Eugenic/Dysgenic: what are they and how are they used?

Eugenic/Dysgenic: what are they and how are they used?

Eugenic: controlling the population of genes for an improved gene pool.
Dysgenic: controlling the population of genes for a worse gene pool.
Neutral: letting it all be.

Call Eugenic 10 and Dysgenic -10.

Some governmental policies have been oficially based on eugenics, but have actually been dysgenic. We could score them.

My score for Hitler's Nazis: -3.

That's an obvious one, but the policies today which have an effect on the human populace (genetically speaking) are not often considered in this perspective.

The question of tobacco use brought this subject up. It applies to lots of other subjects.

Starting question: Is a law requiring helmet use for motorcyle riders neutral, eugenic, or dysgenic?
I say it's dysgenic.
Sub-question: is the eu-pro-neutral rating important to this particular law?
I say: not important.

I'm sorry to be the first to respond here, ae, because I likely won't help further conversation… But I see little to no evidence that we (humans, via scientific knowledge) have the slightest grasp on evolution — as a goal-directed system. Hence, the question isn't just moot; it is meaningless.
(Sanger to the contrary doesn't bother me… But that's another topic, isn't it?)

Do you wonder why I specified "goal directed"…? Because it likely ain't!

Better gene pool would really have to mean more diversity; as evidenced by medieval royalty lack of diversity tends to cause problems. While certain particular genes are potentially bad (hemophilia, for example) and removing those might improve the gene pool, it is also observed that a monoculture (everyone with similar genes) weakens any species. (Any purebred animal is more likely to get sick than a hybrid or mongrel.)

In overall terms I'd agree with Oakdale though - our limited knowledge is not sufficient to know what would constitute improving the gene pool, with certain obvious exceptions (hemophilia, again).

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

But I see little to no evidence that we (humans, via scientific knowledge) have the slightest grasp on evolution — as a goal-directed system.

That's rather a strange statement to make - we've been doing it for tens of thousands of years.

Evolution isn't a goal-directed system, but breeding most definitely is. We've been genetically manipulating dogs, livestock and plants since before recorded time. You don't need to know the exact function of each individual gene to indulge in eugenics.

As to the original question, I would agree with sgunhouse that the term 'gene pool' really only applies to genetic diversity, not really the same as genetic 'strength'. You can still have a wide diversity of genes in the gene pool while removing 'undesirable' traits. Of course, it's not that simple, because of the unpredictibility of gene expression, and there comes an equilibrium point where removing too many traits narrows the gene pool too far.

However, I'm fascinated to find out what effect helmets on motorcycles is supposed to have on genetics.

Originally posted by aefields:

Starting question: Is a law requiring helmet use for motorcyle riders neutral, eugenic, or dysgenic?I say it's dysgenic.

I say it's another law more to format people's behavior and an offense to individual freedom in the first place. And formatted people will raise their children at the same formatted way.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

But I see little to no evidence that we (humans, via scientific knowledge) have the slightest grasp on evolution — as a goal-directed system.

You'll have to find it via Transhumanism.

Originally posted by aefields:

Eugenic: controlling the population of genes for an improved gene pool.
Dysgenic: controlling the population of genes for a worse gene pool.

That depends to a great deal on how exactly you measure a given gene pool's 'goodness'.
About the nazi example - let's ignore the ethical problems for a minute - they were attempting to prevent inheritable diseases ( among many other things ) but also had a strong bias against diversity. How do you measure one against the other in order to put a + or a - in front of the number? And how do you factor the methods into the equation, if at all?
So, to paraphrase Johnny - I think it's quite a bit more complicated than that.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

You'll have to find it via Transhumanism.

That only illustrates my point, Belfrager… Hubristic sillyness.

Interesting item OakdaleFTL. The information on the Third Reich was an example worthy of mention. How about the old USSR or USA?

Originally posted by sgunhouse:

Better gene pool would really have to mean more diversity; as evidenced by medieval royalty lack of diversity tends to cause problems. While certain particular genes are potentially bad (hemophilia, for example) and removing those might improve the gene pool, it is also observed that a monoculture (everyone with similar genes) weakens any species. (Any purebred animal is more likely to get sick than a hybrid or mongrel.)

In overall terms I'd agree with Oakdale though - our limited knowledge is not sufficient to know what would constitute improving the gene pool, with certain obvious exceptions (hemophilia, again).

Yes, more diverse ends up being more resistant to diseases, parasites, and harsh environments too.

Me too. There are few genetic traits which are obviously detremental. And even among those, there is the possiblility of advantages which we might not notice. (for example: sicle-cell anemia giving resistance against malaria). That fact relates to the effectiveness of any genetic policy (regardless of whether that policy is dys- or eu- genic on the face of it).

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

...what effect helmets on motorcycles is supposed to have on genetics.

Only the simple one that death before reproduction has an effect on genetics. The example of wearing helmets has a small, tiny, miniscule input on genetics. The question of what traits lead one to prefer riding with or without helmets is kind of interesting. No?

Originally posted by aefields:

Only the simple one that death before reproduction has an effect on genetics. The example of wearing helmets has a small, tiny, miniscule input on genetics. The question of what traits lead one to prefer riding with or without helmets is kind of interesting. No?

One so small that we are unlikely ever to be able to track it. Any genetic component is likely to be completely dwarfed by developmental variation, as well as the effect that a tendency towards risk-taking would have on other, more prominent, parts of lives.