Why is eugenics encouraged in the dog world and condemned in the human world?
Disclaimer: I created this topic not to start a flame war, but to genuinely understand further our (humanity's) realtionship with nature and our own biological selves. I also started this particular topic on this particular forum where I value every opinion and trust that we can all discuss something "less politically correct" in a civilized and progressive manner. I think there are also many varied and learned points of view, and I'd like to supplement my own bank of reasoning with some new opinions.
This has also been playing in my mind since the thread on selection vs. exclusion in a breeding program (http://www.nihonken.org/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=5164&page=1#Item_18), albeit a much different track of thought.
Excuse my HTML skills, you'll need to copy and paste unless some kind moderator fixes it for me
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTYyM2Y4YzEyNDJmYWIzNjNmYjE0M2NlY2MzYzlkMDA=
This is the article I first read when I googled "dog eugenics." I first searched for dog eugenics after I searched for the definition of the word eugenics.The most basic definition I found came from Princeton's wordnet program, and it read:
Eugenic - pertaining to or causing improvement in the offspring produced
There are many other definitions that I read, and most pertained to human selective breeding. I think using "selective breeding" is semantics and while the term eugenics is historically unpopular, it really comes down to what we in the dog-loving community strive to do with our own selective breeding, in other words, whether we choose to breed or to sterilize our dogs.
I realize no one has an answer for society as a whole, but I would like to hear what your personal take on the world of selective breeding is.
Are we, the breeders and un-breeders of the world, so backwards in our attempts to achieve "perfection" of our particular species? Clearly, Jonah Goldberg, author of the aforementioned article, believes that breeding to achieve an idealized physical form does a disservice to a breed that may need unnatrual human intervention to do basic natural things that ordinarily propegate a species like conceive or give birth.
He also cites a book called The Case for Sterlization which calls for human selective breeding (including neutering). In stark contrast to the "natural selection" that humans have practiced through history, we encourage (and at times demand) a eugenics program for dogs. We demand that dogs get neutered if they're unfit (i.e. have hip dysplasia, luxating patellas or deficiencies in sight or hearing) and we encourage that fit dogs remain unaltered to sire another generation of "ideal" specimens.
My ultimate question is: what makes it morally acceptable to support a de-facto eugenics program for dogs but discourage and condmemn a selective breeding program for people and the human race?
Another way of thinking about it is, "Should dog breeders take a more natural approach to creating the next generation, or should humanity take a more selective road and begin purposefully breeding for 'better' offspring?"
I'll withhold my own opinions, as I don't think they are fully formed yet. I do know what I'd like to do with my ability to proliferate, and clearly I've already decided what to do with my reproductively-challenged furbabies' potential offspring. I'm just trying to understand what makes it right or wrong...
This has also been playing in my mind since the thread on selection vs. exclusion in a breeding program (http://www.nihonken.org/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=5164&page=1#Item_18), albeit a much different track of thought.
Excuse my HTML skills, you'll need to copy and paste unless some kind moderator fixes it for me
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTYyM2Y4YzEyNDJmYWIzNjNmYjE0M2NlY2MzYzlkMDA=
This is the article I first read when I googled "dog eugenics." I first searched for dog eugenics after I searched for the definition of the word eugenics.The most basic definition I found came from Princeton's wordnet program, and it read:
Eugenic - pertaining to or causing improvement in the offspring produced
There are many other definitions that I read, and most pertained to human selective breeding. I think using "selective breeding" is semantics and while the term eugenics is historically unpopular, it really comes down to what we in the dog-loving community strive to do with our own selective breeding, in other words, whether we choose to breed or to sterilize our dogs.
I realize no one has an answer for society as a whole, but I would like to hear what your personal take on the world of selective breeding is.
Are we, the breeders and un-breeders of the world, so backwards in our attempts to achieve "perfection" of our particular species? Clearly, Jonah Goldberg, author of the aforementioned article, believes that breeding to achieve an idealized physical form does a disservice to a breed that may need unnatrual human intervention to do basic natural things that ordinarily propegate a species like conceive or give birth.
He also cites a book called The Case for Sterlization which calls for human selective breeding (including neutering). In stark contrast to the "natural selection" that humans have practiced through history, we encourage (and at times demand) a eugenics program for dogs. We demand that dogs get neutered if they're unfit (i.e. have hip dysplasia, luxating patellas or deficiencies in sight or hearing) and we encourage that fit dogs remain unaltered to sire another generation of "ideal" specimens.
My ultimate question is: what makes it morally acceptable to support a de-facto eugenics program for dogs but discourage and condmemn a selective breeding program for people and the human race?
Another way of thinking about it is, "Should dog breeders take a more natural approach to creating the next generation, or should humanity take a more selective road and begin purposefully breeding for 'better' offspring?"
I'll withhold my own opinions, as I don't think they are fully formed yet. I do know what I'd like to do with my ability to proliferate, and clearly I've already decided what to do with my reproductively-challenged furbabies' potential offspring. I'm just trying to understand what makes it right or wrong...
Comments
I think "self-regulation" and "natural selection" is best, it's what we *mostly* do now (may differ in certain other countries and families). People should continue to have the freedom to chose whether or not they want to have kids and with whom to produce their offspring. However, it is encouraged to find out your mate's family history of illness, disease and defects as well as know what's in your own family history. This way you have an idea of what to expect with your children.
Humans are also a complex species, we're drawn not only by physical attractions and chemicals but also by emotion. Modern human society seems to base itself upon "love" more so then it does on "logic".
And while selection in one's mate is highly accepted and sought out for, it's the exclusion part we have problems with. As humans beings, "we are all created equal and should thus be treated equal". This is what society believes or in the very least formly believed but continues to uphold. So we are all entitled to the same things reguardless of our health and genetics.
Lastly, the thing that really irritates me but I constantly run into...is the whole "Humans are a higher being and all other animals are beneath us". So it's more easily accepted to practice eugenics in other animal species then it would be to practice this within Humans.
Anyways...I thought that was interesting...
In the grand scheme of mother nature and balance, what makes us immune to the idea of breeding only the best among us? There are clearly too many dogs for all of us to take care of, no one will deny that. But who gets to decide that there are too many people and everyone should "adopt, not breed," which is a common tune in the dog world.
I have a friend who has 4 children - each one of them are medically fragile. Her parents do not have any known problems - turns out that they each have recessive genes that when combined, have produced 4 different rare diseases. Each child is a blessing beyond belief. If any of her children make it pass the age of 15, her doctors will be amazed.
I wish there were some sort of test (at times) to allow a human to breed, but if there were, I probably wouldn't have 2 of my nieces and they are precious to me.