Bah. Dor Yeshorim is merely a source of information. If people are not compelled to use their services, and more importantly not compelled to abide by their judgment, there is no ethical problem. This is like arguing against warning signs on a highway.
But I also draw a distinction between diseases like Tay-Sachs, which has no upside, and autism and Down syndrome, which do.
Agreed. We know enough about the dangers of inbreeding that we discourage it. This is akin to that. Because it is voluntary, I see no ethical issues here.
Also Iceland is perhaps 400k people; not that many downs syndrome to begin with, but inbreeding there is much more likely to occur.
I tend to agree. Though I'll note that eugenics originally began as "positive eugenics." Francis Galton wanted smart, successful people to marry one another. Only gradually did the movement turn toward "negative eugenics"--coercive. And, in the quote I cited, Rabbi Tendler noted that there are around 90 identifiable problem genes, and there is the risk of fomenting something parallel to hypochondria. I agree, too, on the distinction between something like Tay-Sachs and autism or Down. I have another piece in the works that notes the cognitive advantages of autism, dyslexia, and ADHD.
Looking forward to the next piece —-Interestingly, while an individual struggles in personal and social interactions/relationships (which carries its own set of struggle and anguish at times) I know several with high functioning autism who have intense concentration and who are brilliant
> Francis Galton wanted smart, successful people to marry one another. Only gradually did the movement turn toward "negative eugenics"--coercive.
That assertion seems a bit sus, to use the modern vernacular. You don't need a eugenics system to encourage smart, successful people to marry each other; all you need are elite colleges and other institutions that draw smart, successful people together and get them to interact socially and realize they have so much in common. Are you sure this isn't a claim made after the fact by an embarrassed person trying to whitewash their past? (I don't know anything about Francis Galton, so I'm not claiming that it *is* that, just that that's exactly what it sounds like.)
Attributed to F. Scott Fitzgerald: "Don't marry for money — go where the money is, then marry for love." ... Galton and his cronies thought those institutions were doing a good enough job. Galton is a complex case. He seems to have become alarmed by the later manifestations of eugenics (wholesale sterilization, etc.) But he certainly exhibited some of the truly unsavory bigotries of the Victorian Era. I'm writing a piece on Alexander Graham Bell, who was similarly appalled by some of the more radical directions eugenics was veering into--but who also had some awful blind spots. ... ... For more on Galton: https://graboyes.substack.com/p/the-briar-and-the-rose
Considering how long this subject has been debated - I probably can't do more than kick up old dust - but I can't resist.
Human eugenics was doomed from conception. You can predict with some certainty the environment an animal or plant will mature and live in. But I maintain that it is impossible to predict the environment a human will mature and live in.
Eugenics would, by definition, would mess with the diversity of our genes. But it's that diversity that gives each generation at least a fraction of people with the right features to mature and prosper.
I'm ignoring the cycle time and it's impact on the engineering cycle.
I agree with the anonymous records - I hope they never violate that premise.
I think our generation will be judged positively if we use genetics to avoid the obvious but not to play God and pretend we know what's best.
All excellent points. I worry about any academic endeavor that seeks to make the world tidier. At the same time eugenicists were trying to tidy up the human race, urban planner of the City Beautiful school decided that it would be better if people lived at one end of town and worked at the other end. As Jane Jacobs so eloquently argued, the result was long commute times, wasted space, sterility, crime. The messy, organically grown neighborhoods had great advantages over the tidy, clean visions of the urban planners.
We might make the case that genetics, left alone, mirror the Wisdom of the Crowd (multiple solutions, collected thru a noise filter and evaluated for the best. While Eugenics is an echo chamber. Well, probably not - the cycle time is too long to initiate a reliable feedback. Still, seems like something to ponder...
Bob, Excellent piece. Well written and thought provoking. I have long believe that when our technical capabilities as humans outstrip our ethical development trouble is brewing. Science without an absolute moral compass gives us eugenics, genetic manipulation, mandated novel vaccines, gender affirmation therapy, including surgery, in children, cloning, and designer babies. It also gives us nuclear and biological weapons and gain of function research in viruse. I can see both sides of the argument regarding Dor Yeshorim. As a Christian, I know that we live in a fallen world and that mankind is subject to all sorts of physical imperfections that arise from that. My personal stance against abortion is mitigated, in part, precisely because of diseases like Tay Sachs as well as genetic anomalies like severe holoprosencephaly and anencephaly. I know of women, however, who, knowing their infant would be stillborn or die soon after birth with horrible anomalies, still carried them to term, delivered them, and loved them until they died. There are, indeed, angels among us. On the other hand, who would dare to judge someone in that situation who chose to abort? I had friends who had a high risk pregnancy because of the mother's age. Offered amniocentesis to check for any genetic or congenital problems they refused because it would not have changed their intent to keep the baby, regardless. I believe these situations and decisions are best kept between the parents and their doctor. Putting out into the public realm with politics and legislation coming into play serves little purpose and, at its worst, gives us things like eugenics. Rick
Lovely comments, start to finish. Gentle understanding of a world of complex choices. I will be writing something on anencephaly soon. A mind-bending challenge to ethics and how a late friend of mine dealt with it when he was in a position of authority.
Bah. Dor Yeshorim is merely a source of information. If people are not compelled to use their services, and more importantly not compelled to abide by their judgment, there is no ethical problem. This is like arguing against warning signs on a highway.
But I also draw a distinction between diseases like Tay-Sachs, which has no upside, and autism and Down syndrome, which do.
Agreed. We know enough about the dangers of inbreeding that we discourage it. This is akin to that. Because it is voluntary, I see no ethical issues here.
Also Iceland is perhaps 400k people; not that many downs syndrome to begin with, but inbreeding there is much more likely to occur.
I tend to agree. Though I'll note that eugenics originally began as "positive eugenics." Francis Galton wanted smart, successful people to marry one another. Only gradually did the movement turn toward "negative eugenics"--coercive. And, in the quote I cited, Rabbi Tendler noted that there are around 90 identifiable problem genes, and there is the risk of fomenting something parallel to hypochondria. I agree, too, on the distinction between something like Tay-Sachs and autism or Down. I have another piece in the works that notes the cognitive advantages of autism, dyslexia, and ADHD.
Looking forward to the next piece —-Interestingly, while an individual struggles in personal and social interactions/relationships (which carries its own set of struggle and anguish at times) I know several with high functioning autism who have intense concentration and who are brilliant
> Francis Galton wanted smart, successful people to marry one another. Only gradually did the movement turn toward "negative eugenics"--coercive.
That assertion seems a bit sus, to use the modern vernacular. You don't need a eugenics system to encourage smart, successful people to marry each other; all you need are elite colleges and other institutions that draw smart, successful people together and get them to interact socially and realize they have so much in common. Are you sure this isn't a claim made after the fact by an embarrassed person trying to whitewash their past? (I don't know anything about Francis Galton, so I'm not claiming that it *is* that, just that that's exactly what it sounds like.)
Attributed to F. Scott Fitzgerald: "Don't marry for money — go where the money is, then marry for love." ... Galton and his cronies thought those institutions were doing a good enough job. Galton is a complex case. He seems to have become alarmed by the later manifestations of eugenics (wholesale sterilization, etc.) But he certainly exhibited some of the truly unsavory bigotries of the Victorian Era. I'm writing a piece on Alexander Graham Bell, who was similarly appalled by some of the more radical directions eugenics was veering into--but who also had some awful blind spots. ... ... For more on Galton: https://graboyes.substack.com/p/the-briar-and-the-rose
Considering how long this subject has been debated - I probably can't do more than kick up old dust - but I can't resist.
Human eugenics was doomed from conception. You can predict with some certainty the environment an animal or plant will mature and live in. But I maintain that it is impossible to predict the environment a human will mature and live in.
Eugenics would, by definition, would mess with the diversity of our genes. But it's that diversity that gives each generation at least a fraction of people with the right features to mature and prosper.
I'm ignoring the cycle time and it's impact on the engineering cycle.
I agree with the anonymous records - I hope they never violate that premise.
I think our generation will be judged positively if we use genetics to avoid the obvious but not to play God and pretend we know what's best.
All excellent points. I worry about any academic endeavor that seeks to make the world tidier. At the same time eugenicists were trying to tidy up the human race, urban planner of the City Beautiful school decided that it would be better if people lived at one end of town and worked at the other end. As Jane Jacobs so eloquently argued, the result was long commute times, wasted space, sterility, crime. The messy, organically grown neighborhoods had great advantages over the tidy, clean visions of the urban planners.
We might make the case that genetics, left alone, mirror the Wisdom of the Crowd (multiple solutions, collected thru a noise filter and evaluated for the best. While Eugenics is an echo chamber. Well, probably not - the cycle time is too long to initiate a reliable feedback. Still, seems like something to ponder...
I’ll ponder this deeply! Thanks.
Bob, Excellent piece. Well written and thought provoking. I have long believe that when our technical capabilities as humans outstrip our ethical development trouble is brewing. Science without an absolute moral compass gives us eugenics, genetic manipulation, mandated novel vaccines, gender affirmation therapy, including surgery, in children, cloning, and designer babies. It also gives us nuclear and biological weapons and gain of function research in viruse. I can see both sides of the argument regarding Dor Yeshorim. As a Christian, I know that we live in a fallen world and that mankind is subject to all sorts of physical imperfections that arise from that. My personal stance against abortion is mitigated, in part, precisely because of diseases like Tay Sachs as well as genetic anomalies like severe holoprosencephaly and anencephaly. I know of women, however, who, knowing their infant would be stillborn or die soon after birth with horrible anomalies, still carried them to term, delivered them, and loved them until they died. There are, indeed, angels among us. On the other hand, who would dare to judge someone in that situation who chose to abort? I had friends who had a high risk pregnancy because of the mother's age. Offered amniocentesis to check for any genetic or congenital problems they refused because it would not have changed their intent to keep the baby, regardless. I believe these situations and decisions are best kept between the parents and their doctor. Putting out into the public realm with politics and legislation coming into play serves little purpose and, at its worst, gives us things like eugenics. Rick
Lovely comments, start to finish. Gentle understanding of a world of complex choices. I will be writing something on anencephaly soon. A mind-bending challenge to ethics and how a late friend of mine dealt with it when he was in a position of authority.