The eugenics problem

Re: The eugenics problem

Ray wrote:

I can see this as a problem in the near future.
Can anyone provide arguments against this?

People will make the decisions.

That is reason enough to be against eugenics.

Current example: Roy Webb of the Disabled People's Direct Action Network said: 'The Eugenics Society want to eliminate disabled people, black people, lesbian and gay people and anyone else that they see as not fitting into their view of society. We want to celebrate difference and create a fully inclusive society.'

0 Replies

What exactly are you referring to be consciousness. Are you referring to the simple interactions of various neural stimuli which create the illusion of a sentient/conscious behavior? Or are you referring to some thing such as a soul, or god to account for this so call sentience/consciousness that has no basis in science? If so, what is the basis for this soul? Where is it rooted?

Just curious.

0 Replies

I don't think it's going to be an issue. The future is not going to unfold in that direction. The human race as we know it will be gone from the face of the earth before genetic technology is developed. We will be cyborgs and probably eventually robots or perhaps a VERY different form of life I haven't conceived of yet. Cybernetic technology will develop before genetic technology. And at that point, who gives a rat's ass about genetic technology?

0 Replies

Re: The eugenics problem
Ray

I agree with all your statement.
About perfection: first, any definition of perfection depends on criteria, and the eugenic criteria is not the only one acceptable.
Second, why search perfection? I see life, and the world, as perpetual tension between equilibrium and rupture. A constant struggle for adequation, adjustement, that never stops.
Third, eugenics seems to me to worst case of the growing tendency to make the science a new religion. And I never liked religions very much.
And last, I see in those projects some ideas that I wish were dead with the nazism.

0 Replies

The perfection of genes is something that nature has been doing for all time. I do not believe that there are humans with the neccesary knowledge to take over this business.

As for what is physical and what is spiritual, what came first, the chicken or the egg...

0 Replies

Quote:

What exactly are you referring to be consciousness. Are you referring to the simple interactions of various neural stimuli which create the illusion of a sentient/conscious behavior? Or are you referring to some thing such as a soul, or god to account for this so call sentience/consciousness that has no basis in science? If so, what is the basis for this soul? Where is it rooted?

Just curious.

Yeah, I was talking about the interactions/processes between neurons that results in consciousness. Whether it has a spiritual basis or not I don't know and I will not say.

Quote:

I don't think it's going to be an issue. The future is not going to unfold in that direction. The human race as we know it will be gone from the face of the earth before genetic technology is developed. We will be cyborgs and probably eventually robots or perhaps a VERY different form of life I haven't conceived of yet. Cybernetic technology will develop before genetic technology. And at that point, who gives a rat's ass about genetic technology?

I've thought about this too... about the dillema that will be faced when this happens. Will I want to live forever in a non-organic body? Will "I" be the same when my body is transferred or will the transfer result in my death but the replication of another consciousness that thinks that it's me..... Kinda scary actually.

Quote:

Second, why search perfection? I see life, and the world, as perpetual tension between equilibrium and rupture. A constant struggle for adequation, adjustement, that never stops.
Third, eugenics seems to me to worst case of the growing tendency to make the science a new religion. And I never liked religions very much.

Yeah agree sort of in the second one, and absolutely in agreement with your third point.

What I see the problem is that eugenists are talking about genetic diseases and how it can be prevented by eugenics. That, in my opinion, is only half-true.

Quote:

The perfection of genes is something that nature has been doing for all time. I do not believe that there are humans with the neccesary knowledge to take over this business.

As for what is physical and what is spiritual, what came first, the chicken or the egg...

Well, I don't think nature is actually looking for a perfection of the gene, it just allow the gene to evolve so that the organism that carry it can survive, and that's all it is.

Your last statement has a good point. Also, I think that even if the physical comes first, that does not mean that we are our physical body and that doesn't make the physical any more important than our being.

0 Replies

Oh but nature is the ambition, the player, the adversary, the referee, and the goal. Nature is all these things.

Quote:

Well, I don't think nature is actually looking for a perfection of the gene, it just allow the gene to evolve so that the organism that carry it can survive, and that's all it is.

Yes, but the genes evolve to adapt to nature to perfection. Nature sets the standard, nature breaks it.

0 Replies

Quote:

Oh but nature is the ambition, the player, the adversary, the referee, and the goal. Nature is all these things.

What is nature?

Quote:

Yes, but the genes evolve to adapt to nature to perfection. Nature sets the standard, nature breaks it.

Living fossils though, no longer evolves because they don't need to. What do you mean by perfection?

0 Replies

What is not nature?

Perfection? A soap bubble is round because it is the most energy efficient configuration. The soap and the water doesn't "know" this, but it still happens. It is a result of all elements involved to create something. Ongoing adaptation. A realization of potential.

I do not mean a previously set standard.

0 Replies

Re: The eugenics problem

Ray wrote:

First, no one has perfect genetic sequence.

Nor is there a perfect rose. Yet in some situations a yellow rose representing friendship is appropriate and in others a red rose representing romance is appropriate. Neither is more perfect than the other, yet for a given situation one is more useful.

Ray wrote:

Furthermore, everyone alive probably has some sort of genes that are considered unhealthy by the eugenists.

You're right, they do. These harmful allelles can later crop up and cause children to be born with deformities and defects, many of which cause them to live short pain-filled lives. However that sounds like a better reason to tinker with our DNA and get rid of these unhealthy genes before they hurt people, rather than a reason against.

Ray wrote:

Secondly, some people have this absurd idea that we are our gene.

Our genetic code only determines how our cells work. By altering which chemicals the person is exposed to over the course of their life two people with identical genes (let's say twins) could grow up to be... well, slightly, different. Also the brain learns from its environment and thus personality can be very different depending on how the person grows, (though it will never completely escape genetic influence).

Ray wrote:

Thirdly, conscious rational life is more important than a 'perfection' of genes.

Agreed. But we already have the first and if 'perfecting' (I agree the word is not particularly apt) the genes won't take it away, what has that got to do with the price of eggs? To steal your own words, if genes are genes and consciousness is consciousness then altering our genes can't harm our consciousness. It's non sequitor Wink

Ray wrote:

Fourthly, even genetically unhealthy people are good at something

Though they could be even better at it if they had better genes.

Ray wrote:

and they can provide offsprings that are healthy and provide inspiration to the human species

Aside from the growing proportion of the human race who are infertile of course.

Ray wrote:

Fifth, you can't maintain a so-called perfect genetic sequence. Genes will mutate

It would be exceedingly rare that a person's entire genetic code could vary over the course of their lifetime. Usually mutation requires several generations to occur. With genetic modification occuring at each birth it could be maintained in any given form, so-called perfect or not.

Ray wrote:

as I have noted, no one has perfect genetic sequence.

No one yet has glow in the dark hair either. Doesn't mean it can't be achieved.

Ray wrote:

Sixth, even though genes might provide setting points for certain traits, traits themselves are not fixed by genes. Temperaments and behaviours are resultant of experience and rational thoughts.

Thus making any successful eugenics program requisite upon a good education system working hand in hand with the genetics program.

Ray wrote:

Finally, evolution is not a purpose.

Agreed. This goes hand in hand with the "no such thing as a perfect gene" point above. There is no goal of evolution and attempting to somehow fulfill one through eugenics is indeed foolishness. Yet there can be goals other than evolution, such as good health, happiness and survival which perhaps can be achieved by eugenics.

Edited to fix BB code error

0 Replies

I have seen people advocate for eugenics of people with genetic deseases based on the idea that people who have chldren with a chance of being born with a desease are inflicting that desease on their children. I see this in the same way as I see the anti-abortionists. You can't fight for the rights of people who don't exist yet. Also, it's a chance - which may not take place. No one is inflicting anything.

I think there was a case a little while ago involving two deaf women who wanted to engineer a deaf baby. Again people insisted that they were hurting the baby. Yes, deafness is a disability, and most deaf people agree with that even. But people don't seem to understand that people with genetic deseases and disorders are still people, and can still live their lives. If there is a social community based around a disorder, I think it is reasonable for someone to want their child to be in that community. I also happen to think that deaf people should be more involved in the hearing world than they typically are, but that's another matter entirely. The two women both grew up deaf, and they didn't find anything about deafness that made their lives miserable. If anyone is qualified to make that descision about someone's life, I would think it would be them.

In a sense, everyone is born with genetic disorders. We stop living after a certain period of time, defined by our genes. Some of us become bald. Some of us get arthritis. Some of us have bad knees, bad backs. Some of us have a propensity for alcoholism. You can't isolate every bad gene. Human beings have problems, that's part of what makes us human.

I say this as someone whose mother died of a genetic disease. I personally will not have children, because I might have Marfan's too, but I think that should be each person's individual choice. The government has no right to regulate reproduction, whatever genes it thinks it can eliminate. Until we know absolutely everything about genetics, we shouldn't attempt to mess with it - we might very well be encouraging bad genes that we don't even know about. However long I live, and however I die, I will enjoy it and have no regrets.

Our bad genes do not make us bad people, or miserable people. We've all got our defects, we all take chances, and that's how life is. If you don't take chances, you can never really live.

0 Replies

Quote:

engineer a deaf baby...If there is a social community based around a disorder, I think it is reasonable for someone to want their child to be in that community.

So engineering babies to CREATE disorders is okay but REMOVING disorders isn't?... please clarify as this seems to be a defense of genetic engineering/selection which this post seemed on the whole to be against.

Quote:

You can't isolate every bad gene.

Oh well, I can't have a million dollars so why should I bother working for ten... Even if we can't remove all "bad" genes, it would be a snap to fix downs syndrome, cystic fibrosis etc. We don't have to be "perfect", but if we can fix a few problems that would otherwise make people suffer, doesn't that seem like the right thing to do?

Quote:

I say this as someone whose mother died of a genetic disease. I personally will not have children, because I might have Marfan's too, but I think that should be each person's individual choice.

I'm sorry if I'm treading on any memories here, but isn't that a great reason to attempt to cure these diseases so no-one ever has to have them again and go through those painful choises/experiences?

Quote:

The government has no right to regulate reproduction, whatever genes it thinks it can eliminate.

Why not? Why is it different from any other law it could pass? (Or is this simply because of the universal decleration of human rights. If so, what "right" do the authors of that document have to decide what is and is not a right?)

Quote:

Until we know absolutely everything about genetics, we shouldn't attempt to mess with it - we might very well be encouraging bad genes that we don't even know about.

Ahhh, now THAT is a good argument against eugenics. I agree with you 100%. Moves in such a dangerous and critical environment should not be made until we know exactly what we're doing.

Quote:

However long I live, and however I die, I will enjoy it and have no regrets.

Same here. Now, I for one do not intend to ever reproduce (personal decision and entirely off topic), yet if I did and someone offered a way to ensure my children were healthy I would take it in seconds.

I've inherited quite good genetic health from both my parents. Yet my father's side has a tendency towards heart disease, my mother's side towards cancer. This doesn't really bother me, everyone dies sooner or later. But if these could have been fixed when I was born and I would live longer, I would account this to be a good thing.

Quote:

Our bad genes do not make us bad people, or miserable people.

A genetic tendency towards chemical depression doesn't make us miserable people? A genetic tendency towards sociopathy doesn't make us bad people?

Quote:

that's how life is.

Doesn't mean that's how it has to be.

0 Replies

Wait a minute... *epiphany*... are you arguing against FORCED eugenics? If so that makes more sense. I was thinking you guys were arguing against any positive genetic manipulation at all. Could you let me know what you're actually against here?

0 Replies

I was arguing against forced and negative manipulation of genes. Genetic engineering for taking out harmful genes from a sequence is ok, but I've heard of this guy talking in a forum about how we should "perfect" human and stuff like seperating the races apart and keeping genes "pure" and that if they got too mixed it's harmful etc. Pure Nonsense. It would actually be worse if a population is isolated because then it would allow harmful genes to spread more rapidly and they might not inherit genes that protect someone from a disease. It also destroys the individual as it only sees them as genes. In fact the guy who believed in all these nonsense thinks that we are our genes just because the genes lead to the construction of the body and then to the being. Rolling Eyes

He tried to make himself sound clever when he said all of this, a sort of euphemism to trick people into believing that what he's saying is true.

0 Replies

Whoops, never realized this thread came back to life.

theantibuddha wrote:

So engineering babies to CREATE disorders is okay but REMOVING disorders isn't?... please clarify as this seems to be a defense of genetic engineering/selection which this post seemed on the whole to be against.

The whole reason that everyone was against the engineering of the deaf baby was because of this mindset that we have to remove "bad genes" and purge the gene pool of them. Some genes are worse than others though. There are genes that will kill you early, or cause you to suffer - and there are genes that will just make you deaf. There is a community revolving around people who are deaf, or partially deaf. In that micro-context, being deaf is not a disability. It may be a disability in the world at large, but then again, so is less-than-perfect vision, arthritis, and any number of other things that people put up with without getting activist about it. I'm not one of those people who thinks that we're messing with something sacred here or anything. I just don't like the idea of preventing people from reproducing however they see fit. The idea that we can actually control genetics when we don't really know all that much about it irks me a little too, but for all I know people know a lot more about deafness genes than the ones I've been interested in.

Quote:

Quote:
You can't isolate every bad gene.

Oh well, I can't have a million dollars so why should I bother working for ten... Even if we can't remove all "bad" genes, it would be a snap to fix downs syndrome, cystic fibrosis etc. We don't have to be "perfect", but if we can fix a few problems that would otherwise make people suffer, doesn't that seem like the right thing to do?

Just because you don't have a million dollars and you want it doesn't give you license to steal it. I'm all for fixing genetic diseases, as much as they can be fixed, as long as we don't tread all over human rights in the process. Invoking eugenics because we have a burning need to purify ourselves is not a good enough reason, because there is not one of us who is "pure".

Quote:

I'm sorry if I'm treading on any memories here, but isn't that a great reason to attempt to cure these diseases so no-one ever has to have them again and go through those painful choises/experiences?

Sure. But eugenics isn't the way. Having such a disease doesn't prevent you from having a good life as well. We all have to die eventually; whether you do it at 30 or at 50 or at 80, whether it's disease, old age, or accident, it's still the same death. If you're afraid of dying too young, you're not really living anyway. And car accidents cause a hell of a lot more deaths than anything you might inherit genetically. I think we should be putting more efforts into preventing those - they'd probably be more effective.

Quote:

Quote:
The government has no right to regulate reproduction, whatever genes it thinks it can eliminate.

Why not? Why is it different from any other law it could pass? (Or is this simply because of the universal decleration of human rights. If so, what "right" do the authors of that document have to decide what is and is not a right?)

Laws protect people from other people, they don't protect people from themselves. The people who might be born with such diseases aren't even around yet. Assuming you've been born, you have a right to the best life you can get - but actually being born can come with as many strings as it needs to, because it's luck of the draw really. Who are you going to sue? Where are you going to get your money back? Not all the money in the world can make up for a life, even if it's a short one. Sure, we could have been born without any "bad genes". We also could have not been born at all.

Quote:

Quote:
However long I live, and however I die, I will enjoy it and have no regrets.

Same here. Now, I for one do not intend to ever reproduce (personal decision and entirely off topic), yet if I did and someone offered a way to ensure my children were healthy I would take it in seconds.

Eugenics isn't the only way to ensure your kids will be healthy though - it's not even necessarily the best way, even if it were a sure thing. My dad's got terrible genetics (my whole family is pretty bad off, come to think of it), and he's about 60 now, and looks and behaves like he's 35. That's because he takes care of himself, not because of his genetics. People with perfect genetics his age are in nursing homes. I've heard a lot about Marfan's over the years, and learned that the best way to live with it (assuming I have it, which I don't know) is to excersize and eat healthily, and that can actually do a lot for preventing an attack later in life. (I don't take care of myself, but I've got only me to blame for it...) And then you can get preventative surgery, which a couple people in my extended family have done. I'm not trying to put a personal face on this or anything, I'm just talking about this specifically because I happen to know stuff about it. All the stuff that keeps you healthy living with a "disease" - also keeps you healthy living without one. If it was a contest between someone with Marfan's who ate well and excersized and someone without who didn't, I would bet on the first living longer.

Whatever benefit of eugenics is probably far outweighed by choices that you have a lot more control over. Life's a gamble, and it's not about your hand, it's about how you play the game.

Quote:

But if these could have been fixed when I was born and I would live longer, I would account this to be a good thing.

See, I'm beginning to question how much difference that would make, in the long run. Genetics is just one factor among many. Even if you think you've optimized your lifespan, you could still get killed by someone running a red light tomorrow.

Quote:

A genetic tendency towards chemical depression doesn't make us miserable people? A genetic tendency towards sociopathy doesn't make us bad people?

This is another topic, but I really doubt that those things are as genetic as everyone says they are.

Quote:

Quote:
that's how life is.

Doesn't mean that's how it has to be.

You're absolutely right. It could just not be at all.

0 Replies

ray wrote:

I was arguing against forced and negative manipulation of genes.

What's a negative manipulation of a gene? Not familiar with the term I'm sorry.

Quote:

Genetic engineering for taking out harmful genes from a sequence is ok

Harmful is in the eye of the beholder. Would modifying our genes in such a way that we live to 300 be "taking out harmful genes"? Wink

Quote:

I've heard of this guy talking in a forum about how we should "perfect" human

Sounds good to me.

Quote:

stuff like seperating the races apart

If he thinks that's improving humanity please inform him that his knowledge of genetics is woefully inadequate as seperating races concentrates harmful allelles.

Quote:

and keeping genes "pure" and that if they got too mixed it's harmful etc.

Again, please inform him that he speaketh out of his ass.

Quote:

It would actually be worse if a population is isolated because then it would allow harmful genes to spread more rapidly and they might not inherit genes that protect someone from a disease.

Yes, it would lead to monoculture, something that should most certainly be avoided. Any eugenicist who doesn't realise that variation in genetics is a trait that must be preserved is going to do much more harm than good and needs to relearn their basic biology.

Quote:

It also destroys the individual as it only sees them as genes.

Unfortunately people who believe in one solution tend to see it in all areas, socialists convinced that socialism would fix everything, eugenicists who think that eugenics would fix everything. In actual fact improving society would require a combination of changes across multiple fronts... including but not limited to our genes.

Quote:

In fact the guy who believed in all these nonsense thinks that we are our genes just because the genes lead to the construction of the body and then to the being.

Environmental influence leads to us being somewhat more than our phenotype. We are not just our genes. But they are a large part of who we are, or at least influence in our development of becoming that.

Quote:

He tried to make himself sound clever when he said all of this, a sort of euphemism to trick people into believing that what he's saying is true.

As you've pointed out, he believes some stupid things. However actually being clever I have no need to make myself "sound clever" and simply rely upon the strength of my arguments.

As for tricking people through pretentious language that's a poor debating tool. Much like people bringing up much more foolish advocates of a notion while talking to an advocate who (somewhat) knows what he's talking about. <whistles innocently> Wink

P.S. I don't seriously think you're doing that... I'm just taking advantage of an opportunity for humour.

P.P.S. Euphemism is saying something in a way that makes it sound nicer than it actually is, e.g. "passing away" rather than "dying".

....

rufio wrote:

Whoops, never realized this thread came back to life.

Thank A2K for email notification or I would have missed it too.

Quote:

The whole reason that everyone was against the engineering of the deaf baby was because of this mindset that we have to remove "bad genes" and purge the gene pool of them.

No. The reason is because people believe that deliberately inflicting a disability on someone is wrong. Manipulating a person's genes to make them deaf is no better than sticking a needle into their ear and puncturing the eardrum. It has nothing to do with a eugenical mindset.

Some genes are worse than others though. There are genes that will kill you early, or cause you to suffer - and there are genes that will just make you deaf.

Quote:

There is a community revolving around people who are deaf, or partially deaf. In that micro-context, being deaf is not a disability.

Unless you can guarantee a person that their entire life will be spent within that micro-context then it is still a disability. If the disability will force them to remain in that micro-context then it is a violation of their liberty. That's like a muslim couple crafting a gene into their child that if they ever convert away from islam they'll experience continual inconvenience.

Quote:

It may be a disability in the world at large, but then again, so is less-than-perfect vision, arthritis, and any number of other things that people put up with without getting activist about it.

Most likely because no one is enough of a bastard to force their children to deliberately suffer from arthritis or astigmatism simply because they do. As soon as someone does though you can expect the same response, for the same reason which has nothing to do with Eugenics...

What are you missing here?

Quote:

I just don't like the idea of preventing people from reproducing however they see fit.

People may do what they wish in their own lives. When it influences other people it becomes the business of society as a whole. Nothing influences other people more than reproduction.

Considering reproduction to be an individual right makes children the property of their parents. That I don't approve of.

Quote:

The idea that we can actually control genetics when we don't really know all that much about it irks me a little too, but for all I know people know a lot more about deafness genes than the ones I've been interested in.

For the record,
A) They don't.
B) There is no "deafness gene"

Quote:

Just because you don't have a million dollars and you want it doesn't give you license to steal it.

You're missing the point...

My analogy was addressing your point "We shouldn't remove all bad genes therefore we shouldn't remove any". The question of morality (while vital and pressing to the debate at a whole) has nothing to do with the analogy. You didn't address the point I was making with the analogy.

Just because we can not remove all bad genes is no reason for us not to remove the several that we can. Agreed?

Quote:

I'm all for fixing genetic diseases, as much as they can be fixed, as long as we don't tread all over human rights in the process.

.....

I'd break someone's nose if in doing so I'd stop a billion deaths. That's just the kind of person I am. I understand that not everyone is the same, it's just a personal decision of morality. There are some people who would never hurt one person who doesn't deserve it, even if it would save a billion lives.

(Note: I know that's an exaggeration, it's just to make the two sides clearer than they are from a more naturalistic example in the shades of grey of the real and likely world)

To me a minor ammount of suffering inflicted upon one person ("sorry, you can't breed") is worth it if it will benefit more people, or benefit one person to a greater degree than that one person will suffer.

On this point we may have to agree to disagree... not saying we can't debate on eugenics as a whole but when it comes to morality I take a somewhat hegellian point of view and that's never going to change.

Quote:

Invoking eugenics because we have a burning need to purify ourselves is not a good enough reason, because there is not one of us who is "pure".

Would it make a difference if there were someone who was pure? If so why? If not, then that reason is inadequate and you will have to provide another in order to back up that statement.

Quote:

Sure. But eugenics isn't the way. Having such a disease doesn't prevent you from having a good life as well.

Never said it didn't, certainly hope I didn't imply it.

Quote:

We all have to die eventually

Well, there are those who would debate you, but I agree.

Quote:

If you're afraid of dying too young, you're not really living anyway.

Agreed.

Quote:

And car accidents cause a hell of a lot more deaths than anything you might inherit genetically.

If it helps you understand me a bit more I'm for banning cars as well....

Quote:

I think we should be putting more efforts into preventing those - they'd probably be more effective.

I agree absolutely. I (unlike some people) don't make eugenics a priority. However I think it's something that we can and should consider in the future... when we understand genetics better.

Quote:

Laws protect people from other people, they don't protect people from themselves.

Last time I checked suicidal people were locked up for their own safety...

Quote:

The people who might be born with such diseases aren't even around yet.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Quote:

Who are you going to sue?

Your parents... sorry, but that answer seems really obvious to me.

Quote:

Sure, we could have been born without any "bad genes".

I thought you said we couldn't...

Quote:

We also could have not been born at all.

What's so terrible about that?

Quote:

Eugenics isn't the only way to ensure your kids will be healthy though

No, like so many issues the health of your kids involves many factors. I see no reason to be remisce in one though merely because it isn't the only one.

Quote:

it's not even necessarily the best way,

See above.

Quote:

even if it were a sure thing.

It isn't. See above.

Quote:

My dad's got terrible genetics (my whole family is pretty bad off, come to think of it), and he's about 60 now, and looks and behaves like he's 35. That's because he takes care of himself, not because of his genetics.

If he took care of himself simularily and had good genetics he'd be in good health even longer. What's your point?

Quote:

I'm not trying to put a personal face on this or anything,

No that's fine, everyone sees the world through their own experiences. Just don't get offended at me for talking about your personal issues when you're the one who brought them up.

Quote:

All the stuff that keeps you healthy living with a "disease" - also keeps you healthy living without one. If it was a contest between someone with Marfan's who ate well and excersized and someone without who didn't, I would bet on the first living longer.

Yes... We're agreed, genetics is not the only factor. Doesn't mean we can or should ignore it.

Quote:

Whatever benefit of eugenics is probably far outweighed by choices that you have a lot more control over. Life's a gamble, and it's not about your hand, it's about how you play the game.

No reason you shouldn't rig the deck AND play well if you can do both. Especially when you're not cheating anyone else by doing so.

Quote:

See, I'm beginning to question how much difference that would make, in the long run. Genetics is just one factor among many.

In this debate I've noticed a certain commonality to your points. You've continually said "Well, we can make a small difference but not a lot, so we shouldn't do anything."

If you're arguing that eugenics shouldn't be a number 1 priority then that's a valid point. However it's no reason to be -against- eugenics.

Quote:

This is another topic,

Then why did you ask if you didn't want an answer?... that's annoying.

Quote:

You're absolutely right.
Quote:

Yes... yes I am (sorry, couldn't resist. I am kidding though.)

Quote:
It could just not be at all.

Yes, I'm alive. I get it. W00t! picture me rejoicing and cavorting around the room...

Okay, celebration over. Now how about we move on, and think about how we can make things BETTER?

0 Replies

(Responding to the first post. Sorry if the count has increased since then.)

Seventh, who decides what a genetic improvement is? Gene redistribution, like income redistribution, implies one set of people making vital decisions for another set of people -- with no particular reason to believe that the decision makers are better qualified for their job than the subjects of the decision.

Eighth, insofar as our genes can be 'improved', and there is a general understanding about the direction of 'improvement', chances are we are all doing it on a grass roots basis already. Smart, trim, generous, gentle, and industrious people are sexy, so more apt than dull, fat, greedy, agressive slackers to attract mates and procreate with them. If the idea of eugenics is worth pursuing, sexual attraction and evolution are already effective ways to pursue it.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Seventh, who decides what a genetic improvement is?

Good point. Such decisions should be carefully made...

Quote:

Eighth, if the idea of eugenics is worth pursuing, sexual attraction and evolution are already effective ways to pursue it.

Sexual attraction can only deal with manifested genes. Recessive genes can only be dealt with through articial selection, failure to deal with these recessive genes results in the birth of many disabled people whose lives are not so full as they otherwise might be.

Then against perhaps you're happy with various people being born with painful or inconvenient deformities every generation. You certainly seem to be enjoying the status quo.

Sexual attraction can only deal with genes that already exist. How are you going to get glowing blue hair hmmm? You want to wait fourty millenia for that mutation?

0 Replies

Quote:

No. The reason is because people believe that deliberately inflicting a disability on someone is wrong. Manipulating a person's genes to make them deaf is no better than sticking a needle into their ear and puncturing the eardrum. It has nothing to do with a eugenical mindset.

But if a couple with a genetic disorder who knew that their child would likely have the same thing were to try to have one knowingly, wouldn't it be the same thing? That definitely seemed to be coming up a lot at the time. Especially since it was an issue of genetics or some sort of pre-birth manipulation. I believe it's a reaction to the same culturally-ingrained fear - 'we should interfere with the parents' wishes for the child's sake.'

Quote:

Unless you can guarantee a person that their entire life will be spent within that micro-context then it is still a disability. If the disability will force them to remain in that micro-context then it is a violation of their liberty. That's like a muslim couple crafting a gene into their child that if they ever convert away from islam they'll experience continual inconvenience.

Now here you're assuming that a) we don't all have "disabilities" that make it harder for us to get along in society, and b) that having such things is neccessarily a tragedy. Technically, being a woman is a social disability in much the same way as being deaf is. Deaf people have a slight disadvantage which technically should be alleviated by laws, but which isn't. Women have a slight disadvantage which technically should be alleviated by laws, but which isn't. I don't live on Lesbos, but I'd still rather be a woman. Besides, one could argue that having a closer relationship with one's parents is more important than having a closer relationship with, for instance, one's boss. Who's right here? Frankly, I trust the parents over the government.

Quote:

Most likely because no one is enough of a bastard to force their children to deliberately suffer from arthritis or astigmatism simply because they do. As soon as someone does though you can expect the same response, for the same reason which has nothing to do with Eugenics...

Don't they? Don't men who become bald early doom their male children to the same fate by deciding to reproduce? Don't people with terrible eyesight force their children to have to wear glasses for most of their adult lives?

Quote:

People may do what they wish in their own lives. When it influences other people it becomes the business of society as a whole. Nothing influences other people more than reproduction.

A natural consequence of living in the world is that everything you do eventually effects someone else. It doesn't mean that everything that results in something less than optimal for someone else should be considered a crime.

Quote:

Considering reproduction to be an individual right makes children the property of their parents. That I don't approve of.

And yet parents are responsible for everything their children do until they are eightteen. It's probably been longer for you since you were that age, but trust me, they do own you, whether it's sanctified officially by the law or not. Hell, my parents still own me, since I can't garner income to support myself while in school. Think about where children abandoned by their parents usually end up.

Quote:

B) There is no "deafness gene"

Um.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA11/hear1197.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/index.php?newsid=7457

Quote:

Just because we can not remove all bad genes is no reason for us not to remove the several that we can. Agreed?

Agreed. But taking the idea all the way to completion could be very bad. I don't want to intentionally bring up nazism or communism, but I think you can see what I'm talking about here.

Quote:

To me a minor ammount of suffering inflicted upon one person ("sorry, you can't breed") is worth it if it will benefit more people, or benefit one person to a greater degree than that one person will suffer.

See, I don't think this is a 'society at large' issue here. We're arguing for the rights of people who don't exist yet. It's a matter of the rights of people living now versus the rights of hypothetical people. No costest, I think. We may gradually increase the genetic health of the population, but we may also be creating a 1984 for our children to live in if we let the government take control of our lives like this.

Quote:

Would it make a difference if there were someone who was pure? If so why? If not, then that reason is inadequate and you will have to provide another in order to back up that statement.

My point was that no one version of any one gene is better than any other, outside of context. c.f. the whole malaria/sickle-cell deal. 'Good' genetics today may be 'bad' genetics tomorrow. If we can't identify the 'bad' genes, why attempt to remove them?

Quote:

Quote:
We all have to die eventually

Well, there are those who would debate you, but..

That's really interesting.....

Quote:

Quote:
And car accidents cause a hell of a lot more deaths than anything you might inherit genetically.

If it helps you understand me a bit more I'm for banning cars as well....

I wouldn't go quite that far. Cars don't kill people, drunk drivers do.

Quote:

However I think it's something that we can and should consider in the future... when we understand genetics better.

I don't think there's ever a point at which I'll trust our understanding of anything enough to let the government take control of our lives out of our hands based on it.

Quote:

Quote:
Laws protect people from other people, they don't protect people from themselves.

Last time I checked suicidal people were locked up for their own safety...

Just because some of our laws are retarded doesn't mean they all have to be.

Quote:

Quote:
The people who might be born with such diseases aren't even around yet.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Is it worth it to jump out of the frying pan to land in the fire?

Quote:

Quote:
Who are you going to sue?

Your parents... sorry, but that answer seems really obvious to me.

Oh yes.

CHILD: Daddy, I wish you hadn't made me. I hate having your genetic deficiencies.

DADDY: Ok. Here's a bus pass. Have a fun rest of your life!

Quote:

Quote:
We also could have not been born at all.

What's so terrible about that?

I personally like living better than not living. I figured that was just a human universal.

Quote:

If he took care of himself simularily and had good genetics he'd be in good health even longer. What's your point?

It's not like we get stamped with some sort of expiration date when we're born. There were probably moments in anyone's life during which they could have died had they not make certain choices previously. The existance of such moments has to do with genetics. As long as you make the right choices, a lot of those moments won't have an effect because of the choices you actually made. I'm saying here that with a lot of genetic 'problems', you can avoid the results entirely by choices made in your lifetime.

Quote:

No reason you shouldn't rig the deck AND play well if you can do both. Especially when you're not cheating anyone else by doing so.

You can't though, that's the thing. God deals.

Quote:

Quote:
This is another topic,

Then why did you ask if you didn't want an answer?... that's annoying.

You were the one to bring up psychological diseases. I think we should contain this to things we know are genetic.

Quote:

Okay, celebration over. Now how about we move on, and think about how we can make things BETTER?

Well, we can't change our genetics after the fact, that's for sure.

0 Replies

The eugenics problem

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know