavourable consequences as the sex ratio between boys and girls in some of these countries is dangerously unbalanced."

As long as there are enough members of both sexes around to constitute a proper gene pool, there is no "danger" in upsetting the balance. And as there are over a billion total people in China, there is no danger of that. If there aren't enough women to go around, the society simply adapts. It has happened before.

Incidentally, a society with fewer women will breed slower, and those nations face staggering overpopulation. While the motivations might be stupid and cosmetic, they may actually be doing themselves and the rest of the planet a favor.

I agree with just about everything you've said.

Three possibilities to deal with the sick;e-cell type problem of lowering the gene pool:

1.) Except in cases of things like cystric fibrosis, one could determine how many babies must be born per year with the "negative" trait to keep it in the gene pool and have a lottery in which parent who wanted to eliminate the trait would enter--a certain number of them would be allowed to do so. This would be random and could decrease the number of people who need to carry the "negative trait to a minimum"

2.) Select for recessive coppies of the trait. Most genetic disorders are causd by recessive genes: select for recesive copies instead of trying to eliminate the trait. If each generation can have access to the same eugenics proceedures, the trait vcan be cept harmless by beeing sotred as recessive. If it is needed, it can easily be selected for in the next generation.

3.) Keep sored records of all versions of genes so that even if one is lost from the gene pool, it can be reintroduced.

I think that some mixture of these three could solve the problem.

Opinions?

It causes far more problems than it solves.

1) Who determines what good and bad genes are?

2) Who determines which children with a specific defect are permitted to live and which are not?

3) What gives them the right to make this choice?

4) Do we want to live in a society which tightly regulates such an intimate part of our lives? What's next?

5) What benefits, if any, are conferred upon us in exchange for our submission?

6) What would such a program cost us financially?

7) What would such a program cost us socially?

8) What would such a program cost us emotionally?

I do not believe there are any satisfactory answers to any of the above questions.

Surely if there is an imbalance say, two men for every women (keep your filthy thoughts to yourself) this leads to a number of social problems, the most obvious being that more men will fight over women. And who suffers? The women, usually.

1.) I don't know.

2.) I'm not sure, maybe the parents (except we aren't talking about children, we are talking about embrios and it would probably be more efficient if the descision could be made pre-conception).

3.) I don't know. Who has the right to make the choice in your opinion?

4.) Probably not, although in this particular case I don't personally care, since I don't plan to have children.

5.) Benefits to our children. If we plan to not overpopulate Earth or have huge infant/childhood mortality, people will start having to limit themselves to about one birth per adult. If you can only have two kids, wouldn't you prefer to help insure that these two will be healthy?

6.) Irrelevant if society commits to it, irrelevant if it doesn't.

7.) I don't know.

8.) I don't care. I have to agree with AP that emotions are unimportant.

"I do not believe there are any satisfactory answers to any of the above questions."

Perhaps you are right, although I am satisfied with my answers to 8 and six, and possible five.

What about the other side of this - onsurance companies using genetic data to determine which of us are entitled to life insurance ? Corporations using genetics to weed out those likely to put a drain on company health plans ?

Before long you've created an entire subsection of society, the dis-advantaged.

Robot - do you seriously believe that emotions are unimportant ? If so you chose your name well. Though actually, thinking back, R.Daneel Olivaw often used logic as a arguement for what we would have described as being emotions.

Another way to look at disabilities, which is going to sound immensely un-PC (but this is a debating group afer all). Assuming you had a thriving, healthy population, what happens to all the industries and their employees that help the genetically disabled? There would be a lot of unemployement, less of a strain on the tax-payer, possibly. But huge industries have grown up around these problems.

The answer is they would probably adapt, due to market forces, to a slightly different form of care. Ones to look after the ageing population (are people going to be able to look after themselves when they're between 100-150?) and other disabilites and diseases (asthma, obesity and diabetes are on the increase). The idea is that you could 'geneer' people so they are less susceptible to such problems, but I find this unlikely as many are more self-infliction than to do with just carrying susceptibilty genes.

On a different note:
A more likely reason for selective births, which has already occured, is to have a child who can donate bone marrow to a sibling to help survive a terminal illness. Of course the emotional impact of the children (I was born to save you, so you owe me) has yet to be explored, let alone the ethics.

PS - On the subject of emotions. Supposedly being unemotional is a sign of greater intelligence. But less intelligent creatures are less emotional. The more intellectuall sophisticated the species the more emotional it becomes (compare insects with dogs or elephants, etc). Surely if a breed of super-intelligent people were bred this would lead to highly emotional individuals. And pure emotion always wins over logic. Would this mean that you have highly emotional people ruling the world, continually arguing with each other and worse? If you assume that the worlds' leaders are more intelligent that the majority (Dubya isn't a leader as much as a puppet of his more intelligent father and major corporations who then are the US's true leaders) does this not lead to problems? Have you noticed how many debates on h2g2 start off logically them end up as highly emotional slagging matches, which if the people involved were in the same room, could go further?

Without logic, it is not possible to solve the simplest of problems, cause and effect are logical considerations.
Without emmotion we are no longer what we currently recognize as human, better or worse is opinion, my opinion would be better (the Dubya example, is at root greed, in my opinion emotion), then again maybe balance is the only logical solution...


Math