Artificial Selection and Humans

[Lhianon]

well, back in the 1930s to mid 1940s some lunatics tried this here in germany, it didn't end well...

what most suporters of selective breeding don't understand is the fact that this would hamper the genetic diversity of the human species to a point that we can become more vulnerable to certain diseases, we also would be less able to adapt to new enviromental factors.
and these are just the darwinist arguments against it, there are a whole lot more ethical reasons against it.
for instance, who gets to decide which traits are desirable? wouldn't the personal bias of said person influence the decisions she/he makes? wouldn't this dehumanize woman into "breeding machines"?
furthermore, as has been discused by biologists, the adaption in advanced, komplex species largely depends on the behavior of said species, a sudden change in behavior that is detrimental to the survival of the individual can lead to extinction if adapted by a large amount of individuals, for instance: an omnivore decides to life only from plants (panda)

 

[Navvan]

This is Eugenics. Hurray. It is impossible to do humanely as it explicitly involves taking away human rights. Taking away human rights is to treat a human as inhuman and thus is inhumane.

Perhaps you meant just a restrictive breeding program and not slaughtering those with poor genetics. Still no as it decreases our diversity more so than it already is (humans are remarkably undiverse) and makes us more susceptible to changes in environment or pathogens.

I do advocate a increase in funding supporting people and projects which are likely to benefit society as a whole by an objective standard. R&D, health care, infrastructure, and so forth. Which by all intents and purposes achieves a similar goal (better society) without taking away human rights. But that is socialism and socialism is bad /sarc.

 

[KingKamor]

My logic tells me yes, but my ethics tell me no. Though I don't think that we should "weed out the uglies" or anything like that. It would be cool to wipe out crippling diseases like AIDS and STDs, and what better way to do that than make sure that they aren't passed on to the next generation? But this whole thing would take away many peoples' basic rights, like you said. To be done right, the person in charge would have to be some sort of super-genius and incredible humanitarian loved by everyone. And I think humanity is fresh out of those anyway.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

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!

I think you want [ footnote ] [ /footnote ].

OT: No because it would be pointless as offspring aren't guaranteed to have certain traits as well as the waste of resources. If you are really into this stuff personally gene manipulation seems like a much easier option. Also it does fuck with genetic diversity I mean we are what at most around 2% - .02%(or something in that region I need to double check it so feel free to disregard it) different in DNA from any other person.

 

[spartan231490]

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.

Nothing is worth violating basic human rights. Nothing. Also, as we have no idea what traits will actually be the most benificial in the future, it is impossible to do effectively, genetic diversity will actually be most helpful to us, not genetic manipulation.

 

[Sprinal]

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

Technically if you just placed a tax on having children for the sections of society you wanted to reduce. And then followed it up with tax benifits for the sections of the population that you wanted to increase in proportion it could be considered Humain. And not in violation of basic human rights.


Of cause you may wish to tax it after the first child so it is not too obvious.

 

[gravitii]

We already do that in a lot of ways. As long as the continuation of our species isn't a matter of survival of the fittest, I'd consider it artificial, we are an unhealthy race detached from our world. As for your plan I don't think it would be a good idea. Essentially putting everyone in arranged marriages doesn't leave much room for love.

 

[The Lesbian Flower]

If something infringes upon the rights of others and promotes the idea that only certain humans with certain qualities are actually people and the rest of humanity is simply a waste of space, then is it really humane?

 

[randomsix]

Imo artificial selection is inferior to gene therapy/screening because in the latter, no individual will be refused children, and also the process can be performed in a way that is less harmful for the gene pool. We don't want everyone ending up with hip dysplasia after all.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Eugenics? No, I don't believe in it. Far too insane and prejudice.

 

[Silenttalker22]

Didn't we already discuss this to exhaustion like last week?

 

[Veylon]

This debate strikes me as nearly irrelevant. An experiment in human evolution would take millenia, if not longer. The scientists themselves would almost as much subjects as the subjects. Ethical issues like nanotechnology, inserting our minds into computers, and how much of the asteroid belt should be left in it's natural state are going to come up before we see any results from selective breeding. Biological evolution is a dead end as a means to a supposed greater good.

 

[Foxblade618]

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.

Technically we do do this. With the advent of antibiotics and modern western medicine, there are people that live to breeding age that would have never made it before the 1940's. It's just part of human ingenuity: people will constantly live longer than we were evolved to do - hell that's one of the reasons cancer is so prevalent. So, that is, I guess, the opposite of what artificial selection is intended to do as humanity always finds a way to spit in natural selection's eye

 

[intheweeds]

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?

It seems like at least once a week, someone comes up with some new 'awesome moral dilemma/discussion point' that they just thought of that turns out to be eugenics. Then the educated adults among us have to point out that it is called 'eugenics' and note that it has been ethically debated into the ground by academic professionals and even unsuccessfully attempted in some countries(nazi germany). It is bad for many reasons.

There is no dilemma here that cannot be solved by a little research. Please realize that there are very few ethical dilemma's that have not been thought of, debated and given a name long before you were old enough to have ideas.

This was an interesting dilemma, before Nazi Germany. It is now a solved issue with zero discussion value.

 

[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?

Eugenics aren't all bad. Eliminating crop diseases, sperm banks, and stem cell research to remove chronic diseases are good examples of eugenics.

But the type of eugenics (probably the most commonly suggested on here) he's eluding to is.

 

[UltraXan]

I'm gonna say this bluntly. I love my girlfriend, and nothing is going to make me leave her for some other woman I may not even like that'll give me "genetically superior children". You wanna enhance the human race? You use technology and artificial means. After all: "Flesh is a design flaw."

 

[viranimus]

In a sense. yes. I am somewhat pro Eugenics provided that one of its goals is to reduce human population down evenly and humanely to more attainable and realistic levels.

Do I think Eugenics is going to be some evolutionary step forward? No. But there are ways it can be used responsibly.

However, once it gets called Eugenics.. the conversation will invariably refer to Hitler who in essence ruined it, Much like he did that Stache, for everybody else, forever.

It could have its place, but advancing the species does not seem viable, because invariably what has caused humanity to evolve more than anything has been copious drugs, and lots of sex to propagate extensive genetic diversity.

Technology is also going to potentially evolve us, as it is being speculated that our eyes are starting to adapt to interface with visual mediums better and faster than before, though its still in the initial hypothesis stages at best.

So I dont think we really need to worry about evolution, because evolution will take care of itself.

 

[captaincabbage]

Yeah I probably would, though I wouldn't want any part of it, partly because it's honestly a horrible thought, but partly because I wouldn't get selected for breeding. XD

In all seriousness with the way that we're going now, we'd need something like selective breeding to survive properly, although it'd just as quickly create problems as it would solve them. Hell, just look at pure-bred dogs like German Shepherds. They're incredibly powerful, fast, nimble and intelligent, which are all the good things, but they're prone to hip dysplasia and plenty of other troubles like heart disease.