[Bored chemist]

That doesn't seem to be the definition of eugenics expressed by eugenicists

No.
But it's what they actually do.

[evan_au]

...in a strictly Darwinian world.  People with naturally "strong" genes survive.  People with "weak" genes, die.  This is called "Natural Selection"

This is sometimes true.
- But sometimes it is totally random - one gene variant in the population does its protein/enzyme thing just as well as other gene variants. However, a new disease or pathogen attacks one variant aggressively, but doesn't lock into another variant as successfully
- So the gene frequency in the population changes when there is a change in the environment, or when new gene variants appear.
- It is better to talk in terms of genes that are better suited for a given environment, rather than "strong" or "weak" genes
- Sometimes new gene variants open up new ecological niches. So a gene that may be poorly suited to one environment may be better suited to a different environment.
-Eugenicists who think that one appearance or one gene variant is the "ideal" are obviously not considering the many different environments on this planet (let alone other planets, one day...)

In the end, we are a product of the interplay of many different genes.
- Humanity at present is letting most of these gene variants multiply, increasing our genetic diversity

Unfortunately, humanity is simultaneously slashing the range and population of most other species, reducing their genetic diversity and fitness to survive.

[charles1948]

Is the basic problem with eugenics this:

It would lead to a racial war between White people and non-White people.

[Colin2B]

...in a strictly Darwinian world.  People with naturally "strong" genes survive.  People with "weak" genes, die.  This is called "Natural Selection"

- It is better to talk in terms of genes that are better suited for a given environment, rather than "strong" or "weak" genes
- Sometimes new gene variants open up new ecological niches. So a gene that may be poorly suited to one environment may be better suited to a different environment.

Agreed @evan_au it is a common mistake to associate natural selection with the words strong and weak genes.
Classic example is the Peppered Moth where the light variety was replaced by a darker variety in response to industrial pollution changing the colour of its environment. Neither variety has genes which are stronger or weaker than the other, just that one is better camouflaged than the other in a particular environment.

[charles1948]

Is it really about "peppered moths"?

[alancalverd]

Is the basic problem with eugenics this:

It would lead to a racial war between White people and non-White people.

Which, to a visiting Martian,  would be slightly less bizarre than the political, religious or tribal wars that characterise human history.

[Colin2B]

Is it really about "peppered moths"?

Yes, it is. It’s an example of how eugenics misuses and misrepresents evolution. The terms strong and weak imply that the stronger (read better, fitter, more valued, etc) have a right to survive at the expense of the ‘weak’.
Usually it’s just a justification as to why their particular group should eliminate another group.
Change moth for people. Light skin, dark skin; each suited to survive in different environments, but light skin, fair hair, blue eyes, becomes idolised by a particular group (whose architects just happen to be members of that group) and then they can justify treating other groups as subhuman.
As @evan_au pointed out, it’s really diversity in the gene pool that is most likely to ensure species survival in a changing environment.

[charles1948]

I know you have to say that. 

[Colin2B]

I know you have to say that. 

That is a very immature response.
You asked a reasonable question and I gave a reasonable answer based on my own knowledge, understanding and beliefs.
Why do you feel the need to dis it with a trite remark?

[evan_au]

Some communities are engaging in voluntary eugenics today - and it appears to have been very successful in informing community members, and is achieving good community participation.
- The events that gave eugenics a bad name were mostly about one group doing eugenics on another community, without their informed consent.

The idea of traditional eugenics is to have a healthy phenotype, while being totally ignorant about the underlying genotype.

There are some communities where recessive genes can result in unexpected genetic diseases in children.
- Some of these communities have used modern genetic techniques to almost eliminate these genetic diseases.
- One such organization was started by someone who lost several children to a genetic disease.

See, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dor_Yeshorim

[Zer0]

OP - Why shouldn't we engage in eugenics?

Because...in comparison to LOVE, eugenics is simply futile.
Hence any " Pure Breed " per se, could be mixed and foiled in an instant.

P.S. - Luv at first sight is mostly considered a myth or fictional, Until Someone luks back at U & Smiles!
🙃

[Colin2B]

Some communities are engaging in voluntary eugenics today ............ There are some communities where recessive genes can result in unexpected genetic diseases in children.

I have some friends (not many) who have made a decision not to pass on their genes. This due to genetic disorders that have affected either themselves or close relatives.
They are not making the choice in order to improve the human race, but from a desire not to inflict suffering on their children.
However, you are right, this can be described as eugenics.

[alancalverd]

Genetic counselling is a serious business in the USA and a regulated profession in the UK.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

allowing for

So, not actually "doing" then.
That's OK as long as we have sorted out where you were wrong.

Would help if you actually read the Article

"Chinese scientists have successfully edited the genes of human embryos for the first time"

More trolling from the chemist. So they not only ARE they HAVE!

Nice we can all see where the troll is wrong

[charles1948]

I know you have to say that. 

That is a very immature response.
You asked a reasonable question and I gave a reasonable answer based on my own knowledge, understanding and beliefs.
Why do you feel the need to dis it with a trite remark?

It's because these days, no-one dares say what they really think.

[Colin2B]

I know you have to say that. 

That is a very immature response.
You asked a reasonable question and I gave a reasonable answer based on my own knowledge, understanding and beliefs.
Why do you feel the need to dis it with a trite remark?

It's because these days, no-one dares say what they really think.

I said exactly what I really think. So the question still stands!

[alancalverd]

The truth of Colin's remark is fairly obvious if you simply look at dogs. The species is remarkable for the plasticity of its genome but repetitive selection for particular traits produces animals that would have difficulty surviving outside of human society, whereas feral mutts tend to regress to the robust "ur-dog" after a few generations.

[Bored chemist]

Would help if you actually read the Article

I read this bit "Using non-viable embryos ".
The phrase "non viable" rather shows that it's not been done "successfully".

Could they?
Yes
Are they?
No.

So, once again.
If you know anyone who is actually doing this, let the authorities know.

[charles1948]

The truth of Colin's remark is fairly obvious if you simply look at dogs. The species is remarkable for the plasticity of its genome but repetitive selection for particular traits produces animals that would have difficulty surviving outside of human society, whereas feral mutts tend to regress to the robust "ur-dog" after a few generations.

It's ok to refer to dogs, and their "plasticity", which results in the innate physical and behavioural characteristics which we observe in the different "breeds" of the canine species.

[Osogovo]

Some people in the past and today really believe in eugenics. So why shouldnt everyone?

simple answer to this question would be Bioethics, knowing how little capitalism have the same as risk management mids own progress strive that will introduce quickly worst side effects and chimeras through genetic manipulation!

second more concerning answer would be super'human strive mids autocratic socialism where all that are unfit or disadvantaged would be deemed as excess in the society thus sent on forcible repatching or recycling!

third as behaviorist ancestor eugenics proved to be racist science i.e. aryanistic dream for racial purity and superiority!