From a strict biological point of view, what are the risks of eugenics?
Dawkins has said that eugenics - even if morally unacettable - would work on humans, as it happens with animal selective breeding.
It is often said that eugenics would reduce genetic biodiversity, with potential risks for the humankind, especially in the case of sudden enviromental changes (such as the appearance of a new virus) and that the selection of advantageous genes is dangerous, because we don't know all their medical and biological implications.
From a technical point of view (without any moral consideration) what are the biological counterargumentations to eugenic practices like genetic engineering and embryo selection?
- JazSincLv 71 month ago
Selective breeding of humans has generally led to inbreeding depression -- genetic diseases becoming prevalent within the select group that are uncommon in the general population.
- ZirpLv 71 month ago
Well, for starters we can't have a woman have dozens of children.
Look at what eugenics have done to dogs: the emphasis on certain visible features has caused a hip-displasia-epidemic among german shepherds. Other races have skulls too small for their brain, pelvises that are so narrow that b1tches would die if they tried to give birth, or eyesockets so shallow that the eye can fall out.
> counterargumentations to eugenic practices like genetic engineering and embryo selection?
Well those require IVF, which means you subject a woman to a horrible hormone-treatment, and eliminate the competition between spermcells. If a guy's sperms cannot swim, he may pass on this trait to his son or grandchildren
- 1 month ago
The risks are unattended effects from gene manipulation. All these brilliant scientists believe our DNA is mostly junk even though they haven't a clue what purpose it serves.