For the past 20,000 years human brains have shrunk

[Darth Wong]

Wong, the history of an idea is part of the evidence for whether it's a good idea or not. If something fails every time it's tried, or is used as a cover for injustice every time it's tried, then no kidding people should invoke the history when someone wants to try it again.

The history of this idea doesn't just extend to the Nazis; all they did was take it and crank the dial up to eleven. Much of the developed world practiced involuntary sterilizations of people deemed 'defective.' And there's a huge track record of people being irreparably hurt- robbed of the ability to have children- on bad evidence, on the whims of unjust people, on the grounds of ridiculous ideas about which conditions were hereditary; you had people being sterilized for conditions that were not genetic, or that had huge nature/nurture issues wrapped up in them. You had people being sterilized for conditions like Down's Syndrome that cause infertility in the first place, which gives you an idea of just how shitty the de facto standard of reasoning and basic human decency that went into some of those sterilization decisions was. It went far beyond what the science of the time could possibly have justified, assuming science would justify it, which I do not concede.

It was a bad idea then, it's a bad idea now, it would still be a bad idea if Hitler had never lived, it's just that Hitler's the poster child for how bad an idea it is. You're not going to find any bunch of magically perfect people who can be trusted to decide which people should or shouldn't be sterilized "for the good of the race." Even assuming that anyone has the right to make that decision for another person, which is a really shaky claim all by itself, and which you definitely haven't convinced me of.

And I think I'm not out of line in saying that this is disturbing as hell, along with the fact that I think forcible sterilization of people deemed defective is a horrible idea, both morally and practically.

Let's look at your logic. It basically breaks down to this: "if an idea has been repeatedly done badly in the past, then it is a bad idea even in principle."

By this logic, since law enforcement and military power both have an incredibly long and consistent history of abuse by states and churches and warlords, they're just plain bad ideas.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Let's look at your logic. It basically breaks down to this: "if an idea has been repeatedly done badly in the past, then it is a bad idea even in principle."

There is a difference between something being a bad idea in principle, and a bad idea in policy.

If you were to use a dispassionate AI programmed to consistently balance a strong post-anlightenment theory of justice and a utilitarian calculation to make the decisions, and then had completely faithful enforcement, you might be able to make a compelling argument that eugenics is a good idea.

In reality, what is and is not deemed acceptable variation will be done by people. People with political agendas, and reflexive group-based rivalries. People who we know from experience will ignore or spin data which is inconvenient to their agenda or partisan rivalry. People who are all too likely to begin viewing the sterilized as sub-human. People who will--like what happened with the now meaningless term "terrorist"--will define the term "sociopath" so broadly that the term will become meaningless as soon as it becomes politically convenient.

That is not a slippery slope. It is how the human mind works.

By this logic, since law enforcement and military power both have an incredibly long and consistent history of abuse by states and churches and warlords, they're just plain bad ideas.

No, but particular care is required when using both, and the cost of not having either is worse than the potential for fuck ups. The utility of eugenics simply does not justify the risk.

[Simon_Jester]

No, that is not my logic.

My logic is:

1) It has been done badly before, repeatedly. Indeed, every damn time. A dozen or more nations tried it, and in any one of them it is a dark chapter in their history.

2) Nothing obvious has changed to explain how we make it work this time. This is the important part. We know how military power can be used well, or abused, we can try to construct a military that will not commit abuses and we have examples of it being done right. We have no examples of forced sterilization of defectives being done 'right.'

3) Even if it had never been tried before, I would still maintain that it's a bad idea, for ethical reasons. For one, who has the right to decide which people are permitted to breed for the good of the race? When did your reproductive glands become someone else's property?

4) For another, how do you decide which undesirable traits are genetic, or genetic enough and not socialization-caused enough, to merit sterilization? Do you bear in mind that certain traits might actually be an advantage for the individual, or the species, if conditions for humanity change down the road? Or do you just try to optimize everyone's genes for right now, while not worrying about the future?

So no, my logic does not "basically break down to" "it's a bad idea in principle because it's failed before." "It's failed before" is only one of many reasons I think forced sterilization of defectives is a bad idea.

Alyrium's point, that it might work if you had a perfectly benevolent god-machine to run everything, is interesting... but honestly, Mike, you didn't specify that as one of your starting assumptions, so I don't think I should be expected to assume you meant for there to be one. You were talking about why we don't sterilize people we deem defective, and for that, "human nature" strikes me as a pretty good answer.

[Shroom Man 777]

Are these negative psycho traits even genetic? And if they are, won't advancements in science mean that it's more constructive to, say, genetically engineer people to be cooler and less dickish than to exterminate or sterilize uncool dick people? At least, an abuse of the genetics-based social control mechanism will result in an overabundance of genetically en-niced people, which is less horrible than the result of an abuse of the gun-based social control mechanism that will result in an overabundance of people deaded by gun.

[Simon_Jester]

Are these negative psycho traits even genetic?

I do not know. I doubt it is known with any confidence.

And if they are, won't advancements in science mean that it's more constructive to, say, genetically engineer people to be cooler and less dickish than to exterminate or sterilize uncool dick people? At least, an abuse of the genetics-based social control mechanism will result in an overabundance of genetically en-niced people, which is less horrible than the result of an abuse of the gun-based social control mechanism that will result in an overabundance of people deaded by gun.

I agree. This is a better option.

[His Divine Shadow]

This also begs the question of whether our modern humanitarian society, by being so reluctant to use execution or forced sterilization upon even the most heinous of criminals, is inadvertently encouraging the cancer-like growth of sociopathic behaviour in our population. If sociopathic behaviour is a genetic trait (and there is increasingly disturbing evidence that it is), then it would make sense to try to eliminate its growth in our gene pool.

What evidence is there to show that there has even been a "cancer-like growth of sociopathic behaviour in our population" or indeed any growth at all?

Edit: I guess this could be a simple misreading of your post on my part, I originally read it as a claim that we're having a growth of sociopathic behaviour, was that your intent? Or are you instead posing the hypothesis that this could happen due to the humanitarian nature of modern society?

Regardless, it's funny then that ideas and opinions that many today would infact call sociopathic would be a mechanism to curtail such behaviour.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Are these negative psycho traits even genetic?

For the most part, yes. Many traits (such as sociopathy) are linked to specific changes in brain physiology that have genetic links. However, there is an environmental/sociological component to the relative strength and presentation of these traits.

[Simon_Jester]

There's also a social component to how effective they are.

"I have a genetic defect that makes me un-empathic" doesn't guarantee that I'll have more kids. It might mean I'm a successful businessman with three gold-digging mistresses and a small pack of bastard children; it might mean that I'm a weird whiny sociopathic fuckwit that no one wants to spend a moment with if they can avoid it. That will depend on how I'm socialized and how much raw ability I have in other areas of my life.

Which undermines any idea that the gene might become significantly more common because we 'breed for it:' it can be a competitive disadvantage as easily as an advantage.

[Channel72]

1) It has been done badly before, repeatedly. Indeed, every damn time. A dozen or more nations tried it, and in any one of them it is a dark chapter in their history.

2) Nothing obvious has changed to explain how we make it work this time. This is the important part. We know how military power can be used well, or abused, we can try to construct a military that will not commit abuses and we have examples of it being done right. We have no examples of forced sterilization of defectives being done 'right.'

3) Even if it had never been tried before, I would still maintain that it's a bad idea, for ethical reasons. For one, who has the right to decide which people are permitted to breed for the good of the race? When did your reproductive glands become someone else's property?

4) For another, how do you decide which undesirable traits are genetic, or genetic enough and not socialization-caused enough, to merit sterilization? Do you bear in mind that certain traits might actually be an advantage for the individual, or the species, if conditions for humanity change down the road? Or do you just try to optimize everyone's genes for right now, while not worrying about the future?

With the exception of objection (3), all of your objections are implementation problems, not problems with the idea of forced sterilization itself. So, would you allow, for the sake of argument, that IF we had a 100% scientifically accurate way to genetically identify a human being as a sociopath (using a clinical definition of "sociopath"), that it would be beneficial to prohibit this individual from having children?

[AniThyng]

With the exception of objection (3), all of your objections are implementation problems, not problems with the idea of forced sterilization itself. So, would you allow, for the sake of argument, that IF we had a 100% scientifically accurate way to genetically identify a human being as a sociopath (using a clinical definition of "sociopath"), that it would be beneficial to prohibit this individual from having children?

First things first, how many % of people are we looking at here?

Second, aside from preventing them from having (and presumably adopting as well) children, how much shall we preemptively monitor this person? Are we going to profile them and try to implement proactive arrest before they commit hypothetical acts of socialpathy they are predisposed to?

[Simon_Jester]

With the exception of objection (3), all of your objections are implementation problems, not problems with the idea of forced sterilization itself. So, would you allow, for the sake of argument, that IF we had a 100% scientifically accurate way to genetically identify a human being as a sociopath (using a clinical definition of "sociopath"), that it would be beneficial to prohibit this individual from having children?

No.

Because, for one, (3) stands. For another, you haven't convinced me that sociopathic personalities need to be wiped out from the face of the earth- is this really important enough to justify what you're talking about? And on top of both of those, I'm not convinced of your basic premise.

I find the idea that we can push a button and go "yep, this guy's a sociopath" for some definition of sociopath that would have to be WAY more accurate than the vague, semi-meaningful insult version used on the Internet... well, I find it very improbable, to the point where I don't have much respect for the argument.

[Junghalli]

Wouldn't a huge growth in the number of sociopaths after removing a negative selection pressure only be likely to happen if sociopathy was being actively promoted by natural selection? How likely is that?

[Johonebesus]

Isn't it possible that sociopathy or other undesirable mental conditions are not caused by a single gene but by a certain combination of genes, genes that might be beneficial in slightly different combinations? As with Sickle Cell Anemia, having people with different combinations of sociopathic genes might make for a stronger population, even if they occasionally have to deal with someone who gets all the genes lined up in the wrong way.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Isn't it possible that sociopathy or other undesirable mental conditions are not caused by a single gene but by a certain combination of genes, genes that might be beneficial in slightly different combinations? As with Sickle Cell Anemia, having people with different combinations of sociopathic genes might make for a stronger population, even if they occasionally have to deal with someone who gets all the genes lined up in the wrong way.

This. Right here. There is no single Sociopath gene. That would be so easy to detect that it buggers the imagination. Additionally, every single gene that contributes to it has effects elsewhere. So if you start selecting against it, you start selecting against every single allele in those combinations that can create a sociopath. So more than likely, you WILL do more harm than good.

That is not an implementation problem. That is a "laws of nature do not agree with you" problem.

[PainRack]

(sigh) this is why it's impossible to have a rational conversation about this. You can't even point out that it would be a good idea in principle, without everyone invoking the history and saying OMIGOD YOU'RE THE NEXT HITLER.

My argument against it would be to ask the question, is there evidence that sociopathy is an on/off position, as opposed to being expressed across a spectrum?

If the answer is spectrum, then the difficulties involved in actually controlling this would echo the eugenics program of years gone by.

And of course ignores that sociopathic expression itself MIGHT be useful in certain areas or situation, even if we ignore the fact that its going to be linked to other aspects of mental ability and capacity or genetic expression.

[Ziggy Stardust]

My argument against it would be to ask the question, is there evidence that sociopathy is an on/off position, as opposed to being expressed across a spectrum?

If the answer is spectrum, then the difficulties involved in actually controlling this would echo the eugenics program of years gone by.

And of course ignores that sociopathic expression itself MIGHT be useful in certain areas or situation, even if we ignore the fact that its going to be linked to other aspects of mental ability and capacity or genetic expression.

It is a spectrum, and (as Alyrium pointed out) it is the result of a large number of alleles expressing themselves in just the right "combination," so to speak (lazy language, here, but I've had a long day).

Now, since this is straying out of my field I don't know for sure, but I believe that a major sign of sociopathy has to do with the relative concentrations or irregularities in the action of testosterone, serotonin, and cortisol, all of which are used and useful in a wide variety of mental functions (among others).


Or, if you believe this website, which quite astonishingly is one of the first Google hits for a search of "sociopathy genetics," ...

Psychopaths who are most intelligent and powerful tend to use lesser ones to do their bidding.

This forms a web of control, a negative hierarchy of manipulation that spans from elite globalist cabals down to the neighborhood delinquent or psychopathic spouse. This is not to suggest that the global elite are directly commanding local psychopaths, but rather that there exists a hidden element unifying this hierarchy.

This hidden element originates beyond our realm and consists of advanced non-human psychopaths of an alien or demonic nature who use hyperdimensional technology or telepathic influence to direct all lesser psychopaths, most easily nonsouled ones who lack freewill and are thus freely controlled.

This hyperdimensional control system may be appropriately termed the “Matrix,” and the lesser psychopaths may be called “Matrix Agents” due to the similarity between their functions and the themes depicted in the movie.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Or, if you believe this website, which quite astonishingly is one of the first Google hits for a search of "sociopathy genetics," ...

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur... I dont even need a reason to reject that shit.

Now, since this is straying out of my field I don't know for sure, but I believe that a major sign of sociopathy has to do with the relative concentrations or irregularities in the action of testosterone, serotonin, and cortisol, all of which are used and useful in a wide variety of mental functions (among others).

The parts of the amygdala dealing with responses to pain and distress in others have reduced volume and reduced activity compared to neurologically typical individuals. Reduction in pre-frontal grey matter is found in violent sociopaths, but not non-violent ones. This pattern is consistent with someone who is subjected to stress and violence in childhood, which leads to long-term increases in corticosterone, which has the effect of causing developmental atrophy in the pre-frontal cortex. In other words: Sociopaths who are raised well dont become violent... those who are raised poorly, often do.