Let's open up this can of worms on the Nexus, I'd love to see what comes out...

A science largely repressed since the Nazis took things darkside, the people who still believe in the eugenic dream renamed it transhumanism to avoid the negative connotations now attached to the word 'eugenics'.

But if eugenics were performed in a libertarian manner rather than an authoritarian one (alternative technology rather than conventional technology), could the world become a better place? Is there such a thing as ethical eugenics? I mean, just by selecting a mate to procreate with you are performing eugenics in your own little way...

Certainly! Nootropics and psychedelics can be taken under a transhumanistic context. Some may even consider these things as supplements--not unlike vitamins and other nutritional supplements. We naturally produce psychoactive compounds for our functionality as sentient beings, but as a materialistically wealthy species with a relatively high capacity for abstract thought, we are more able to explore the augmentation and accentuation of this functionality--even seek out new sorts of functionality.

The deliberation of mating and breeding is one of the most important facets of transhumanism. The degree to which this is merges with eugenics can vary, however. It's extremely difficult to sever the implementation of eugenics from authoritarianism without the precursor of a Utopian society. At the same time, one's tendency to mate with the most physically, mentally, socially, and culturally adequate partner--rather than completely ignoring these values (as many certainly do) or undermining them by coupling with the least adequate partner--indicates a certain sense of eugenics with a transhumanist tone. Birth control is another excellent example of this, as, again, many fail to even consider this simple sort of deliberation.

Without some degree of eugenics or transhumanist thought, people simply make all their choices out of ignorance and leave everything to chance and primal urges. Whether one subscribes to the idea of eugenics or transhumanism, one may find that they engage in these practices more than they think, so why not embrace it?

^^I think this brings up a very big ethical question. I think its wrong to kill an unborn child simply because it doesn't have the right DNA. Or what other people think is the right DNA. I am not against abortion in all situations but if DNA sequencing of unborn children becomes easier which its becoming easier and easier all the time when does it stop? Who gets to make the calls? Society? No way. The parents? Maybe but what if parents decide they wanted a boy with brown hair instead of one who will have black hair. Thats an absurd reason to abort a very very small embryo but whose to say whats right and whats wrong in this situation.

We breed with each other and thats fine. But how far are people willing to take something like this? It can easily venture into dangerous waters.

OOO this is my 666th post wooooah creepy

For now I don't think the 'designer babies' problem is too big... for now... I think a woman can only have so many abortions until she becomes sterile? It would have to be done in a lab, and in that way the species could be actually making itself genetically 'weaker', like commercial crops rather than wild ones, by losing our genetic hardiness- once we rely on labs to procreate, as one would expect to become increasingly common with genetic traits for infertility surviving due to IVF treatment. There is an immense tension between evolution and libertarianism that I don't believe has yet been resolved.
But yes, designer babies is one danger among many that has to be determined at some point. Genetic engineering is another potential danger zone. What others are there, and how can they be utilised or guarded against? We have to deal with these issues, because the technology is either already here or coming soon to enable rapid change.

I'm still open to transhumanism, I see enormous potential as well as terrible dangers...

^^Yeah I didn't mean genetic engineering of babies because that is still a long way down the road. But I meant like if someone knows their fetus has a chance of having lets say cystic fibrosis. I don't think its right to abort that child. One because it may never develop the disease. And two give it a fighting chance. So it that sense I am against this kind of practice. Very much so.

You are right that lack of genetic diversity is a huge evolutionary disadvantage. I am a bit curious what you guys mean by transhuman though. Like what humans will evolve into?

My opinion:

Eugenics is bollocks. It only relies on the fact that some people think they know what is better or worse. And this idea pests humans all the time, in all of the subjects, not only when deciding which traits are "good" and which traits are "bad"

Eugenics can certainly bring some good aspects, for instant the continuing eugenics the crop plants are subjected to since the advent of agriculture has given us crop varieties with favourable characteristics such as richer and bigger seeds (more nutritional value) and shorter, thicker and more "elastic" stems (so that they can endure strong winds)

During the course of the eugenics crops have been subjected to, many "unfavourable" traits have certainly been lost or reduced to the minimum. But genes are nasty little things, as a matter of fact they can do so many things and we are still totally unaware of the "total" function of many of the genes.

So to speak, the same gene that may confer small seed in wheat (and therefore we feel the need to select against it) can very well be the very same gene that is used in another pathway to confer resistance to certain pathogens. So, what in essence one may be doing by deciding which is bad or good, is to eliminate genes from a population whose function may prove very useful in certain cases. The case of our modern crops being susceptible to a wide variety of pests (from insects to fungi to viruses) has to do in part with the selective debilitation of their genomes from seemingly unwanted but in reality pretty useful traits.

Let's bring that to humans: One of the well known examples is the case of sickle-cell anaemia. Sickle cell anaemia is a genetic trait and one may suppose that selective breeding may eliminate this gene. Nothing bad so far, who really wants to be anaemic?

But in African regions, there are plenty of people with sickle-cell anaemia. As a matter of fact, sickle-like red blood cells are much less likely to be infected from malaria parasites. So, if you have sickle cell anaemia you are more likely to survive a good life if challenged with malaria bugs. The sickle cell gene is not that bad after all!

Similarly, one does not really want either for himself or the other some genetic condition that affects the brain and makes you retard. But it only takes some clever virus (and this is a totally hypothetical scenario!) who can infect the "healthy" brains but not the carriers of this x, y, z genetic disease to eliminate all those idiots who thought themselves more clever in the first place.

Just saw that!

It is my position as a scientist that science the way it is practised today tends to create a science-junky society. That is, science is recruited to solve some problem, however the "scientifically" proposed solution tends to create more problems in the long way which again science is called upon to provide yet another somewhat inappropriate solution and so forth...

Even though my primary subject of research is female reproductive science and investigation of infertility causes, I always disagree with the development of assisted reproduction techniques for fighting infertility.

My thesis is that genes that confer infertility have a beneficial role at the societal level; infertile women have been those women who, (since prehistorical times) have had the role of adopting and taking care of the children of fertile women who for whatever reason (e.g. economical situations or even death) could not stand up to their maternal requirements.

And this is without taking into account how many women (or men) are infertile solely due to environmental factors, from stress to pollution and beyond. But this fits more to the science-junky society hypothesis.

Really interesting stuff man. Nice point.



I often see it as a misuse of science. Scientists just do the work. But sometimes marketing or societal wants utilize scientific knowledge for stupid purposes. Like SWIM was reading the other day how they want to put health promoting compounds from wine into beer. Now fine for the genetic engineering skills just to practice thats fine. But to actually start marketing beer that will have some flavonoids from wine it is totally stupid and pointless and may lead to some weird risks unforseen.

Also kind of like how genetic engineering is being used to bolster certain crops defenses. While in principle this can work it needs to incorporate many other ideas to make it work properly. Lest instead of the pesticide treadmill there will be a gene treadmill of insect resistance. Instead work on utilizing more sensible agricultural practices and when some chemical or gene can help then incorporate it into the system.

The problem is society always wants a quick fix and science can often come up with some quick fixes but unless its properly thought through and viewed in the big picture it can be bound for failure. Sorry getting off topic but I see what your saying Inf.

Well transhumanism could be considered somewhat of an ethos and generally wouldn't be all that supportive of "designer" breeding. And quite honestly, it's generally not all that easy or safe for a woman to have an abortion, so I really wouldn't worry about that. That's not to say that the ease of the process couldn't improve with technology, but this is something that the culture needs adapt to ahead of time; for example, our society needs to become more open to and knowledgeable about contraceptive measures. At the moment, however, if someone is really willing able to use abortion as they would any form of birth-control on a regular basis, maybe this type of person shouldn't be breeding anyway.

Also, consider pregnancies that are known to have some sort of disorder such as downs: The parents go ahead and "choose life," and they go through with the birth. Now they've got a child that can never amount to anything more than a fast-food employee, and who they will eventually leave in a home for the mentally disabled until they die the early death that's in-store for them. That's about the height of irresponsibility. What about rape? What about incest? Even something as simple as being completely incapable or unwilling to be a decent parent should qualify abortion. There's too many lives going nowhere, simply because of a lack of proper family planning. There are more adoptive children than the world can cope with already. Certainly there are exceptions, but why should a society bank on exceptions?

Certainly science should not be solely responsible for devising the answers to our problems. Most these choices need to be made on the individual level, but science must be able to facilitate these choices. For the larger problems, we need to be able to adapt our culture well enough to devise sustainable solutions, but again, science must be able to facilitate the decision-making process and the implementation of these solutions.



Transhumanism amounts firstly to self-enhancement. Large-scale human enhancement would generally stem from this individual enhancement. Eventually, this may have an evolutionary impact, but with humans, we can see a sort of personal evolution occur within a lifetime, and would say that transhumanism is primarily concerned with this.

Well, in the cases of rape or incest, there are the emergency contraception pills that can be used up to 3 days post coitum or intrauterine devices (like Progestasert) that are effective for stopping the pregnancy even 5-6 days post coitum. Women in western societies should be well aware of those strategies. Usually you do not wait 3-4 months post rape for your belly to inflate and think, "Interesting, so I got pregnant after all!"

As far as Down syndrome is concerned, it is again a societal issue to learn and make use of their abilities. As a matter of fact I am hardly aware if anyone have looked whether people who may commonly be regarded as "useless" have any "special abilities". I am not talking about any extreme sci-fi- abilities, but things like being good at arts (e.g. drawing), being more expressive ( e.g. as actors) more proficient in micromanipulating objects) singing etc.

So, if mutants are regarded as pestering entities in the society who is to decide that it's their "inability's" fault or the society's yet immature attitude?

Don't underestimate the power of psychological defence mechanisms like denial. A raped woman is in shock. She may just block out such worries and hope she doesn't get pregnant. I know a few girls who have confided in me or my close friends about daterape and none of them went to the police (makes me so angry but I hold my tongue!). Instead they got into the shower immediately and washed away the evidence because they couldn't stand to smell their attacker on them for another second. *On the off-chance that any would-be-rapists happen upon this page, don't get any ideas because some do go straight to the authorities, and others tell their friends who may then arrange for a little 'accident' to befall you.* Being able to get an abortion when you've come to your senses is of paramount importance. In abuse cases, a child or battered woman may not feel able to just totter off to to the chemists.

I'm pro-choice whatever, a woman's body is hers and only hers to with as she wishes. The correlation between the availability of abortion and falling crime rates (got that from Freakonomics) should I hope convince any of you who are sitting on the fence. A reluctant mother is not a good mother (generally). An embryo has few more rights than an amoeba, unless you have a human-centric warped view of the world. Otherwise we should be taking a trip to the sperm bank every single day to ensure that every single sperm makes another human life, so that in 50 years we'll all be dead due to gross overpopulation.

Good point. I have no objection to the disabled, not being a Nazi and all. For me a woman should have the choice of aborting the child though, whle the child is still not 'self-aware' (let's not get too into what this means or it'll take over the whole thread!).

In the UK heroin addicts churn out 4 or more babies in rapid succession and neglect them, leaving them irreparably scarred from the womb and irreparably scarred developmentally. A child who does not have anyone pulling faces at them while they're developing in their first year or so does not develop their brain properly and develops attachment disorder, which is more socially debilitating than it sounds,among other problems. These children are generally then surrendered into care, and these are the damaged children that others adopt. Most children up for adoption either have junky parents or are disabled. Many of them are seriously messed up.

Of course I am glad they are alive and that some have been adopted, and I don't think they have less of a right to be alive now they are alive however low their intelligence and health may be, but I'm talking about the future here. I do think voluntary reversible sterilisation would be a good thing. Drug addicts would be paid to be sterilised (but just a reversible one whe you can have it reversed in future if you kick the habit, not permanent sterilisation). They get to choose between getting high or having kids. Of course I'm only talking about severe drug abuse, people so messed up they'd actually consider getting sterilised just for some quick cash. I've heard that schemes like this already exist, but the permanancy of the sterilisation seems a little authoritarian to me.

In effect these voluntary sterilisations could be compared to contraception that you don't have to put on each time. They might decide to have children once they were clean and able to look after them properly. I agree that it doesn't sound libertarian, but in formulating practical utopia we have to deal with limits... limits as to our population size, limits as to stopping the abuse of unborn children such that they are damaged for life. I care more about the innocent children than the people who have made the choice to be drug addicts (because, whereas they like to see themselves as victims, in actuality it was their choice to start using the drugs). Yes drug users are oppressed by our society, and i believe that they should be free to take drugs... but not at the expense of their children. "If it harms none, do what you like" is my sacred rule... you are free, but you are not free to impinge upon someone else's freedom (i.e. harm your children).

Is this an acceptable 'libertarian' form of eugenics?

Not necessarily in the US, my friend. Sex education has plenty of opponents. Many schools teach abstinence only, which is of course so incredibly useful when one is raped! Even if a proper sex-education system were mandatory, it's doubtful that most would learn a whole hell of a lot more in that class than they do in their other classes. Education is still a bloody battleground over here.



Certainly you have a point, but economic stress and social aversion toward the genetically deficient or mentally disabled isn't quite my concern. I'm at least utilitarian enough to recognize this as an excellent point.

However, my concern is human dignity--that of the disabled individual. Society can't afford to treat them as well as they should be treated, and they are largely incapable of improving their own quality of life. I've seen enough of the way that people of this sort inevitably end up living to know that no human-being should be made to live like that. Better to have never been born.



You beat me to it! I've known plenty of strong feminists who have worked in abortion clinics and abuse shelters--even those who have suffered the pain of abortion. None of it is any matter to get tangled up in petty morality. Women need every opportunity available to recognize and rectify these dilemmas in the interest of themselves and their child, and sometimes it is in child's best interest to never be born.

Yea thats sad but true. Its totally absurd also. Its another reason I can't stand religion trying to interfere with public education. Private education whatever teach your kids whatever you want but public education no f*cking way.



I can see with serious handicaps why a mother would want to make that choice. But what about a child who has a chance, only a chance, of getting some genetic disease like cystic fibrosis? SWIM had a friend who had that condition and he most likely will die much earlier then us (accidents aside) and required drugs to be alive. But he was a human and had a life he was my friend, things would be different if he was never born. Where does society or not even society as its not really societies choice its the parents choice, where do they draw the line? I guess its really up to them but wow thats a hard decision!

I hear and agree with what you're saying. I'm glad your friend is alive and enjoying life too. Ultimately though, it's a mother's choice. She may have decided to abort him due to a small chance that he would develop this disease (and he would've been none the wiser), and my own mother might have, given the technology, decided to abort me due to a prediliction for depression (and I would've been none the wiser either, being a mere gamete at the time). The kind of mother who wouldn't want such a child, shouldn't be having one anyway.

What right do I have to exist over the million of other sperm that I somehow managed to beat to the egg (many of whom I would have beaten by chance). I don't see myself as being any more special than all the other possibilities that were swimming along with me. If my mother could have chosen, and chose one of these others over me, I wouldn't be here to be sad about it so I wouldn't be hurt by the rejection. Maybe I'm the bad one, maybe some other sperm was nearly there but I shouldered him out the way- a foul!- to get there first! Why is it any more wrong for a mother to choose which sperm to develop into a child, than to make the little fellas race to the death?