Take a look at the DNA Interactive site. Under “Chronicle,” there is section called “Eugenics Today,” where you can watch a woman discuss how she coped with a doctor telling her not to have children because she has manic depression (bipolar illness). Under “Applications,” you can see how genetics can be applied to treat diseases, and what they say about the difference between body cells and germ cells (sperm and eggs).

There is also, as you mentioned, a strong component of classicism and racism in eugenics. The U.S. Immigration Laws were originally passed to keep “undesirables” from co-mingling in the American gene pool.

If you’re coming from a standpoint of wanting to rid the world of disease by selective breeding, it’s still a crapshoot. They are on the verge of being able to treat many diseases with genetics, but you can’t make a designer baby. And you’re right, Phire, it’s frightening to be pregnant and worry if your baby will be healthy. Doctors can only test for certain conditions in the womb, and they do leave it up to the parents to decide whether or not to continue the pregnancy or abort (such as in Down’s Syndrome). I guess that’s a form of eugenics, and I feel for people faced with that decision. The best thing to do, if you ever decide you want children, is to undergo genetic counseling and take your folic acid.

I don’t believe there’s ever any ethical reason to try and breed humans for certain traits, or to exclude others. Would you rid the world of Stephen Hawking or Itzhak Perlman?

First of all, one of my own personal concerns about childbearing is disability. I’m not entirely certain I am capable of loving a child who is disabled as much as I would love a healthy, clever and overall well behaved child. I don’t like this aspect of my personality, but I would rather not have children than have a child and not give it the love that it deserves. (Not that I’m too fond of the idea of childbearing to begin with, mind you, but then again I’m only 18 so that may change) Same concept on a lesser scale goes for male (I think I’d love a girl more, as horrible as that is) and boisterous/athletic/vain as opposed to quiet/bookworm/etc. As you can see, I am clearly cut out to be the mother of unconditional love you read about in fairytales.

So if Eugenics enabled the screening of birth defects, things like Down Syndrome and Trisomy 18, then yeah, I’m all for it. As elitist and horrible as that is.

From a social standpoint, though, this would create yet another rift between the Haves and Have-Nots. I don’t imagine it would be a particularly cheap process, and like the concept of ‘outsourcing’ surrogacy that was discussed in MeFi about a week ago, it brings up the unpleasant image of children being goods to be traded and selected; the rich can afford to avoid the pain and have the cream of the crop, if you will, while the poorer throw their lot to nature and genetics’ many whims.

I would also say that this type of selective screening should be limited to a purely… non-vanity-related criteria? E.g. Beauty would not be an acceptable criteria for screening, but a congenital heart defect would. I guess my qualms are about criteria that deal with survival as opposed to superiority, however the latter is defined.

I don’t quite agree with whir’s ideas that society would have a harder time treating all citizens as equal. All citizens are not treated equally, despite what we might wish for, and post-birth, the genetically engineered baby (what an ugly phrase) would be treated the same way anyone else born with an abundance of talents and gifts would. I fail to see why what is done before birth to the child needs to matter to the child post-birth. Would it be playground boasting? “I was genetically engineered, therefore I am better and you must bow down to me?”

If we’re talking in the basic, biological sense, I would say that undesirable traits would be Disease-ridden, cancer, genetic obesity, ugly (or visually undesirable traits to the culture born into), weak, unusable limbs, mentally unstable, deaf/mute, etc. I don’t mean that in any way to actually mean those traits are actually undesirable, but in a purely biological and evolutionary way, they are.

I guess the argument for eugenics comes from the premise that, acknowledged or not, we mess with natural selection. In “nature,” those traits I listed above tend to get selected against as, typically (not always), the strongest survive, particularly over time.

And I think whir points our why eugenics would be particularly hard to implement into modern life better than I could. It would take admitting that traits “x, y, and z” are not desirable in a public fashion, would be suicide to any attempt to “weed out” undesirable traits.
Also, Eugenics doesn’t have anything to do with personal validation of living. First and foremost, it has to do with a genetic predisposition for certain traits.
OK, that’s enough rambling.

Please define “desirable traits” in a manner that everyone can agree on.

Kind to whir.

But seriously, apart from your difficulties in defining desirable traits, your system is going to need to need to grapple with how it’s possible to treat all citizens equally, while still ascribing a higher value to some of them (those with desirable traits, however that definition shakes out). You will also need to consider that once you set up this hierarchy of genomic value, your citizens will be endowed with a social ranking that has exactly nothing to do with their personal actions and the informed choices that they have made in life.

I guess what I’m getting at is that I don’t see a way to come up with a morally acceptable system of eugenics, given a moral system that values treating all citizens equally regardless of their lineage.

Don’t we do this already, albeit unconsciously? It’s mate selection. And we’re pretty good at it!

More seriously though, I think part of the difficulty of this question lies in defining what is a “desirable trait”. And thereby also defining what is undesirable. Enter morality and its subjectively ugly head.