[blue_cristal (OP)]

I found an interesting article about eugenics:

http://alexdracon.blogspot.com/2011/08/eugenics-throwing-out-baby-with-baths.html [nofollow]

What do you think about the ideas expressed in this article?

[CliffordK]

There certainly is natural selection both ways, male and female choosing mates they find attractive.

Eugenics, however, is far more complex.

For example, the easiest way to extend the lifespan of human offspring might be through a breeding program. 

Consider methods to amplify the offspring of families with members living over 100 years.  Yet, doing so would certainly  bring controversy with it.  Doing so would also involve limiting those with shorter lifespans (in their parents, grandparents, and great grandparents) from reproducing.

Moses might have actually lived 1000 years.  As humans, so much of our life cycle is about quick reproduction, and short generation times (and thus short lives).

One thing that I've also discovered is that many people have different skills, and there are multiple aspects of intelligence.  What aspects of intelligence should be selected for?

And, when does life begin?

With prenatal testing, there is now the ability to identify and abort fetuses with genetic abnormalities.  While doing so can protect both the parents and children from a potential painful upbringing, it means that certain classes of individuals may never get born, and thus never have the ability to contribute to society.

[blue_cristal (OP)]

With prenatal testing, there is now the ability to identify and abort fetuses with genetic abnormalities.  While doing so can protect both the parents and children from a potential painful upbringing, it means that certain classes of individuals may never get born, and thus never have the ability to contribute to society.

Already many people are not born because of miscarriages.

Contribution to society cannot happen at expenses of prolonged personal misery and pain. Furthermore, most crippled people cannot contribute much to society. On the contrary, they usually are a heavy and sad burden to it.

[PhysBang]

Yeah, eugenics as most people imagine it is pretty much impossible from a biological point of view. It's too difficult to isolate the genetic component of desirable traits and it tends to eliminate traits that could be useful against future diseases.

But what eugenicists really want is to control society and determine who is fit to have power and who isn't. Case in point: "Furthermore, most crippled people cannot contribute much to society. On the contrary, they usually are a heavy and sad burden to it."

[CliffordK]

The simplest form of eugenics is the pushing for the use of sperm & egg banks... 

Scientists, Centenarians, Artists, etc.  What about just a good mechanic?  How many lawyers does it take to change a spark plug?

Then actively pursuing prenatal diagnosis and....   
Perhaps it would be as simple as doing a genetic risk assessment.  For example, one may choose not to pass on the sickle cell trait.

Handicaps are complicated.  Often the individuals both contribute, and are a burden. 

Back to sickle cell (or cystic fibrosis and many other genetic diseases), eventually we may be able to eliminate the traits.  Some of the mutations may actually have a role in disease prevention, but....  with our hubris, perhaps we can ignore that.  Certainly I would be tempted to "fix" minor errors if that was a possibility.

Anyway, we are now getting more and more technology that would allow even low-tech methods of improving the human race.  However, the "rabbit method" seems to be far easier.