Nope, probably not, for three reasons. First, and probably most practically, eugenics has negative feelings associated with it, so is probably not a target for any respectable effort. Second, anti-aging research is going to blow past any sort of eugenics effort, the same way that it’s been more effective to research skin grafts than to breed fire-resistant humans. Last, and most nitpicky, it’s a bit tricky to breed from people who are already old (harder to have kids, greater risk of birth defects), and it would be very low-effect anyhow because of how big a factor luck is.
Isn’t the unpleasant part of eugenics the “killing “bad” people” part? In the Howard Families sense, it was more of a cross between an arranged marriage, a marriage of convenience, and surrogate mothering. A choice with a financial incentive, nobody was killed for being too short lived (!) or raped and forced into it.
Isn’t the unpleasant part of eugenics the “killing “bad” people” part?
For eugenics in general (I know nothing about the fictional case in question), evaluating people as “bad” in the first place is also unpleasant, and I think there’s also history of forced sterilization.
it’s a bit tricky to breed from people who are already old
The Howard Foundation’s method [1] was to look for people with four centenarian grandparents, and make it known to them that if they chose to marry and have children with someone else on their list, they would receive a large financial reward.
[1] The fictional organisation described in Heinlein’s Methuselah’s Children, not any real-world foundation, of which there is at least one, that happens to have that name.
I thought it was four living grandparents when recipients were of an age to start a family.
Anyone have an idea of how common that would have been in 1941?
I’m sure it wouldn’t have been centenarian grandparents, at least for the earlier generations—by the time it’s clear that a woman has grandparents that old, she wouldn’t be fertile.
I don’t think sfb is saying that they should do the same thing as the Howard Foundation. He does discuss doing “research” and so the Howard Foundation is simply a tag to get the reader interested.
(This brings up a separate issue: Is LW turning off potential rationalists by the large number of scifi/nerd references that we pack into things?)
There’s a distinction there. In those cases, they are arguments some people here believe are rational and have thought out consequences. That’s distinct from the nerd references which aren’t connected to rationality in the same way and therefore aren’t necessary. Rationalists should win.
Agreed, but I was looking solely at which is more likely to deter potential rationalists. Cryonics and the Singularity raise a lot more red flags (especially for people who already believe themselves to be rational, i.e. “skeptics”) than nerd/sci-fi references.
Yes, I would consider anti-aging research as counting, but I meant to discriminate so that leaving money for nonspecific medical research would not count, and nor would leaving 1 million to longevity and 99 million to universities.
Nope, probably not, for three reasons. First, and probably most practically, eugenics has negative feelings associated with it, so is probably not a target for any respectable effort. Second, anti-aging research is going to blow past any sort of eugenics effort, the same way that it’s been more effective to research skin grafts than to breed fire-resistant humans. Last, and most nitpicky, it’s a bit tricky to breed from people who are already old (harder to have kids, greater risk of birth defects), and it would be very low-effect anyhow because of how big a factor luck is.
Isn’t the unpleasant part of eugenics the “killing “bad” people” part? In the Howard Families sense, it was more of a cross between an arranged marriage, a marriage of convenience, and surrogate mothering. A choice with a financial incentive, nobody was killed for being too short lived (!) or raped and forced into it.
For eugenics in general (I know nothing about the fictional case in question), evaluating people as “bad” in the first place is also unpleasant, and I think there’s also history of forced sterilization.
I think many people have negative reactions to the word eugenics itself, more so than to some of the realities it can refer to.
The Howard Foundation’s method [1] was to look for people with four centenarian grandparents, and make it known to them that if they chose to marry and have children with someone else on their list, they would receive a large financial reward.
[1] The fictional organisation described in Heinlein’s Methuselah’s Children, not any real-world foundation, of which there is at least one, that happens to have that name.
I thought it was four living grandparents when recipients were of an age to start a family.
Anyone have an idea of how common that would have been in 1941?
I’m sure it wouldn’t have been centenarian grandparents, at least for the earlier generations—by the time it’s clear that a woman has grandparents that old, she wouldn’t be fertile.
Could well be—it’s a long time since I read the book.
I don’t think sfb is saying that they should do the same thing as the Howard Foundation. He does discuss doing “research” and so the Howard Foundation is simply a tag to get the reader interested.
(This brings up a separate issue: Is LW turning off potential rationalists by the large number of scifi/nerd references that we pack into things?)
Possibly, but I’m willing to bet that references to the Singularity and cryonics do so to an even larger extent.
There’s a distinction there. In those cases, they are arguments some people here believe are rational and have thought out consequences. That’s distinct from the nerd references which aren’t connected to rationality in the same way and therefore aren’t necessary. Rationalists should win.
Agreed, but I was looking solely at which is more likely to deter potential rationalists. Cryonics and the Singularity raise a lot more red flags (especially for people who already believe themselves to be rational, i.e. “skeptics”) than nerd/sci-fi references.
Yes, I would consider anti-aging research as counting, but I meant to discriminate so that leaving money for nonspecific medical research would not count, and nor would leaving 1 million to longevity and 99 million to universities.