The eugenics problem

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?

I believe it's a reaction to the same culturally-ingrained fear - 'we should interfere with the parents' wishes for the child's sake.'

Now here you're assuming that a) we don't all have "disabilities" that make it harder for us to get along in society,

Technically, being a woman is a social disability in much the same way as being deaf is.

Women have a slight disadvantage

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.

trust me, {Your parents} do own you

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

God deals.

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

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

Negative manipulation of genes was a term I came up with.

On the "perfection" point, exactly explain to me what your definition of perfection is

'cause you know there are those who thinks that being strong, tall, beautiful, having certain skin colour, or certain hair colour, is perfection.

Genes might be the code that made us, but we are not our genes. Cause is different from effect.

Thanks...

...

...

<Pained silence>

...

...

... So, you going to tell me what it means now?

For example on the topic of skin colour, it would depend on the environment the person was to live in. Assuming a hypothetical global civilisation in which eugenics has become accepted practise, I imagine the decision of a person's skin colour would be based on the climate they're born for. Black skin would be useful for hot climates with large amounts of UV radiation. White skin would be more useful for cold climates with less sunlight. Hair and eye colour would most likely be kept to match the skin as it would keep the body's usage of melanin consistent throughout.

Cause leads to effect. Alter cause and you alter effect.

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?

Recessive genes manifest themselves less frequently than dominant ones, but it simply isn't true that they never manifest themselves at all, and that sexual attraction cannot select them out. Ironically, in the second half of the quote, you are saying so yourself. In the context of your reply, what is "the birth of many disabled people", if not a manifestation of a recessive gene?

Most "painful or inconvenient deformities" arise from pregnancy complications, not genetic defects....

So if I was a congressman, I'd expect better results for the taxpayer's money from improved health care for pregnant women.

No one I know has ever refused to date or procreate with someone based upon their families genetics. Sexual selection operates on an individual basis only. Both individuals may possess the recessive gene thus causing their children to have both copies and thus make it manifest.

Quote:

Most "painful or inconvenient deformities" arise from pregnancy complications, not genetic defects....

I'm starting to think that you're basing your statements on belief rather than knowledge. Here is a list of confirmed genetic disorders.

Yes -- but lots of people have refused to date or procreate with someone who looked ugly, was too big or too small for his taste, was too intelligent or too stupid, and lots of other hereditary traits.

yes, it only operates on the genes that get expressed in the phenotypes of the individuals involved.

Efficient enough that genes doing nothing but harm, recessive or dominant, would be weeded out by now.

I'm starting to think that you're basing your statements on belief rather than knowledge.

If you can cite a better authority, I will happily defer to it instead.

But I'm afraid copying and pasting a list of hereditary diseases will not suffice to change my mind.

Can you cite evidence that it isn't?

I'm sorry to hear you're sick, and I hope you get well soon. Feel free to reply whenever your recovery permits.

Your list of genetic diseases is long, but this doesn't mean the list of non-genetic birth defects can't be much, much longer.

first I agree that there is no "perfect" gene sequence for the human race. You can't say that blond hair is more perfect than black, or vice versa. What you can say is that certain gene sequences are beneficial, detrimental, or neutral in a given environment.

Second, consciousness is indeed in the genes. The genes of a bacteria lack the ability to produce a brain that is capable of consciousness.

Third, a shark has no use for consciousness but does need good genes to produce a body that will survive and reproduce.

Fourth, some genetically unhealthy people are not good at anything and do not live long enough to reproduce.

Fifth, of course genes mutate. And 2/3 of fertilized human eggs fail to grow into babies, often due to genetic problems. You do not need a "perfect" sequence, just one that produces a body that is good enough to survive and reproduce. This allows the species to evolve to survive under changing conditions.

Sixth, temperament and traits are indeed set by your genes. Babies are born with personalities. Behavior, however, can be modified by environment, training, and the will to change.

Finally, life may have no purpose, but the adventure is in seeing how far we can evolve.