The Instigator
tarkovsky
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Nur-Ab-Sal
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

That a begnign form of eugenics would be beneficial to humanity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
tarkovsky
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,611 times Debate No: 21339
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

tarkovsky

Pro

Hello and welcome. This debate will have for its topic whether or not a benign form of eugenics is an avenue of benefit for humanity in its current state of affairs.

Our resolution will be as follows:
That a benign form of eugenics is beneficial to humanity in its current state of affairs.

My job as pro will be to uphold this resolution; to demonstrate that, in fact, it is the case.
Con will have to show that, on the whole, a benign form of eugenics is not beneficial to humanity in its current state of affairs.

Terms

Here, a benign form of eugenics, specifically, refers to a hypothetical statute(s) which will regulate who is allowed, in any given population, to have children. No prescriptions or mandates will be given which force any individuals to selectively breed with another with the aim of producing any filial generations with favorable genetic traits.

Any further inquiries on the nature of this form of eugenics can be discussed within the debate. However, it is noteworthy to point out that the overall aim of this eugenic practice will be to disinter and eradicate any undesirable genetic traits/disorders, as opposed to increase the frequency of any favorable genetic traits in the population. Moreover, that certain individuals, demonstrably unfit for caring for any child, should be prevented from coming into any position where it is required of them.

Beneficial here can be define as favorable or advantageous; resulting in good.

current state of affairs can refer to any state of affairs that can be factually linked to man and the historical window of approximately one hundred to two hundred years from today. However, man's ecological state of affairs (globally) will be of primary interest for Pro's case.

I thank everyone for having an interest, and I'd especially like to thank my opponent for taking the time to discuss this very interesting topic with me. I look forward to a stimulating debate.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

I accept this debate and agree to my opponent's definitions.
Debate Round No. 1
tarkovsky

Pro

I’d like, once again, to state my appreciation for Nur-Ab-Sal and his interest in this debate.

The Issues
(In order of descending significance with related statistics)

As a caveat, I don’t plan on making any argument from statistical analysis, as the interactions between any of the proceeding figures and a eugenics program will be purely conjectural. So rather, these figures are only to emphasize the urgency with which these issues must be addressed.

1. Genetic Disorder/Disease: The issue with the most obvious capacity to benefit from any form of eugenics. (All related statistics here are from U.S. populations).

50% of all diagnoses of mental retardation have a genetic basis. (Emory and Rimoin, 1990)
15% of all cancers have an inherited susceptibility (Schneider, 1994)
10% of chronic diseases in the adult population have a significant genetic component (Weatherall DJ. 1985)
12% of all hospital admissions are for genetic causes (Emery AEH. 1990.)
16% of GDP in ‘07 was spent on health care costs.*




2. Genetic Fitness - Not presently an issue, however, per se, an overall benefit of a eugenics program.

No related statistics



Medicalized Eugenics

I’d like to state, in the first place, there shouldn't be a great emphasis on delineating the policies of any eugenics program. Pro’s case rests on whether or not a eugenics program will be beneficial, which can easily be demonstrated without going into great detail about logistics. After all, the argument presupposes the proper functioning of said program. Therefore, a few points will be made about a hypothetical eugenics program.

Rather, my aim here is to demonstrate that this hypothetical eugenics practice will, in fact, be a medical practice, as revealed by the following precepts:

1. The eugenics program will in no way dictate or designate which of the selected persons are allowed to breed with each other. In this way, natural selection shall be allowed to continue as usual.

2. The eugenics program will not function to increase frequencies of any specific desired allele(s)/gene(s) in the corresponding population.

3. The eugenics program will aim to reduce and/or eliminate the frequency of exceptionally and indisputably harmful genetic material.

As a consequence, any person capable of passing any genetic material that could/will lead to any form of extremely debilitating and/or chronic condition(s) or early mortality, to as close as the nth filial generation (Fn), will deem the carrier unfit for breeding. Determination of a carrier will rely on the contemporaneous genetic sequencing techniques and technologies.

In effect, this medicalizes eugenics, as it is nothing more than a form of treatment (by prevention) for genetic illnesses.

The Benefits

1. Genetic Diseases/Disorders - That this issue will be the most directly affected by the institution of a eugenics program is undeniably true. Theoretically speaking, the degree to which it is affected would be directly proportional to the efficacy of the eugenics program treating this issue. Nonetheless, it is the job of Pro’s case to demonstrate that it is effective, not how effective it is. That the reduction of the propagation of deleterious genetic material is beneficial will, here, be understood prima facie (unless any future contentions about this assertion should arise). I’ll state this differently to emphasize this point; That deleterious genetic material is harmful, and that reducing the frequency of this material is the same as reducing the frequency of harm done, and that reducing the frequency of any harm done is beneficial. Moreover, that these issues relate to the human body and its ills means that the eugenic practice of regulating those ills will be reduced to a medical practice (like a glorified form of genetic counseling: http://en.wikipedia.org...).

A benign form of eugenics will seek out the whereabouts of any deleterious genetic material and arrest it’s propagation. In so doing, all affected progeny will benefit from inheriting only those genes which will not result in any unfortunate and debilitating conditions. Moreover, that reproduction is a shared characteristic of the human species (and of all species for that matter), the regulation of human reproduction will, in turn, relate the eugenics program to not just the individual man, but to all of man. Therefore, any benefits of a medicalized eugenics program will be related not just to the individual man, but to all of man: to humanity. Thus, a benign form of eugenics will be beneficial to humanity.



2. Genetic Fitness - As a consequence of reducing the frequency of deleterious genetic material, the average level of genetic fitness of filial generations will increase. “Fitness” itself already describes a favorable state, as being “too fit” , like “not fit enough”, is just a form of being unfit. Moreover, in biological terms, the term “fit” refers to the capacity for an individual organism to survive, therefore, the greater the fitness, the greater the capacity for that individual to survive and reproduce. That those surviving will benefit from their own survival is apparent. Additionally, an organism’s level of genetic fitness doesn’t only refer to it’s ability to survive and reproduce, but rather, the probabilities of success those genes will have during interactions with the environment. For humans, this would be proportional to any form of success he/she could enjoy; forms of social success, personal happiness etc.

This is not to say that any form of success is guaranteed, only more likely to occur.

Conclusions

That humanity can benefit from a fitter gene pool should be easy enough to understand. A non-oppressive and benevolent eugenic practice with strictly medical aims, viz., to remedy genetic ills, has been proposed by the preceding case. And so, in this very fact, it becomes a medical practice. As a corollary, I proffer a new term, removed of any political vinculum; an orthoeugenic practice. Orthoeugenics will, as it might imply, be beneficial to humanity in the same way as the whole of medical disciplines are; orthodontics, orthopedics, paediatrics, etc. In transforming eugenics into a medical practice with medical aims, it does, by that very fact, become beneficial to humanity, as all medical practices are by their very nature designed to help people.

Thus,the force of Pro’s case can be demonstrated by the simplification of the statement that a benign form of eugenics, which has been demonstrated to be a medical practice, would be beneficial to humanity. This can then be reduced to: a medical form of eugenics, orthoeugenics, would be beneficial to humanity.

The truth of this statement can be verified by comparing it to some similar statement such as: a medical form of bone reparation, orthopedics, would be beneficial to humanity.

Citations

"Prevalence of Genetic Conditions / Birth Defects." University of Kansas Medical Center. Web. 23 Feb. 2012. .






Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

Nur-Ab-Sal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
tarkovsky

Pro

As you'll see from the comments section of this debate, Nur-Ab-Sal will, unfortunately, no longer be participating in the debate. The reasons for the aforementioned forfeit do not deal with scheduling conflicts and so, in consequence, I urge voters to vote Pro.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

Nur-Ab-Sal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
tarkovsky

Pro

Vote Pro.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

Nur-Ab-Sal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

Nur-Ab-Sal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by tarkovsky 5 years ago
tarkovsky
Though I do appreciate the vote, I would like to point out that I feel I deserved the vote for better sources as in round two I did have a source for my statistics that I think should be considered reliable. Anyway thanks for voting!
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
If there is a way to cancel the debate, you can even do that, or you can just let me forfeit. I'm not sure if you can cancel because I've never created a debate.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
You too.
Posted by tarkovsky 5 years ago
tarkovsky
I'm sorry to hear that and I accept your apology. Look forward to seeing you around the site.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
It would be best if you try it with someone else. I don't have enough interest in the topic to continue. I should not have accepeted and sincerely apologise.
Posted by tarkovsky 5 years ago
tarkovsky
If there is any problem with a time constraint I'd be more than willing to hold my arguments until you're scheduled isn't as strict.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
I'm sorry, I'm going to forfeit and let you win this.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
It's fine.
Posted by tarkovsky 5 years ago
tarkovsky
I'd like to apologize for the misspelling in the title. My mistake!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
tarkovskyNur-Ab-SalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Though I disagree strongly with the resolution, it is an obvious win for Pro due to forfeit.
Vote Placed by Xerge 5 years ago
Xerge
tarkovskyNur-Ab-SalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit...