Reply
Thu 18 Mar, 2010 12:57 am
EUGENICS: PRO or CON ?
I approve of eugenic opportunities to improve our progeny,
be thay thru selection of mates by criteria of desirable hereditary traits,
or by such technological means as future science will make available.
Perhaps gestation will be extended for superior development in an artificial pod.
(I never liked the idea of women going thru pain in childbirth, nor occasionally perishing from it.)
If I were going to reproduce, I 'd endow him with supergood health
of body and of mind including, better memory and reasoning ability,
clever talents, better acuity of sight n hearing, better strength for a superlong span of life, blond hair, blue eyes,
good teeth and the ability to alter those traits ex post facto, at his choice on a libertarian & hedonic basis.
To the extent that it became possible to create a Superman with powers n abilities far beyond those of mortal men, I 'd DO it
(maybe retaining the ability to undo it, on a defensive basis).
Note that someone commented on an allied thread, referring to Hitler.
I don 't care about that.
I care about improving the species, not about authoritarian-collectivists.
Comments about eugenics?
Questions about eugenics?
Remember that the topic is EUGENICS.
I am not the topic, nor is my state-of-mind, nor are my shortcomings the topic.
David
I believe that the collective has the right to forcibly prevent individuals with extremely defective genes from breeding.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:I believe that the collective has the right to forcibly prevent
individuals with extremely defective genes from breeding.
U speak of a
defensive right. I have a lot of respect for the right of self defense.
@hawkeye10,
s we learn more about epigenetics and environmentally induced (lamarkian) expressions, Its gonna be difficult to draw the line as to how to "select or reject" traits. Many attributes can be epigenetic and not manifest until the next generation, including issues of intellect and aspects of health.
Niko Tinbergen had begun the work on "supernormal stimuli" that had evolutionary significance at one time but now are responsible for chronic and sublethal effects to the adult. Many of these are epigenetic or multiexpressional (One gene may control many expressions or many genes only control one). By the time e get this all worked out and determine the effects of epigenetic effects , we will be loaded with new mutations both beneficial and lethal so It wont matter much.
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:s we learn more about epigenetics and environmentally induced (lamarkian) expressions, Its gonna be difficult to draw the line as to how to "select or reject" traits. Many attributes can be epigenetic and not manifest until the next generation, including issues of intellect and aspects of health.
Niko Tinbergen had begun the work on "supernormal stimuli" that had evolutionary significance at one time but now are responsible for chronic and sublethal effects to the adult. Many of these are epigenetic or multiexpressional (One gene may control many expressions or many genes only control one). By the time e get this all worked out and determine the effects of epigenetic effects , we will be loaded with new mutations both beneficial and lethal so It wont matter much.
Well, Rome was not built in a day.
I imagine that a lot of experimentation n close observation will be in order.
This has been a part of animal husbandry for centuries.
We know that it works. I am not an expert. I want the experts to be free to work.
David
@OmSigDAVID,
I dont trust wxperts at the hands of irresponsible fovernments. The positive correlation between advanced degrees and "working for someone else" is quite high. (Im an exception).
Eugenics has a nasty history that , when we consider the aim for "improving" a race (in the Darwinian sense), when do we put the brakes on disallowing eugenics to selectively wield some morality code. (Liemsterilizing hom osexuals or "gypsies").
Id rather it not be done at all than to "trust some government to decide who gets a "gene job".
Just me, I guess Id make a better libertarian than you in this case.
Isn't it about time to evoke Godwin's Law on this topic?
Seriously.
Last time this crap was tried, it was to eliminate races seen as "undesirable". Which is more desirable? Actually, if you think about it, wouldn't it be better to be brown-skinned as you'd be a tad less susceptible to skin cancer? Or is very light better because you'd be far less likely to carry the sickle cell gene?
The government putting its thumb on this scale is, well, nausea-making. Look at what a hash they make of everything else. Anyone honestly think this would be any better?
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:I dont trust wxperts at the hands of irresponsible fovernments.
The positive correlation between advanced degrees and "working for someone else" is quite high. (Im an exception).
Eugenics has a nasty history that , when we consider the aim for "improving" a race (in the Darwinian sense),
when do we put the brakes on disallowing eugenics to selectively wield some morality code. (Liemsterilizing hom osexuals or "gypsies").
Id rather it not be done at all than to "trust some government to decide who gets a "gene job".
Just me, I guess Id make a better libertarian than you in this case.
Answering your question: simply do the work of genetic research and
DON'T sterilize Gypsies nor homosexuals.
U r mixing apples n oranges.
Thay r 2 different things.
Geneticists do not necessarily have to work on a government payroll.
David
@jespah,
jespah wrote:Isn't it about time to evoke Godwin's Law on this topic?
Seriously.
Last time this crap was tried, it was to eliminate races seen as "undesirable". Which is more desirable? Actually, if you think about it, wouldn't it be better to be brown-skinned as you'd be a tad less susceptible to skin cancer? Or is very light better because you'd be far less likely to carry the sickle cell gene?
The government putting its thumb on this scale is, well, nausea-making. Look at what a hash they make of everything else. Anyone honestly think this would be any better?
The 3rd Reich
BEGAN with malice.
That will not be replicated in future.
David
@jespah,
Thumbs up for your post, Jespah...way up!
@OmSigDAVID,
The first thing we should select for is an elimination of a love of guns.
Imagine how safe the world would be if no one liked or used guns.
(that ought to keep the sob busy for a while.)
@parados,
parados wrote:The first thing we should select for is an elimination of a love of guns.
Imagine how safe the world would be if no one liked or used guns.
(that ought to keep the sob busy for a while.)
as safe as it was before guns were invented
Ask Julius Caesar how safe that was.
Ask the Carthaginians how safe it was.
David
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:...The 3rd Reich BEGAN with malice.
That will not be replicated in future.
David
How the hell can you possibly predict that? Have we not seen mass genocide in Rwanda, for example? You don't need a test tube to eliminate a group you don't like -- it just makes it cleaner, neater, prettier and feel more morally ambiguous.
PS Thanks, Irishk; hope you had a good St. Paddy's Day yesterday.
Preventing siblings from marrying and creating offspring is a form of eugenics.
So if I fall in love I gotta go before the Eugenics Board to get a license to marry
and have kids? Is that how it works?
If so, count me out.
(Edit: obviously excluding cases like incest)
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:as safe as it was before guns were invented
Ask Julius Caesar how safe that was.
Ask the Carthaginians how safe it was.
I thought we were talking about eugenics, not history. Pacifism seems to be a desirable trait, don't you think David?
@parados,
parados wrote:Quote:as safe as it was before guns were invented
Ask Julius Caesar how safe that was.
Ask the Carthaginians how safe it was.
I thought we were talking about eugenics, not history.
Pacifism seems to be a desirable trait, don't you think David?
I don 't; it depends on the circumstances.
Everyone shoud be appropriately responsive thereto.
Most of the time, we have good reason to be tranquil.
@jespah,
jespah wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:...The 3rd Reich BEGAN with malice.
That will not be replicated in future.
David
How the hell can you possibly predict that? Have we not seen mass genocide in Rwanda, for example?
You don't need a test tube to eliminate a group you don't like --
it just makes it cleaner, neater, prettier and feel more morally ambiguous.
PS Thanks, Irishk; hope you had a good St. Paddy's Day yesterday.
I was addressing what we do
here.
As I see it, it is
inevitable that we will succeed in improving
our control of our own reproduction to have better progeny,
beginning with fewer diseases.
@OmSigDAVID,
Your trying to trrat this like another DAvid "mind fart", delivered in a brief bumper sticker of "insight". if you remove entire generations who carry the alleles for Tay Sachs or Sickling, you would, by nature, have removed Miles DAvis and Itzach Perlman from the gene pool already. This is really a slippery slope that discussing on a chat line by we who have neither experience nor ideas of what and how the processes would be meted out or administered, what would be the directive of "genetic improvement" (would we remove single alleles ?) how would you read future conditions because a fetus carries an allele for, say, diabetes or pancreatic cancer.
Life is merely a minor remission from disease.
How would you select the desired progeny for say, talent or intelligence, would all reproduction no longer involve sex and would, instead be insertion of gene splices? WIth sexual diversity determining genetic outcomes, and the outcomes almost limitless, Id like to know how this would NOT involve genetic engineering in a govt or at lest some kind of institutional lab. DO YOU?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace