More contemporary row:
A 20th century neuroscientist their thoughts on IQ and eugenics
Eugenics is still wildly popular, they just don’t call it that. A short list of modern things founded in Eugenics.
- Stanford University
- IQ testing
- Idiocracy (2006)
Don’t forget psychology. Turns out a lot of its like 90% of it is founded on a mix of religious dogma and eugenics. Remember that infamous Canadia Nazi Jordan Peterson who nearly killed himself with a paleo diet and then went on a ketamine bender in Russia? Psychologist.
We already breed animals and plants, why not breed other humans? It’d be cool to live in a world where everyone is a healthy super soldier
The Richard Dawkins argument, and the first hint for many (besides his “elitism is good” take) that he was a fascist piece of shit.
Eugenics is fascist pseudoscience, it has no bearing in reality and only exists as a justification for and always results in mass genocide.
As for just trying to create healthy humans, we can see that idea failing with crops. We selectively bred the healthiest crops, then everyone wanted that best crop, and now the pests for that crop flourished, meaning they’re usually even more sickly than other crops and we have to constantly keep them alive with pesticides.
Eugenics in general has many problems, though. The most fundamental problem is that, whatever one might view as an ideal human, is completely arbitrary.
Even if we ignore obviously existing personal biases, there is no fundamental reason why a muscular man is good, for example. In the next few decades, we might see full automation of manual labor. Then those muscles are irrelevant. And we might see ever hotter temperatures. Then having a bulky body might actively be bad for cooling off.
Or maybe tomorrow, there’s a massive volcano eruption, which causes oxygen levels to fall and food scarcity. Then a slender man might be best adapted to that situation.There’s just a million ways in which our situation can change all the time. And the best strategy for dealing with that is diversity.
Which is the second fundamental problem with eugenics, it necessarily reduces diversity.
Diversity is also what prevents singular pests/illnesses from being able to wipe us all.
But ultimately, diversity is also great, because we live in a society. People with different strengths and weaknesses can work together, usually indirectly by just taking up different jobs and paying each other to perform our respective jobs.
In particular, a weakness in one field can also push us to develop greater skills in other areas. Had I been able to become a super model, I wouldn’t have pursued an education as fiercely, for example.Ok this post really is insightful, love it.
Ok hot take, just my thoughts and if you disagree please share, nothing is written in stone. Eugenics I feel had a dream of achieving the ultimate human, this dream would of course be abused by anyone who could touch this idea on how to achieve it, doesn’t matter how good your intentions are, someone will get the short end of the stick either through being excluded or included against their will or with their blessings.
But here is my controversial take, the human gnome has been polluted by viruses, other hominids, unfavorable gene mutations… etc. There are also gene mutations that are unfavourable, such as cystic fibrosis, some that can be beneficial in certain situations but down sides in other, like sickle cell with better immunity to malaria, or characteristics that are not that important like blood type maybe and lastly characteristics that are incredibly desirable such as being less disease prone like cancers, dementia…
My idea is that we do a huge DNA collection around the world from consenting persons. Then we sequence it and try to make the most standard average human gnome, trying to clean up a lot of useless genes or junk left by viruses or radiation for example, that serve no function, and remove any identified genetic disorders maybe identify beneficial genes and add them. This gnome must be open source and accessible and continually improved. The goal is not to make a person, just like how we have sequenced the gnome of homo neanderthal that helped us study and learn, not to bring them back from extinction.
I would like this to be done for a purely scientific curiosity and furthering of medical science. Also we should ensure any use or modification cannot be patented or trademarked whatsoever by any entity and editing of the existing genome of people should be totally banned.
I do not want to see a person coming out of existence from this artificial gnome but rather it be a tool to assist, study, improve and further mankind’s understanding and interaction based on the building blocks of humankind
We’ve already collected DNA samples from people around the world to map the genome, it’s how we even know what genes may cause disorders in the first place. This did not require us to create some genetically ‘pure’ hypothetical gene sequence for the ideal human. What you’re suggesting is still eugenics and still bad for all the same reasons.
There may be such a thing as an “average” human genome though I doubt such an amalgamation would be able to produce a viable or even desirable organism. There is absolutely no such thing as a “clean” human genome, and attempting to create one would be a damning demonstration of a deep misunderstanding of both evolution and biology in general.
Yes what I am explaining is eugenics probably, but I am just curious. I know many topics are taboo but I feel that they shouldn’t make certain topics of limits in all senses, for example here on Lemmy as two people converse ideas.
I won’t lie while writing my first comment I also saw many issues, like what happens if people go rogue and create people that cannot feel pain to be soldiers, or make that only certain people with certain genes might be able to make a viable baby or pay to recieve the crisper edit to unlock breeding. Or something stupid where there is not enough genetic diversity since the DNA is too close to each other leading to diseases to be even more infectious or transmittable. Look at crops where they are all basically the same and one disease can wipe them all out. Heck this might stop evolutionary progress because we do not realise now that this trait will be useful in the future.
But I have also been doing some googling, even though I am not using them to justify anything, but these people are exploring the topic of a reference gnome https://scitechdaily.com/global-genomes-scientists-rewrite-the-story-of-human-genetics/
But thanks for sharing your thoughts, I appreciate opposing ideas to challenge any flaws that I might have been blind to.
https://scitechdaily.com/global-genomes-scientists-rewrite-the-story-of-human-genetics/
The key thing about this project is that they aren’t trying to piece together some sort of ideal set of genes into a “flawless” set to present as a key to identify deviations from that set.
In contrast, the human pangenome reference contains nearly full genomic data from 47 people, representing different populations globally. This accounts for 94 human genomes, since each person carries two copies, one from each parent.
I’m unclear if they even exercised any discrimination in the selection of these individuals, or if they’re just a random sampling from their respective populations. The intent of the project seems to be pretty much a continuation of the original human genome project and an attempt to more completely document genes and their various expressions.
To be clear, I’m not ideologically opposed to genetic manipulation or even some degree of genetic engineering. I’m against establishing or enshrining a particular set of genes as any kind of baseline or default, that is where eugenics lies.
I agree, there should not be an enshrined or particular set of genes that are the default or marked as the perfect genes. I linked the article because I felt it was saying better than what I was trying to convey.
Fuck this reminds me of Gattaca, where your worth and standing in society is not determined by your skills, experience, drive or any character qualities and capabilities that shows your merit, but where everyone is judged basically by how pure their genes are.
But this topic is very intriguing to me since I see so many possibilities of helping advance humankind, but I am also starting to see the dark horror that this might unleash. Luckily I am not in genetics or any field near it, but I enjoyed dipping my toes and discussing some ideas with all of you. I feel like the real scientists and organisations involved in genome research and stuff have way better controls and understanding of the possible pitfalls or dangers and are doing work in these fields and I hope my current blind trust in these institutions won’t backfire or lead to a dystopian future
I mean, it doesn’t work but like, I get it. Moreso, after reading the news or watching any TV or talking to certain neighbors, I get the desire to, idk, maybe want some selective breeding. Just make people a teeny tiny bit less… stupid? Gullable? Irrational? If only there was a way. It wouldn’t work, but I get it.
Obviously it doesn’t quite work that way, is probably immortal and would take an extraordinary long time to even change something as ingrained as all that. Lol
Nobody… not a single soul…
Some biologists: We take this man from a Nigerian family, breed him with a girl from this Greek family, then as the child grows to maturity, they again breed with someone from this Philipino tribe, and we have the vaccine for cancer.
Everyone: …KILL THEM!!! KILL THEM ALL AND DESTROY THEIR FINDINGS!!!
