Yet another ethical dilemma to ponder...

[RavenWings (imported)]

I'm actually reminded of one of my favourite quotes. "A person is smart, people are dumb, panicy, and stupid and you know it," from Men in Black. So, I do agree with anyb0dy. I do not believe that we can control such an idea and limit it to just those people that society deems as being mentaly deficient. Remeber, for nearly a hundred and fifty years the unofficial American position on Blacks was that they were mentally deficient. There are also a number of historians who have, controversially, pointed out that Nazis did not start out as monsters but became monsters. I it very frightening to know that there really was a human side to Hitler. And Zoroaster, thank you for the correction. As I said, I'm a little fuzzy on some of the particulars of the early Twentieth Century. My expertise in history is far more ancient, specifically Celtic, and Colonial French Canada.

Yes, a lot of mentally handicapped people have equally mentally handicapped children, but there are also dozens if not more who would be sterilized under these conditions who have normal, and even very smart children. Part of the problem is that the higher the education and income level, the lower the birth rates. The next problem is that ignorance really does breed ignorance. People without a solid education end up interfearing with their own children's education. I know of dozens of cases both here in Brunswick, and back in Tampa. In one case, a guy told his seven year old kid that all teachers should be taken out and choked to death on their own paperwork. His son eventually dropped out of school. Conversely, I've also seen a number of illeducated people trying to keep their children interested in school and learning to various degrees of success. Now, that said, there are instances such as Paolo mentioned. I am uncertain if outright sterilization is a good idea. This has created a bit of a controversy in I think Finland where they did this back in the '70's. There are so many issues to be weighed in the balance.

As for this violence gene. There are a lot of socio-economic factors to consider. One is, how many suicide bombers have this gene? How many gun men? Let us remember that the study only said that less than 50% of all crimes could be accounted for by this gene. So, even sterilizing those people will not end crime at all.

I hope that most of this was coherent and on topic.

Until later

[happousai (imported)]

I remember there was a news article about a woman who went around giving something like $100 to crack addicts who underwent voluntary sterilization.

I thought that was nice of her.

[Kortpeel (imported)]

...

in the news this past week was the publication in "Science" of the results of a long-term (since 1972) genetic study done in New Zealand. A major finding was that a single rare gene could account for nearly half of all criminally violent and anti-social behavior. Not ALL carriers of the gene became violent or anti-social; that seemed to occur primarily if they were themselves exposed to violence as children, which caused MOST of them to become violent or anti-social.

B]

Hi all,

The real response to this is that though interesting it is very preliminary science and a hell of a lot more work needs to be done.

For all we know the findings may be influenced because the New Zealand population is in permanent close contact with sheep!

All this genome stuff is still in its very early days and it'll be a decade or two before we can think of using it as a basis for compulsory sterilisation or whatever.

Regards

Kortpeel

[Zoroaster (imported)]

That, and remember that the white people in New Zealand and Australia were criminals from Britain. Assuming somebody was able to conclusively show that aggressive tendencies were genetic, remember that based on ancestry the population of those two countries is not exactly random.

[anyb0dy (imported)]

And there you just gave me a perfect example of WHY we should NOT be weeding out people based on genes. Otherwise the entire white population of Australia and New Zealand should be sterilized and never should have existed at all, since they ALL originated from criminals who were kicked out of their own countries because they were considered defective and unwanted.

Tom

[JesusA (imported)]

Eugenics refers to the conscious and considered attempt to improve the quality of the human gene pool. It has fallen into disrepute in many places because of early errors and excesses and because of its malevolent application by the Nazis. It also runs contrary to the legal enshrining of individual rights so eloquently expressed by A-1. There are, of course, places where eugenics has NOT fallen into disrepute and it was consciously practiced my several countries in western Europe well into the 1970s as a matter of state policy - despite the Nazi example of the misuse of its principles.

The early eugenics movement also spent more time trying to encourage the intelligent and well-educated to reproduce more than they spent trying to encourage those whom they termed "less desirable" to reproduce less. The contemporary movement (government sponsored) in Singapore is still aimed only at encouraging college-educated women to produce more children.

We should never discard something simply because it has been misused in the past or could be misused in the future. By that criterion, we would have to discard religion because of the centuries of examples of religious warfare and bigotry that we have seen across religious and cultural boundaries. Instead, we need to carefully consider the potential uses and misuses and make a careful decision about specific applications. This is where the original question becomes an ethical dilemma.

I would also argue that we have gone just about as far as we can in elevating individual rights above societal rights. The pendulum has already begun to swing back toward counting the rights of the social groups to be protected from extravagant claims of the rights of the individual. Unfortunately, we can expect that we won't stop at some reasonable and balanced point, but will continue on until social rights are elevated much too far above the rights of the individual, as they certainly were not too far in our past.

Increased interest in eugenics (and possibly the application of eugenic principles in our society) will likely be a part of this change. Eugenics elevates the greater good of the society as a whole above the rights of individuals to reproduce. Definitely an ethical dilemma!

Despite the disrepute in which eugenics as a considered and conscious attempt to improve the gene pool is held, there are many social and individual decisions being made which effect the gene pool in both positive and negative ways. Most are NOT being consciously considered, though I have used some for previous ethical dilemmas on this board.

On a personal note, I first became involved in the Eunuch Archive because of my concern about some of these social actions with eugenic consequences which had not been adequately considered by society (it they were considered at all). I was (and am still) greatly concerned about the incarceration of such a high proportion of black and Hispanic males through all or most of their reproductive lifetimes in the U.S. Some of my black friends have stated very clearly that they see the eugenic implications and consider it to be a societal attempt at genocide against blacks. I wouldn't go nearly that far, but the eugenic consequences are certainly real.

We also have artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization using sperm from Nobel Prize winners and eggs from supermodels. Our medical establishment works very hard to preserve the lives (and reproductive capacities) of individuals who would otherwise die young of genetic disorders - thus maintaining their genes in the common pool. Medical insurance even provides for attempts by the biologically infertile to reproduce by using funds collected from the social group (insurance pool) as a whole. The argument has already been made on this thread that the welfare system provides an incentive for reproduction by the less fit, thus enhancing their contribution to our common gene pool.

As a society, we are taking actions that have great eugenic consequences, both positive and negative, without ever responsibly considering their effect on the future of humanity. Despite being the one who began this thread, I still haven't worked out in my own mind what my position ought to be.

Remember, too, that there are countries far less scrupulous about government actions than the U.S., Canada, or western Europe. Prof. Richard Lynn, who has been researching eugenics for several years, believes that China will begin such a program in the near future (and are probably doing some work already). I know that Japan is already involved in eugenics activity. IF (and only if) the system works, countries which implement it could have a significant cultural and economic advantage over those which do not within only a generation or two.

We need to think this through carefully. We need a principled ETHICAL position to either support or condemn eugenics. We will certainly face the call for action at some point within the next few years.

[A-1 (imported)]

We also have artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization using sperm from Nobel Prize winners and eggs from supermodels

Albert Einstein's head on Naomi Campbell's body.

SCARY!

A-1

[JesusA (imported)]

The reverse is even scarier!

[colin (imported)]

Zoroaster,

You are not correct. Transportation was only carried out to Australia. Criminals may have landed on New Zealand but this was not deliberate practice by the authorities.

LOL

[RavenWings (imported)]

Criminal elements from Britain were also sent to the US, but not in as many numbers as they were to Australia. Remember, Georgia was founded, partially, in order to send over people conviced of the crime of debt. The biggest difference between the US and Australia was that most of the convicts sent to the Americas were political rather than criminal. Most did leave of their own accord or willingly. There were still some forced migrations, especially after Culloden.

The French tried to use their criminal elements to settle both Canada and Louisianna, but with little success.

You do realize that in some ways this amounts to genetic phrenology?

I also had some thoughts about this. How broad was this study? Did it include a large sampling of people who are in jobs that would releive those violent tendencies? How many Army personel have this gene?