Breed Humans?

Breed Humans? [+ favourites]

As a geneology major, I've been wondering for some time why it's such an unpopular idea to breed humans.

Hitler may have wanted to do it, but just because someone with evil intentions wanted to do it, doesn't mean it's such a bad idea.

A colony in Indiana ,called "New Hope", established itself as a "make love, but let us do the children" colony. Anyone was allowed to make love to whomever they wanted to, but as long as they did everything in their power not to conceive a child. The colony "leaders" chose who would "breed" together, just as humans do it for horses and dogs, by their physical and genetic traits.

Of course, the colony fell through eventually, but it lasted a good 20 years.

Maybe I'm faltering into a "Brave New World" or falling under the society of "The Giver", but I would love not to have to worry about getting pregnant. I would love to have a child basically given to me. I would be sterile, and through careful searches, "breeders" could pick for me a "mate" which would provide the perfect match to my genes so no defects could come out and my child could be born perfectly healthy.

But the moral is now: Would we be playing God?

"\"Like maple syrup, Canada\' evil oozes.\"-<i>Canadian Bacon</i>"

That is scary. I think by breeding that way we remove an important ingredient in human reproduction, LOVE. And would you and the "mate" still raise the child in a traditional manner, mother and father - one household. There is the child's psychological well being to consider also aside from being free of defects. I think there would be benefits to such a "mating" but they would not outweigh the drawbacks. A potential choice between health and happiness.

"A wise man knows enough to know he knows nothing"

If someone was to "pick" a mate for me, it would be for the child, not for me. The child would be raised with a father, but it wouldn't be its "biological" father.
A problem could also fall into whether the man or woman would be allowed to choose whose genes they would like matched.
Reproduction between other mammals doesn't center around love and through years of culturing, we have established that we make children through a process of love. In time, we could remove that assumption. Just as in The Giver, there are "breeders" whose children are then given to couples that qualify.

"\"Like maple syrup, Canada\' evil oozes.\"-<i>Canadian Bacon</i>"

You keep reffering to "The Giver" jetplane, Is that some book?
Because if it is I'd think I'd be willing to read it.

"I'm afraid of the dark,and suspicious of the light"

If we were to allow things like this to happen I doubt it would be selective breeding that we would do. I think that we would choose Genetic Engineering seeing as how it would give a better offspring and you could really pick what kid you wanted.

Unless you like the idea of selective breeding because you can get that randomization.

"If the opposite of Pro is Con, then is the opposite of Progress, Congress?"

Human society is much more complex than a herd or a pack. A foal or a cub has only to learn how to forage or hunt and basic survival skills. A human has much more to learn. Humans are many times over more social than other mammals. The mother and father must exhibit genuine love for the child to learn it and recognize and express it in adulthood. It is not only the genes of a human that determine their disposition but also their environment. The gene pool is subject to natural selection. The environment we create for our children's development is more or less a matter of choice, both personal and collective, but a choice none the less. I believe that to focus on our breeding practices would be superflous if we don't first deal with the environment in which our children are raised. A perfect genetic specimen one may be, but depending on their environment of upbringing that person could become either a monster or a saint.

The component of Love is not an assumption. Love and compassion, I do not believe, are genetically inherint they are learned. So it is this I do not believe is adressed in this selective breeding scenario.

And as to this "giver" or shot caller so to speak. Who could you possibly trust with the responsibility of engineering the course of humanity. A government official? A "religious" leader of sorts? Could you trust anyone no matter what their qualifications or station? Hell I don't even trust my self to be sure of my decision for the mother of my child or how to raise it and I know myself better than I know anyone in the world. Try as we might, however subtle, all humans carry with them a certain amount of bias and prejudice I think and there is just to much danger in giving any human or human institution that decision to make for the rest of us. For example if we were to find a definite genetic coding that causes homosexuality do we breed that out? You may feel one way others may feel another. Who makes the call?

Diversity, we are learning, is essential to survival because it increases the potential for adaption. To attempt to homgenize the gene pool would be destructive. We could potentially breed in a perfect immune system resistant to all know illness, until a new illness shows up. In our current genetic state if smallpox were to re-emerge 2/3 of the population would die. Luckily the reaining 1/3 would survive to breed generations increasingly resistant to smallpox. Our gene pool is an extremly complicated thing and affects not only humanity but all life on earth. If we engineered all humans to be resistant to say the flu it would cause the flu to evolve to overcome our immunity which could create a germ that could wipe the entire population of say cows from the world. Who knows I just don't think we have the wisdom or understanding of humanity or world ecosystem for that matter to begin to edit a 3.8 billion year old system of evolution.

If the decision to find a genetically perfect mate were left as a personal one I couldn't presume to make that decision for anyone else. I however could not allow myself to be sterilized and have my "mate" determined by a third party. I don't presume to be right because I obviously lack a total understanding, its just opinion. But if such a breeding practice were to come about the decision to employ it must remain a personal one.

"A wise man knows enough to know he knows nothing"

Beautiful Comment equal only by its presentation!

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

How could you say humans are much more social than other animals? So many species of animal form themselves into tightknit herd, schools, packs, flocks, etc. I'd say we're about equal in socialization to other animals instead of being more.

And don't some animals also exhibit love for their children? And aren't there also animals who never even see their children?

You're also talking about environments and how that affects a child. If a child is raised without parents, society treats the child negatively. It's labeled an orphan. It doesn't have any parents to take to Father-Daughter Donuts day.

And who's saying children who would be created outside of a set family wouldn't be loved? What made you jump to the conclusion that not giving birth to your own children means they won't be loved? Aren't adopted children loved?

No one ever expects a child to become a saint. Perfect genetically is the key thing here. No one can breed perfect children, but we can make sure they are born without defects, sicknesses, etc.

As you also say, Love is learned. It's not inherent, so how could society not relearn itself about love?

Who would have the hands? Scientists run by the government. Could genetic breeding ever happen any other way? And about homosexuals, any rational human being could ordain that homosexuals have been around since, at least, the Roman Empire. How could we eliminate something that's been a part of our society for forever? And who could say we could eliminate it completely?

Also, the 1/3rd of the population who you said would live, wouldn't. Smallpox has mutated and the people who were vaccinated in 1979 have very little resistance to the changes in the virus since then. There's maybe 1/12 of the population who would survive, and they're mostly medical personal. Another thing, Smallpox resistance can't be passed on to children. We still have no surefire way of ever finding a cure or a real form of resistance to the virus.

The mother of your child is picked for you to ensure that your child is genetically perfect. They're not choosing your wife. They're choosing the mother of your child, and if society's opinions were changed, that wouldn't be such a big deal.

Anything could be considered normal if society changed its perception of that.

The Giver by Lois Lowry is something you should read if you haven't already. Most of a child's perceptions are programmed while developing in the womb through the first decade of their life through social interaction. Their parents are their first programmers. TV, friends. Think about it.

As programmable beings, anything is possible if given the right environment to support it.

"\"Like maple syrup, Canada\' evil oozes.\"-<i>Canadian Bacon</i>"

I say humans are much more social because... well for example I am comunicating with you, who is possibly hundreds or thousands of miles away, on multiple intellectual levels of philosophy, ethics, science, etc. Which at the same time, the entire communication is open to any number of people. The population domain of humanity does cover the entire world more or less. You know, 'six degrees of seperation' and all. By sheer function of our exponentially greater communication abilities, as compared to that of any other mammal, I say we are indeed social on a level which can almost not be compared to other mammal community structures. Communication is in fact a primary reason we are planning space flights to Mars while the most the sharpest animals our junior can grasp is using a sharp rock as a tool.

But yes, I suppose that depending on how one defines love one could say that animals do also exhibit love. I believe my dog loves me. However, I do not believe my dog loves me in anyway similar to the way I love my Mom. Dogs, I'm sure your aware, still exhibit the classic pack social order though more subtly than wolves and hyenas and such. I am the alpha male to him, he is the beta or perhaps the omega. Any wolf expert will tell you that if you have a male wolf as a pet you may have a fine relationship with him until a certain age but you had better be prepared to one day be challenged for the alpha position, which means a fight probably to the death. Dogs however are not as confrontational or dominancy driven with humans but that does not change the fact that my dog's attitude toward me is at least shaded by his pack hierarchy mentality. The reasons I love my Mom on the other hand are so many and so deep that to give any number of examples would still fall short of the idea of my love for her.

And I have jumped to no conclusion, I strive more than anything else to NEVER conclude (I refer you to my personal quote ). Honestly though I may have come off as certain that a child wouldn't be loved outside his biological family. I'm sorry, that was not hardly my intention. You're right, many adopted children I'm sure are loved, some however are not (I am personally aware of at least one). So I return to my 'lets first focus on the environment of the upbringing before we consider our breeding practices' argument. I'm just seeing here a dim picture of humans becoming like a commodity.

"Happy sixth birthday Johnny! I think its time to tell you I'm not your real Dad and this isn't your real Mom, the government matched us to you based on your genetic makeup and our ability to conform to government standards as parents. By the way here is a new microscope and a pair of running shoes because you've been bred to be a chemist who enjoys long distance running. Have a nice life."

Genetic perfection, free of defects and sickness (not sure what etc. entails though), is a wonderful goal but must we go about it in such an impersonal, clinical fashion. If freeing the gene pool of illness and defect is your goal though, I believe that is being worked on in the form of engineered viruses. Government controlled breeding I don't believe is a desirable solution to those problems. I also believe I have found where we fundamentally differ; my goal would be to raise saints and yours I'm assuming is to raise physically perfect humans.
And yes it is my assertion that love is learned, but what definition of love would your scenario illicit? Based on genetic validity? Possibly like basing it on one's bank account?

And scientists run by the government! Do you really trust your government that much? I don't. I would revolt if my government proposed to sterilize me and breed me as though I were a horse or a dog. I would declare war on my government were they to attempt such a thing and I don't think I would be alone. And don't get me wrong about homosexuals. I want to see them gain all the rights and acceptance of the majority heterosexuals, because who am I to judge? Accept to judge that they are humans like me. It has however been hypothesized that homosexuality is a genetic trait. And if it were proven to be genetic? Your government official, profound genetic knowledge he may posess, but if his ethics don't match yours, what then would you do?

Normal, incidentally, is a loaded term, it implies right but falsely. I'm not saying my veiw is right or your's is wrong. I have not read 'The Giver' (though I'm assuming its fiction) nor am I a genetics major. Normal is a highly subjective term though and in a way could explain many large scale disputes and even wars. Is it normal to have slaves or treat all men as equals? Is it normal to accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah or as a footnote in history? I am not hardly qualified to determine normal, only to voice my opinion.

Incedentally, I really do love our dialouge. I do sincerely hope you don't take anything I say personally because it is not meant that way. I can't say enough that my veiw is no more valid than anyone's. Who of us could really ever know anything for certain?

P.S I'm sure the death tolls of a small pox outbreak differ but the 33% survivability rate I quote is what Israeli intelligence officials qouted to the Prime Minister. To my knowledge it is presumed that smallpox has been obliterated save the samples held by the USA and Russia and it is that strain I think that estimation is based on.

"A wise man knows enough to know he knows nothing"

I think measuring an animals' sociability, I think, has little to do with /how/ it can socialize with other members of its species, because some may choose not to use those mediums.

Humans are obviously very social, but that doesn't mean they're /more/ social because they have /more/ mediums. Plus, who's to say we really know all the ways animals socialize? It's another thing we'll never have any idea about.

Note: Just because animals aren't playing with computers or building rocketships doesn't mean we are more intelligent than them. Ants, for example, have lived for millions more years than we have. They have had to be doing /something/ right to survive all those years.

Another thing, we're not talking about how animals socialize with humans, but within their own species. How do you know that a bear cub doesn't feel the same feelings of adoration and reverence that you feel towards your mother?

Groups of humans can also act as wolves. You'll have a just fine relationship with a certain individual, such as your child, but once they become a teenager, it's like a sudden brick wall is placed between you and it's a fight for control. Could be the same with wolves, but with less death. It's a fight for control and independence with each parties struggling to win.

My idea of a society would involve intensive tests that a family would have to go through in order to get a child. Our legal system involving orphaned children isn't quite so secure as the one I imagine to be. Many children are pushed off because they are too old, have grown up in violent situations. The children have been through a lot and it has scarred them. A child birthed and then given immediately to a family, that /wants/ it, wouldn't and doesn't in most cases experience the same kind of situations.

And if a society condoned this type of birthing and adopting, it would be so accepted that no one would have to say, "I'm not your father, and guess what? She's not your mother!" It wouldn't even be spoken up because there would be no parents that abandoned their child because they were knocked up. Pregnancy would be taken out of the hands of the people. All births would be planned. No abortion. No teenage mothers. I'm pro-choice, but I'd love to see a world where we wouldn't have to have abortion.

I mean, what if we could remove baldness? Remove diabetes or other hereditary illnesses from the genetic pool? Colorblindness? It'd be great to know that they simply could be slowly removed from the gene pool through selective breeding. And a scientist could never ensure a family's newborn child could ever be free of defects unless he or she monitored the birth from the very conception, ensuring the proper balance of dominant and recessive genes.

The government wouldn't "breed you like a horse or dog". You could have as many children as you wanted, but they would be /your/ children. You wouldn't be giving someone else a child you never saw unless that's how you wanted it to be. Unless you wanted to be matched as someone else's perfect genetic mate.

I don't trust any government, but who else could have the power to do that? Scientists controlling it would still have to be under the control of the government. If it affects the people, it affects the government.

Also, if one scientist wanted to remove homosexuality, he could ensure that parents who specifically wanted "straight" children, would have a straight child. What happened if a parent wanted a homosexual child? They couldn't remove the gene because that's only a matter of perfection when it comes to a person's perception. One scientist couldn't remove the gene from the gene pool. Only /all/ the scientists could choose to do so. They'd have to be regulated in some way, as well. Some type of committee that represented the people and what they would like removed from the gene pool.

A Congress for Selective Breeding.

And why would our diatribe affect me personally? This is science, not my looks or deeply held personal beliefs. And we're not attacking each other. We're doing just fine for having a good clean argument with each other. I thank you for it. I appreciate it.

"\"Like maple syrup, Canada\' evil oozes.\"-<i>Canadian Bacon</i>"

This sounds real familar, think I heard it before 'Super Race'. Government (scientist) could simply herd humans until they reached puberity then go though and harvest them for the gene pool and sort out inferior spicimens for organ donors & such for those who were chosen. Of course, none of us would probably be that perfect so why have us around . .
The other side of this might be those children with birth defects, mental or physical retarded, etc. What should we do about them? Should they be given the same rights as 'normal' human beings? Should they be allowed to exist to come into being? An autistic child would be a burden to parents,one might perceive as a bane on their existence another might see him as being more precious because of his need for their love.

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."
[  Edited by cturtle at   ]

"Breeding" humans really comes down to morality.

Would I feel right killing a child that was born to be mentally retarded because it would be a /burden/?

The same argument is made against cloning. If we could clone fetuses, then we could clone the stem cells able to create amazing medical advances.

But, what would we be doing by cloning humans who could think, walk, talk(if able to reach the proper age) just to kill them for their organs?

If I knew I was going to give birth to a child with a physical disability, a curved spine, or a club foot, could I still give birth to it if I knew the choice was there?

Every parent would like their child to be perfect, but should they have the choice to make sure it /will/ be?

"\"Like maple syrup, Canada\' evil oozes.\"-<i>Canadian Bacon</i>"

Breeding humans is unpopular because people simply want to have the children born of their chosen mate. They don't like the idea of taking care of child born of man they don't know, and they also don't like the idea of abandoning a child they gave birth to.

There is no real moral issue, and we don't really know if a child born of breeding will really be unhappy (the biggest problem with the child will probably be his pride and sense of superiority).

Anyway, it all comes down to willing people and people aren't.

"AIDS is God's way of sending Catholics to heaven."

No real moral issue, like I guess you might be right?
For myself it is not a theoritical issue.
And the decision maker of abondonment resides in the authority of the state, not in the family, to a greater extent than it should be!

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

The selective breeding of humans has occurred in many countries where they have a monarchy system in place. It didn’t work out so well for some (like the Russian Czars). I expect that by selectively breeding humans you would be depriving evolution from being able to fully mix the colors and textures that make the human so breathtaking, unique and adaptable. In my experience to put constrictions on the present is to limit future possibilities.

"To not discus is to not believe, to not listen shows ignorance, to the edges of Earthly knowledge is never too far when in persuit of truth."