Artificial Selection and Humans

[Spoonius]

Ok... so I'm assuming you all know what artificial selection [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_selection] (or "selective breeding") is.

Now, my question is... would you support the artificial selection and manipulated development of our species in order to advance humanity (at least, from a biological point of view)? Assume that the entire process is conducted humanely... would the evolutionary benefit be worth the violation of our most basic human rights?

Should certain humans be granted certain privileges at the expense of the freedom of others in order to aid the progression of our species as a collective entity? For the greater good?

I think it's an interesting question, with a fair bit of discussion value.

EDIT: Poll's not showing up. Damn.

EDIT 2: Yes I know that what I'm describing is "eugenics".

EDIT 3: By "humanely", I meant a system designed to weed out genetic deficiencies (such as hereditary health problems) and promote beneficial properties, not create a "master race". Also, one that would be carried out without depriving most people of the ability or right to mate, only stepping in to prevent high-risk cases and encouraging those with good genetic prospects to reproduce.

 

[lovestomooch]

This idea is very interesting albeit inherently flawed at a fundamental level. Simply, what is the point of enhancing our physical attributes only to abandon what actually makes us human. It is our humanity, or our ability to empathise that makes us better than others. If we lose the ability to recognise and respect the dignity in others then we will devolve to a caste based tribal society with clearly defined social boundaries usually reserved for very right wing or very vulnerable civilisations.

Besides this happens already on a far more subtler level than you mention. It's when the pretty girl gets the handsome guy. Symmetrical features, broad chins, wide hips etc. are signs of fertility and strength. It already happens. Good post though

 

[the spud]

Yes, I wouldn't mind at all, as long as it was handled humanely and discretely. We wouldbe able to breed out all genetic deformities and diseases, while simultaneously letting genetically superior pass on their traits. We should be cautious, though, as we still need a healthy amount of diversity.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

I can't see it ever happening, whether I want it or not. Too much to monitor, to many resources wasted that could be used to help the handicapped, instead of oppressing millions of people.

 

[mikey7339]

Didn't some dude in Germany try this back in the day? If I recall it didn't end too well.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

Quite honestly, some people in everyday life would not marry (or in this century, "consciously conceive") someone if they believed that they would not produce offspring with favorable traits and abilities.

On a superficial level, this constitutes to "an ugly person will give birth to ugly babies," which is clearly not the case. On a more complex level, some people would want to conceive children with someone who has had great health and medical history, attractive features, and family traits (high intellect, athletically gifted, etc.).

Of course, none of this is guaranteed if the offspring are born naturally. I feel it's ridiculous that people would take selected breeding as a reason for marriage/procreation, but some people do. To treat people like livestock and show pets and just breed the hell out of them in order to produce a "prize-winning" human is ridiculous. I can see this making more sense with surrogates because maybe the one of the partners cannot produce a healthy child and would need assistance.

In closing, just wait until genetic manipulation (changing and adding genes from the DNA of unborn children) becomes a real thing and then we can argue about developing super baby athletes and geniuses.

 

[SwishiestB0g]

I'm on the fence. One hand what loves said, it'd take away part of our humanity. The only reason we consider this is because science has come so far, the human population has sky rocketed as a result thanks to healthcare and medical advances, which in turn makes us question if we should selectively breed.

I've never been a great proponent of Artificial Selection, though when I see a 9 year old girl say things that make me feel uncomfortable, and then have her 12 year old sister say even worse. Well that's sorta the time I'd change my tune*.

Granted both of her parents can't have any more kids but they already have had 6 so yeah^. I honestly think the amount of kids you can have should kinda be controlled. We're already not providing enough for everyone, so why add so many more people to the mix? I don't know. It's such a tough call for so many reasons, who would make the cut? Are looks valued or intelligence? Would a person like Stephen Hawking be viable? I'd say yes to Artificial Selection but I feel dirty doing so for some reason...


*Granted her behavior is how she was raised and not due to her genetics, though really if you are selectively breeding chances are her parents wouldn't make the cut.
^They were both fixed, don't know who stepped in to do that, but thank you!

 

[CrystalShadow]

Honestly, aside from a whole host of ethical issues, stuff like this has been done experimentally (believe it or not), and it failed.

They were trying to create geniuses, and it sort of worked, but in terms of creating some kind of really impressive offspring? Nope. Not really.

Human beings, and our society as a whole is just too complex for this to be as useful as it sounds.

 

[JoJo]

Nope, because why would we want our species to be advanced? Humanity can already easily out-compete every other species on Earth and with our rate of technological advancement moving ever faster, why would we need to be physically stronger or healthier? It might give certain humans advantages over certain over humans but it wouldn't make our species any stronger against other animals. You aren't cavemen who fight wild animals with your bare hands.

 

[Erana]

Yes, I wouldn't mind at all, as long as it was handled humanely and discretely. We wouldbe able to breed out all genetic deformities and diseases, while simultaneously letting genetically superior pass on their traits. We should be cautious, though, as we still need a healthy amount of diversity.

You mean like how the US government sterilized Native American women against their will to help breed out inferior genetics?

Just because what seems like good and right seems perfectly logical at the time doesn't mean later generations aren't going to find massive flaws in it. It seems to me that it would be incredibly arrogant to say that yes, humanity now is at a point where it can make choices like this.

That being said, I do think society should promote awareness of the consequences of very likely passing maladies and diseases on. Adoption or borrowing genetic material from others would also provide you with children to love.

I'm not saying that "OH you have diabetes don't breed," I just wish people would step back out of their world view and meticulously go over all the aspects of having a child, given their ability to provide and care. Genetics is one of those things I think responsible people should factor in.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Sure mr Adolf that sounds like the perfect idea... christ people that shit wasn't going down that long ago.

And while the rest of the world is trying to bring out equality you are falling back to the basic racist excuse "we must breed the master race"...

 

[BrassButtons]

Now, my question is... would you support the artificial selection and manipulated development of our species in order to advance humanity (at least, from a biological point of view)?

What does that even mean?

Assume that the entire process is conducted humanely... would the evolutionary benefit be worth the violation of our most basic human rights?

No.

Should certain humans be granted certain privileges at the expense of the freedom of others in order to aid the progression of our species as a collective entity? For the greater good?

Who says its the greater good?

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

No, no, no, no, no. Eugenics is insanely unethical, you're basically saying who can and can't have kids. And as to whoever is going to judge, who the fuck are you to decide? Why should you get the power to say?

 

[the spud]

Snip

No, nothing like what the U.S. goverment did. They knew nothing about how genetics work or about how traits are passed. We know have an understanding of genetics and how it effects things like deformities and handicaps. And like I said, we should be careful and try to protect our genetic diversity, and if the disease in question has even the slightest benificial element (such as manic depression, which may enhance one's ability to be a good leader), we should think twice about eradicating it. I understand that there are risks involved, but if we are unwilling to take risks, then we, as a species, will never advance.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Eugenics is a flawed and unworkable science even before you work in the tendency for everyone to believe that THEIR traits are the "superior" ones. Species diversity ensures species survival.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I understand that there are risks involved, but if we are unwilling to take risks, then we, as a species, will never advance.

"Advance".

"Advancement" has had a very funny sense of direction since organic life began.
What does one consider "advancement" for a sentient species? Where do we go?

Ignoring ethics for a moment, the answer appears purely arbitrary to me.

 

[the spud]

I understand that there are risks involved, but if we are unwilling to take risks, then we, as a species, will never advance.

"Advance".

"Advancement" has had a very funny sense of direction since organic life began.
What does one consider "advancement" for a sentient species? Where do we go?

That's actually a very good, thought-provoking question. I guess what I was considering "advancement" was raising the average standard of living for our little species.

You can make it mean almost anything you want to, though.

 

[Durgiun]

Whilst selective breeding is definitely a good idea, the problem is that we, as a species, have psychopaths leading us, so that's that idea down the shitter.

Maybe if we were more like the Borg or something, it would work.

 

[Atmos Duality]

That's actually a very good, thought-provoking question. I guess what I was considering "advancement" was raising the average standard of living for our little species.

You can make it mean almost anything you want to, though.

Honestly, I've been wrestling with that hypothetical question for a bit now.
Before, the answers seemed easy; things of utility, style, or practicality.
Eradicating known biological killers, etc.

But the more I thought about altering or attaining those traits, the more it appeared that these were just things of my fancy and whim; daydreaming, essentially.

So now, I really don't have an answer to that question.
I just wanted to see what someone else thought.

 

[Aizsaule]

This idea is very interesting albeit inherently flawed at a fundamental level. Simply, what is the point of enhancing our physical attributes only to abandon what actually makes us human. It is our humanity, or our ability to empathise that makes us better than others. If we lose the ability to recognise and respect the dignity in others then we will devolve to a caste based tribal society with clearly defined social boundaries usually reserved for very right wing or very vulnerable civilisations.

Besides this happens already on a far more subtler level than you mention. It's when the pretty girl gets the handsome guy. Symmetrical features, broad chins, wide hips etc. are signs of fertility and strength. It already happens. Good post though

What makes you think we have to abandon our humanity? the goal of artificial selection is to make us healthier and stronger and smarter, not to alter our personalities.