What's your opinion on eugenics?

submitted by detty from self.AskSaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think society is implementing eugenics anyway with it's cultural preferences so it's probably better to do so consciously than blindly.

However there a big problem with unexpected consequences as genes and traits considered bad often have a purpose. For instance high IQ populations usually gave more autism and also suffer from population decline as high IQ people are too risk adverse to have kids.

[–]Mcheetah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think society is implementing eugenics anyway with it's cultural preferences

Women only going for 6'3" millionaire Chads isn't eugenics; it's Darwinism/selective breeding. And considering these people on both genders are usually retards, it's not necessarily for the benefit of humanity.

However there a big problem with unexpected consequences as genes and traits considered bad often have a purpose.

You mean like allowing short people to breed in case there's some kind of air pollution problem and all the tall people start dying or something? Yes, "genetic diversity" sometimes has its purpose to ensure a species can survive no matter what afflicts certain members of that species, but humanity has pretty much done away with all of those potential issues due to advancements in medical science. There's no real need for mentally retarded, short, or fat people to reproduce; outside of some apocalyptic scenario where all the food runs out or the entire planet becomes freezing cold and the obese people can survive longer with more body fat or something. (I say this being short and overweight, myself.)

[–]jet199 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No I'm not just talking about genetic diversity. I'm talking about trade offs which you can't get around.

For instance the genes which make you likely to get gout also stop you getting parkinsons disease. If you wanted to select against gout you'd get more parkinsons in the population and vise versa. There are a lot of trade offs like that in genetics. Most genes effect more than one thing.

High IQ people tend to be highly risk adverse. This is a problem if you need people to make decisions or take risks. This is why most business owners are closer to average intelligence than they are to the top 1% of IQ.

[–]Mcheetah 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

For instance the genes which make you likely to get gout also stop you getting Parkinson's disease. If you wanted to select against gout you'd get more Parkinson's in the population and vise versa. There are a lot of trade offs like that in genetics. Most genes effect more than one thing.

Isn't that still just genetic diversity? Just at a cellular level? I don't get it.

High IQ people tend to be highly risk adverse.

Yes, but this doesn't mean they still aren't, there's just less of them than those who are risk averse but less intelligent. And if the ones who are highly intelligent and successful in being risk averse thrive, than those are the ones who are "fittest." So yes, I see what you mean in trade-offs, but not every potential scenario or trait is necessary.