EA Forums

Very much in the news this past week was the publication in "Science" of the results of a long-term (since 1972) genetic study done in New Zealand. A major finding was that a single rare gene could account for nearly half of all criminally violent and anti-social behavior. Not ALL carriers of the gene became violent or anti-social; that seemed to occur primarily if they were themselves exposed to violence as children, which caused MOST of them to become violent or anti-social. Only a quarter of carriers who were not exposed to violence as children became violent offenders themselves as adults. Non-carriers of the gene were unlikely to become violent offenders regardless of childhood experiences - though their vast majority in the society still makes them responsible for about half.

The various "experts" and talking heads emphasized the cultural and behavioral triggers to adult violence and down-played the genetic component as far less relevant. That ONLY 85% of those males with the relevant gene and who experienced violence in their own childhood became violent was taken as evidence that we should emphasize the environmental component, rather than the genetic.

On the other hand, eliminating this relatively rare gene from the population could possibly eliminate nearly half of all violent crime. Admittedly, it is impossible to eliminate any gene completely (because of new mutations), but its frequency could be dramatically reduced in only a generation or two.

The gene for low monoamine oxidase-A production (low MAO-A) is "X-linked," which means that males carry only one copy, inherited from their mothers, and females carry two copies, one from each parent. The gene is "recessive" in that females require BOTH of their copies to be the low MAO-A version for it to have any effect in producing violent behavior.

This gives a solid reason other than "testosterone poisoning" for the much higher level of violence among males.

The ethical question is, "What should we, as a society, do about this knowledge?" Richard Lynn, in his book "Eugenics: A Reassessment" (London: Praeger, 2001), notes that western democracies are very reluctant to embrace anything that hints of eugenic planning, but that some countries, such as China, have no qualms about implementing its ideas. He argues that within the near future China is likely to implement plans to increase the national I.Q. through well-known eugenic means and may work toward other eugenic goals as well. Polls show a very large majority of the Chinese medical establishment in favor of it. As high as 100% support for some eugenic measures (pp. 294-95). Support in the U.S. was the second lowest of all the countries surveyed - only Canada was lower, with some proposals for genetic counseling receiving only a 9% favorable response. If other countries successfully implement eugenic strategies and we do not, in a world where human capital is important we might quickly get left behind.

Preventing or limiting the reproduction of those people who are carriers of the low MAO-A gene could dramatically cut the incidence of violent crime and anti-social behavior in a single generation.

The quickest and most efficient way to reduce violence would be to permanently sterilize ALL carriers of the gene. Males with the gene pass it on to ALL of their daughters. Females with the gene pass it on to half of their sons (who are then prone to violence) and half of their daughters, who then pass it on to half of the next generation. Females who receive the gene from both their mothers and their fathers are prone to violence and pass the gene to ALL of their children.

Sterilization could be vasectomy and tubal ligation stopping reproduction without other effects. Since we know well from animal analogues that testosterone is ALSO a factor in male violence, and these are already violence-prone males if they are carriers of the gene, should all of the male carriers be castrated at an early age? This would stop the passing on of the gene AND should reduce violent behavior in the existing population.

Here we go again! Ethics as a combat sport! Have at it, but try to be logical and flame no one.

Jesus, your friendly Archive spear-catcher

This has already been tried, it lasted several decades, and the US was the LEADER of this "genetics cleansing" movement. It was called eugenics. GIRLS and BOYS (prepubertal as well as pubertal) as well as men and women were castrated or vasectomized, at the whim of state doctors. Many orphanages used this proceedure on girls and boys in order to keep them from producing more "burdens of society", as just being in an orphanage was considered a defect to begin with. It was also used to curb sexual activities in the children in those orphanages, especially homosexual acts among boys. Vasectomy was used more often, but full castration was used for cases of violence (like criminals) and homosexuality (even in minors). It did not work, obviously, yet it continued in some places in the US until the 70s, however it's height was in the 20s and 30s.

It did bring one world changing result though. It was the basis and foundation for which the Nazis created their final solution upon. So in a strong way the US was a major cause of the Nazi movement, based upon US eugenics and the idea of sterlizing the world of the "scum of the earth". It was a bad idea then, it still is today.

And if not for those "defects" of society we would not have had inventors like Thomas Edison, geniouses like Albert Einstein, or artists like Walt Disney, because according to all the ideals of eugenics they were all flawed and should never have been born.

Tom

Disney and Einstein would not have been killed or sterilized or whatever because of eugenic principles but because of the Nazis' warped view of them. Things like this are why 'eugenic' is a naughty word in America; most people don't really know what the movement was about and assume that the Nazis were doing it right, which they weren't.

Ethically speaking, sterilizing someone because they carry a gene you don't care for is wrong in my book, whether a criminal or not - with those violent tendencies comes passion and the will to incite change. Removing those tendencies completely would likely lead to a very complacent and stagnant culture.

Now, voluntary participation in a eugenics program is something that I could wholeheartedly support - I would be more than happy to be matched up with a suitable donor to try and pass on my more desirable genes. There are all manner of reward mechanisms that could be put into place there; from straight cash to tax breaks or whatever. Personally, I would like to see a private company start matching donors that way.

I'm trying to think here. If I remember correctly, the eugenics philosophy derived from the 'social darwinism' of the late Eighteenth Century. It is from that idea, coupled with nationalism, that the Nazis got their ideas from. Just don't quote me on this one. This is hardly my area of expertise. The Nazis applied the idea that if they either removed the undesireables, or at least prevented them from reproducing, their society could return to some mythical glorified past. We're all familiar with the Nazi "clensing" of Jews from Germany, but they also "cleansed" the country of gays, Catholics, elderly, and a couple dozen other groups. The Jews were but the largest group. I've always thought that the Nazi philosophical underpinnings were nothing more than a restatement of stuff that comes out every so often- and is still coming out today.

Now, the question today, apart from the eugenics, is along the lines of genetic tampering. Personally, I think I'm frightened to think about what someone would do with that kind of tech, and without the morals not to use it. Why stop at just this rare criminal behaviour gene? Why not remove all color from the world? One quick snip of a gene and there would be nothing but white folks in the world. We could go further and create a whole world of blonde haired, blue eyed, athletic super-people to populate the world, and all we'd have to do is a simple snip in the gene pool.

I guess the point of this little gripe is that humanity is constanty sticking its finger in the light socket and turning on the switch. And they never think that they may get electricuted. There are times when I feel that humanities knowledge far exceeds its capacity to use that knowledge wisely.

You DO like to get things going, don't you?

JesusA wrote: Mon Aug 05, 2002 4:53 am The quickest and most efficient way to reduce violence would be to permanently sterilize ALL carriers of the gene.

Let's look at it this way...

First of all, doing something like this in America would face a challenge in the courts.

It has been the legal tradition recently to uphold the rights of the handicapped in the United States. Since this genetic problem that you are describing would be construed to be a handicap, such an action as you describe would be illegal.

I would imagine that the 4th and 14th Ammendments to the U. S. Constitution, along with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and finally, the Americans with Disabilities Act would prohibit what you are proposing regardless of the moral arguements pro or con.

This is not to mention case law that is on the books that I do not have the time or energy to look up.

Also, it seems that recently Congress has passed legislation which Bill Clinton signed into law prohibiting such discrimination based on genetic testing.

Any group attempting this would probably just end up getting another large group of people on SSI disability. Then the afflicted people would all stay at home and make more babies because it would mean that they could get more money, thus actually increasing the presence of the gene in the gene pool. You all better leave this alone before you make things worse than they are already.

Hell, man, the Insurance Companies can't even do this shit legally and they have tons and tons of money.

Y'all see, it is not 1913 or whatever, and the question of moral debate is moot because this is illegal in the United States!

Besides that, we need these genetically violent people to man our professional wrestling ranks, professional sports ranks and special armed forces just to mention a few.

Just let the other countries "neuter" their armies in this manner and then see what happens. A violent streak is really handy when you are charging an enemy in a hand to hand combat situation.

Besides that, this gene is bound to be found to a greater percentage in the population of the USA. Just look at out fighting traditions. We reek of it, form the wild, wild west right down to the present day. You see it everywhere.

There are probably a few "cutters" lurking on this site that carry the gene.

Jesus, man, you are just all wet on this one.

WHAT??!! WHAT WAS THAT?...!!!!

HEY!..... WATCH IT, THERE BUDDY!..... I HEARD THAT!

Don't make me leave Indiana to come there and pay you a visit...

:shot191:

A-1

Just kidding man, just kidding...

OK, keep in mind that I deal with the public every day. I've also wondered this since I was a kid and watching Jerry Lewis on Labor Day about MD in kids.

The public is stupid, period.

True, there is an outcry about genetic tampering and man playing God. But as I wondered then, when they announced a test for MD, why dont' people get the test first and prevent the kid from being born? I still think that way.

I am ALL for genetic testing. If two people both test for the MD gene, such as a derivative gene that a married friends couple of mine carry, then DON'T conceive a baby! They carry the gene for a severe, horrible variant of an MD-like disorder. The first thing HE did was have HER tested. She is negative, therefore it was safe on THAT disorder; they could safely have boys. She knew this before marriage, and they were in agreement on it.

And if science is 100% sure of a genetic disorder, then I see nothing wrong with trying to fix the problem.

As for eugenics, well, I work with the public every day. The public, it seems, grows dumber each passing day. Sad, but true. I'm sorry, and people are going to scream, but I am all for eugenics. SOMETHING has GOT to be done before we breed ourselves into total idiocy. There is NO excuse for a woman with an IQ of 55 or 60 having a herd of kids for my tax money to support.

Sterilize all the below C average students? If they flunk that test at age 18, damn right, sterilize 'em. Maybe even administer the test earlier in life, like at maybe ... KINDERGARTEN?!?! Let's only talk vasectomy though, or tubals ... no castrations, as we're talking on the other thread in The Cellar. Well, mabye that's a bit much, but it makes sense.

The idiots breed like rats, people.

There are Welfare pros in this town that know it, too. When I worked at the gas station in town on 3rd shift, as a teenager, I sort of 'took in' a very messed up boy of about 8 or 9 who would wander out at night and come to see me. He was inbred ... and it was sad. I hate to say it, but this boy should have been sterilized. I would lock up, hang up the BRB sign, and take him home with a treat. His granny was just as messed up, BUT she could cook. He has 3 kids now, all of them 'idiots' and on the same welfare stipend as the household. Of course, it keeps social workers in a job, so it's not all bad, right?

Now, I can't speak to the ends of Nazi-ism and what went on the USA in the past. Maybe some people did mean well with it, but as with the link I posted some time ago, http://www.dakoniko.com/sterilarticle.jpg is the image and the text is on the Story Archive at http://www.eunuch.org/Alpha/A/ea_215954article_.htm , it got out of hand. Therein lies the problem.

WHO administers it? Who makes the rules? I don't know, but we need to figure it out, and soon.

There's no perfect solution to this problem, but eugenics could work, IF and only IF the people in charge of it weren't all out monsters. Of course, arent' we playing God again then? I dont' think so. True, it got out of control in the past.

As Jesus mentioned, being an orphan was your only crime that qualified you for sterilization, and being a boy was even worse.

But looking back at what that boy I knew at my old night job went through, it makes me all the more a firm believe in it, if there were just some good way to administer it.

A-1's comment:

A-1 (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 05, 2002 1:14 pm Y'all see, it is not 1913 or whatever, and the question of moral debate is moot because this is illegal in the United States!

Careful, bud, you might start that whole "America is at the center of the universe" thing again... Seriously, though, I utterly disagree with that point. Laws rarely have anything to do with intelligent ethics in this country.

You're totally correct about these supposed rights of handicapped people - this entire deal where you can't execute retarded persons seems completely backward to me; what does it matter how smart somebody is if they're going around killing people? Yet again, laws make it easier for stupid people to breed...

Anyway, getting back on topic, eugenice didn't really come out of social darwinism but many people who were down with s.d. liked eugenics just fine. Let's think about an ideal world for a second, where people act in a reasonably intelligent fashion and are willing to sacrifice their reproductive ability to improve the overall health of the species: choosing not to breed, or allowing oneself to be sterilized if one possesses generally bad genes is in itself a good thing. Where the Nazis went wrong was assuming that Aryan physical features are the ideal, instead of more objective criteria.

Assuming your breeding criteria are generally smarter (like attempting to breed out genetic disease and/or selecting for desireable traits, like resistance to illness, athletic or artistic ability, or general intelligence) then it's difficult for anyone to make a serious logical argument against it. Again, this is assuming it's a voluntary program (I won't bother restating what I said in my last post).

Personally, there is no way in hell I'd trust my (or any) gubment to decide who gets to breed and who doesn't; somehow I doubt they would really be attempting to improve the species so much as make it more docile.

Finally, the thing that most people don't seem to get is that most everybody who's reproducing practices eugenics to some degree - barring psychosis or weird fetishes, humans are instinctually attracted to persons of apparently good genetic background. As a species, we find people with highly symmetrical bodies to be more attractive than those who are not - asymmetry in humans is usually caused by genetic weirdness, disease, or massive injury. Our genes have already programmed us to select mates based on criteria that have been bred into us.

I don't think any widespread eugenics program will take off in the US anytime soon, but living in Kentucky sometimes makes me wish one would.

Zoroaster (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 05, 2002 1:27 pm Careful, bud, you might start that whole "America is at the center of the universe" thing again...

Well,...ahem....how about the humans rights issue at the United Nations?

It seems like they give countries sanctions if they violate human rights, don't they?

...but I guess that the United Nations is not the center of the universe either...

Since the light coming from EVERY star has a red shift I can say that this PROVES that we are at the center of the universe, since everything seems to be moving AWAY from us?

Of course, one might also make the arguement that everything is moving away from us because life on the Earth STINKS so badly...



A-1

Slow down there, good buddy...

The public is stupid, period.

The same laws that allows us to be different, to have different sexual preferences and diversity also protects the handicapped.

This is what education and ethics is about. Informed consent is a rule in our society these days. You cannot go tearing down what has been built up to protect all of us.

If we start to deny rights to groups or individuals we have started down the road that ultimately ends at Aldolph Hitler's "FINAL SOLUTION"

Genocide is not pretty.

A-1

I think the inherint mistake here is assuming that if we were to start down that road that we would know when and where to stop too. Society, as a whole, US or not, has proven that it cannot be trusted with such a thing, anymore than you could trust a drunk to stop at one beer or a drug addict to stop at one hit. I guess we, as a society, are like kids, and still need to grow up before daddy hands us the big guns. We have to learn responsibility and tolerance FIRST, before we get something that dangerous, and not the other way around. I would no more put my trust in ANY government to properly use genetics than I would trust a 5 year old with the nuclear button.

Another thing to realize too is that we do not live in a vaccum. There are bad people out there, yes, but does this justify removing ALL people with a "similar" gene? What about the ones who learned NOT to be bad? What about the GOOD that came even from bad people? No one is truly 100 percent evil, and no gene would 100 percent doom someone to becoming a bad person either. There is where the final mistake is really made, because humans and society is just not that simple, and life is not so black and white.

As I read this thread I also keep getting reminded, over and over again, to the movie Gattica. If you have not seen it maybe you should.

Tom

I'm actually reminded of one of my favourite quotes. "A person is smart, people are dumb, panicy, and stupid and you know it," from Men in Black. So, I do agree with anyb0dy. I do not believe that we can control such an idea and limit it to just those people that society deems as being mentaly deficient. Remeber, for nearly a hundred and fifty years the unofficial American position on Blacks was that they were mentally deficient. There are also a number of historians who have, controversially, pointed out that Nazis did not start out as monsters but became monsters. I it very frightening to know that there really was a human side to Hitler. And Zoroaster, thank you for the correction. As I said, I'm a little fuzzy on some of the particulars of the early Twentieth Century. My expertise in history is far more ancient, specifically Celtic, and Colonial French Canada.

Yes, a lot of mentally handicapped people have equally mentally handicapped children, but there are also dozens if not more who would be sterilized under these conditions who have normal, and even very smart children. Part of the problem is that the higher the education and income level, the lower the birth rates. The next problem is that ignorance really does breed ignorance. People without a solid education end up interfearing with their own children's education. I know of dozens of cases both here in Brunswick, and back in Tampa. In one case, a guy told his seven year old kid that all teachers should be taken out and choked to death on their own paperwork. His son eventually dropped out of school. Conversely, I've also seen a number of illeducated people trying to keep their children interested in school and learning to various degrees of success. Now, that said, there are instances such as Paolo mentioned. I am uncertain if outright sterilization is a good idea. This has created a bit of a controversy in I think Finland where they did this back in the '70's. There are so many issues to be weighed in the balance.

As for this violence gene. There are a lot of socio-economic factors to consider. One is, how many suicide bombers have this gene? How many gun men? Let us remember that the study only said that less than 50% of all crimes could be accounted for by this gene. So, even sterilizing those people will not end crime at all.

I hope that most of this was coherent and on topic.

Until later

I remember there was a news article about a woman who went around giving something like $100 to crack addicts who underwent voluntary sterilization.

I thought that was nice of her.

...

JesusA wrote: Mon Aug 05, 2002 4:53 am in the news this past week was the publication in "Science" of the results of a long-term (since 1972) genetic study done in New Zealand. A major finding was that a single rare gene could account for nearly half of all criminally violent and anti-social behavior. Not ALL carriers of the gene became violent or anti-social; that seemed to occur primarily if they were themselves exposed to violence as children, which caused MOST of them to become violent or anti-social.

B]

Hi all,

The real response to this is that though interesting it is very preliminary science and a hell of a lot more work needs to be done.

For all we know the findings may be influenced because the New Zealand population is in permanent close contact with sheep!

All this genome stuff is still in its very early days and it'll be a decade or two before we can think of using it as a basis for compulsory sterilisation or whatever.

Regards

Kortpeel

That, and remember that the white people in New Zealand and Australia were criminals from Britain. Assuming somebody was able to conclusively show that aggressive tendencies were genetic, remember that based on ancestry the population of those two countries is not exactly random.

And there you just gave me a perfect example of WHY we should NOT be weeding out people based on genes. Otherwise the entire white population of Australia and New Zealand should be sterilized and never should have existed at all, since they ALL originated from criminals who were kicked out of their own countries because they were considered defective and unwanted.

Tom

Eugenics refers to the conscious and considered attempt to improve the quality of the human gene pool. It has fallen into disrepute in many places because of early errors and excesses and because of its malevolent application by the Nazis. It also runs contrary to the legal enshrining of individual rights so eloquently expressed by A-1. There are, of course, places where eugenics has NOT fallen into disrepute and it was consciously practiced my several countries in western Europe well into the 1970s as a matter of state policy - despite the Nazi example of the misuse of its principles.

The early eugenics movement also spent more time trying to encourage the intelligent and well-educated to reproduce more than they spent trying to encourage those whom they termed "less desirable" to reproduce less. The contemporary movement (government sponsored) in Singapore is still aimed only at encouraging college-educated women to produce more children.

We should never discard something simply because it has been misused in the past or could be misused in the future. By that criterion, we would have to discard religion because of the centuries of examples of religious warfare and bigotry that we have seen across religious and cultural boundaries. Instead, we need to carefully consider the potential uses and misuses and make a careful decision about specific applications. This is where the original question becomes an ethical dilemma.

I would also argue that we have gone just about as far as we can in elevating individual rights above societal rights. The pendulum has already begun to swing back toward counting the rights of the social groups to be protected from extravagant claims of the rights of the individual. Unfortunately, we can expect that we won't stop at some reasonable and balanced point, but will continue on until social rights are elevated much too far above the rights of the individual, as they certainly were not too far in our past.

Increased interest in eugenics (and possibly the application of eugenic principles in our society) will likely be a part of this change. Eugenics elevates the greater good of the society as a whole above the rights of individuals to reproduce. Definitely an ethical dilemma!

Despite the disrepute in which eugenics as a considered and conscious attempt to improve the gene pool is held, there are many social and individual decisions being made which effect the gene pool in both positive and negative ways. Most are NOT being consciously considered, though I have used some for previous ethical dilemmas on this board.

On a personal note, I first became involved in the Eunuch Archive because of my concern about some of these social actions with eugenic consequences which had not been adequately considered by society (it they were considered at all). I was (and am still) greatly concerned about the incarceration of such a high proportion of black and Hispanic males through all or most of their reproductive lifetimes in the U.S. Some of my black friends have stated very clearly that they see the eugenic implications and consider it to be a societal attempt at genocide against blacks. I wouldn't go nearly that far, but the eugenic consequences are certainly real.

We also have artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization using sperm from Nobel Prize winners and eggs from supermodels. Our medical establishment works very hard to preserve the lives (and reproductive capacities) of individuals who would otherwise die young of genetic disorders - thus maintaining their genes in the common pool. Medical insurance even provides for attempts by the biologically infertile to reproduce by using funds collected from the social group (insurance pool) as a whole. The argument has already been made on this thread that the welfare system provides an incentive for reproduction by the less fit, thus enhancing their contribution to our common gene pool.

As a society, we are taking actions that have great eugenic consequences, both positive and negative, without ever responsibly considering their effect on the future of humanity. Despite being the one who began this thread, I still haven't worked out in my own mind what my position ought to be.

Remember, too, that there are countries far less scrupulous about government actions than the U.S., Canada, or western Europe. Prof. Richard Lynn, who has been researching eugenics for several years, believes that China will begin such a program in the near future (and are probably doing some work already). I know that Japan is already involved in eugenics activity. IF (and only if) the system works, countries which implement it could have a significant cultural and economic advantage over those which do not within only a generation or two.

We need to think this through carefully. We need a principled ETHICAL position to either support or condemn eugenics. We will certainly face the call for action at some point within the next few years.

JesusA wrote: Tue Aug 06, 2002 8:59 am We also have artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization using sperm from Nobel Prize winners and eggs from supermodels

Albert Einstein's head on Naomi Campbell's body.

SCARY!

A-1

The reverse is even scarier!

Zoroaster,

You are not correct. Transportation was only carried out to Australia. Criminals may have landed on New Zealand but this was not deliberate practice by the authorities.

LOL

Criminal elements from Britain were also sent to the US, but not in as many numbers as they were to Australia. Remember, Georgia was founded, partially, in order to send over people conviced of the crime of debt. The biggest difference between the US and Australia was that most of the convicts sent to the Americas were political rather than criminal. Most did leave of their own accord or willingly. There were still some forced migrations, especially after Culloden.

The French tried to use their criminal elements to settle both Canada and Louisianna, but with little success.

You do realize that in some ways this amounts to genetic phrenology?

I also had some thoughts about this. How broad was this study? Did it include a large sampling of people who are in jobs that would releive those violent tendencies? How many Army personel have this gene?