hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 100

Thread: Eugenics

  1. #41
    Donor Aramendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    1,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Then why try and be so selective about something where you cannot possibly know how things will turn out?
    By that logic it makes no sense at all to decide about anything.
    "Why should I got to uni when I cannot possibly know it will lead to better life for me?"

    There exist not assurances about a certain way being the "better" one. There are, however, probabilities. Let me ask you again:

    Would you seriously argue that being healthy has not an higher chance to make you happy than being disabled?

    And to expand this, would you seriously argue that parents have not higher chances of getting happiness from a healthy child than from a disabled one? Would you seriously claim that you get on average equal joy from the company of a person where you can have an actual conversation with as one whose mental level is (and keeps on) that of a small child - or worse?

    If you could freely choose between both - healthy or disabled - would you throw a coin or pick a certain one? That's your answer right there.

  2. #42
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    27,579
    My answer is that the choice should not be given at all because to make such a choice is immoral, regardless of how scientifically feasible it might be.

  3. #43
    Donor Aramendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    1,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    My answer is that the choice should not be given at all because to make such a choice is immoral, regardless of how scientifically feasible it might be.
    And who decides that is immoral? You? Who gives you the right to decide what is right or wrong for others?

    If a couple think it is immoral they are could happily not use the option. It's about choice. Refusing someone this choice is just as bad as enforcing it.

  4. #44
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    27,579
    Quote Originally Posted by Aramendel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    My answer is that the choice should not be given at all because to make such a choice is immoral, regardless of how scientifically feasible it might be.
    And who decides that is immoral? You? Who gives you the right to decide what is right or wrong for others?

    If a couple think it is immoral they are could happily not use the option. It's about choice. Refusing someone this choice is just as bad as enforcing it.
    Taking someone's right to life because they don't fit your required criteria of what a human being should be like is immoral, and a very dangerous line of thinking and history has demonstrated this time and time again.

  5. #45
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Liverpool, laaaa
    Posts
    4,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aramendel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    My answer is that the choice should not be given at all because to make such a choice is immoral, regardless of how scientifically feasible it might be.
    And who decides that is immoral? You? Who gives you the right to decide what is right or wrong for others?

    If a couple think it is immoral they are could happily not use the option. It's about choice. Refusing someone this choice is just as bad as enforcing it.
    Taking someone's right to life because they don't fit your required criteria of what a human being should be like is immoral, and a very dangerous line of thinking and history has demonstrated this time and time again.
    Killing a person for it is wrong. Stopping that person existing before they exist is a different matter. If you were told by a doctor early on in pregnancy "This child will definitely be mentally disabled if you have it" are you seriously telling me you wouldn't even consider abortion and to try again for a child that will be normal and healthy? At that stage it's up to the parents whether or not to have the child, it's not a decision anyone else can make. Do you use condoms? Because that's technically "taking someone's right to life".

    Now if you were told "We can change your child's genes slightly so they definitely won't be disabled or have a life threatening disease" are you telling me you wouldn't take that option because messing with the human genome is immoral?

    Designer babies shouldn't really be an option in my opinion, but using science to stop a problem before it even exists should definitely be an option if it's possible.

  6. #46
    Donor Aramendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    1,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Taking someone's right to life because they don't fit your required criteria of what a human being should be like is immoral
    Except you do not take away someones right to life. You confuse it with "kill all disabled persons" atrocities.

    It is about the polar opposite - deciding what life to create. Both a healthy and disabled person have equal rights to live. You can either create one at random or decide to create one specifically. You cannot create both. There is nothing immoral in refusing to roll randomly.

    To expand, "the right to life" is in that case a zero sum. Because that of the healthy and that of the disabled person cancel each other out. What remains is what the parents think is "right".

  7. #47
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    27,579
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aramendel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    My answer is that the choice should not be given at all because to make such a choice is immoral, regardless of how scientifically feasible it might be.
    And who decides that is immoral? You? Who gives you the right to decide what is right or wrong for others?

    If a couple think it is immoral they are could happily not use the option. It's about choice. Refusing someone this choice is just as bad as enforcing it.
    Taking someone's right to life because they don't fit your required criteria of what a human being should be like is immoral, and a very dangerous line of thinking and history has demonstrated this time and time again.
    Killing a person for it is wrong. Stopping that person existing before they exist is a different matter. If you were told by a doctor early on in pregnancy "This child will definitely be mentally disabled if you have it" are you seriously telling me you wouldn't even consider abortion and to try again for a child that will be normal and healthy? At that stage it's up to the parents whether or not to have the child, it's not a decision anyone else can make. Do you use condoms? Because that's technically "taking someone's right to life".
    It's not the same thing at all IMO. Using contraception or having an abortion are a choice to be a parent or not, rather than a choice about what type of child to have. If you choose to have a child, then you must accept what that child is like, warts and all.

    Human beings designing future human beings according to their own flawed ideals of what we should be like is not beneficial to us at all.

  8. #48
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Liverpool, laaaa
    Posts
    4,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aramendel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    My answer is that the choice should not be given at all because to make such a choice is immoral, regardless of how scientifically feasible it might be.
    And who decides that is immoral? You? Who gives you the right to decide what is right or wrong for others?

    If a couple think it is immoral they are could happily not use the option. It's about choice. Refusing someone this choice is just as bad as enforcing it.
    Taking someone's right to life because they don't fit your required criteria of what a human being should be like is immoral, and a very dangerous line of thinking and history has demonstrated this time and time again.
    Killing a person for it is wrong. Stopping that person existing before they exist is a different matter. If you were told by a doctor early on in pregnancy "This child will definitely be mentally disabled if you have it" are you seriously telling me you wouldn't even consider abortion and to try again for a child that will be normal and healthy? At that stage it's up to the parents whether or not to have the child, it's not a decision anyone else can make. Do you use condoms? Because that's technically "taking someone's right to life".
    It's not the same thing at all IMO. Using contraception or having an abortion are a choice to be a parent or not, rather than a choice about what type of child to have. If you choose to have a child, then you must accept what that child is like, warts and all.

    Human beings designing future human beings according to their own flawed ideals of what we should be like is not beneficial to us at all.
    You're mixing up "Designer babies" with "Allowing parents to have a child that doesn't have downs syndrome".

    Are you telling me that having less people with downs, sickle cell, huntingdons is a bad thing? It's hardly a flawed ideal to think that not having a life crippling disorder is a good thing.

    In nature these people definitely wouldn't have survived, and while it's good that we now care for them and give them the best quality of life we can, it would still be beneficial to all involved if we could remove these problems from the outset and have a member of society that is able to(if they want) become a productive member of the community.

    e: Your post also seems to say "It's fine for the parents to abort the foetus, but as soon as they alter it to make it healthy that's BAD".

  9. #49
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    27,579
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post

    You're mixing up "Designer babies" with "Allowing parents to have a child that doesn't have downs syndrome".

    Are you telling me that having less people with downs, sickle cell, huntingdons is a bad thing? It's hardly a flawed ideal to think that not having a life crippling disorder is a good thing.

    In nature these people definitely wouldn't have survived, and while it's good that we now care for them and give them the best quality of life we can, it would still be beneficial to all involved if we could remove these problems from the outset and have a member of society that is able to(if they want) become a productive member of the community.

    e: Your post also seems to say "It's fine for the parents to abort the foetus, but as soon as they alter it to make it healthy that's BAD".
    They're just different degrees of the same thing as far as I can see. Where do you draw the line? Is it okay to abort a foetus that might be short, or those with red hair or maybe those with a predisposition to having flaky skin?

    It's quite possible for someone with a genetic disorder to be a productive member of society. Again, people with genetic disorders still have lived. Yes they have challenges to face that maybe the rest of us don't but if you asked them if they would prefer to have never existed I doubt they would say yes.

    And yes, I do believe it's fine to abort a child because you do not wish to be a parent. It's a very different type of choice to the one you are supporting. If you make the decision to have children then you should have to live with that choice however much hardship it might bring you.

  10. #50
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Liverpool, laaaa
    Posts
    4,095
    The choice isn't between asking someone with a disorder if they'd prefer to exist or not. The choice is between asking someone with a disorder if they'd prefer to exist with or without that disorder.

    Drawing the line is changing genes for any other reason than to fix a disorder that will affect your ability to function. Ginger hair does not affect your capacity to learn, grow, speak and get a job as far as I'm aware.

    We're all talking about if it is right to remove these disorders before they're an issue. You're talking about designer babies, yet for some reason you can't see that.

    You also say that it's possible for people with these disorders to become a productive member of society, which it is. But I'd be willing to bet that they're the outliers and not the main bulk. You just hear about them more because "oh what a great life success story to put in the newspaper".

  11. #51
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    27,579
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    The choice isn't between asking someone with a disorder if they'd prefer to exist or not. The choice is between asking someone with a disorder if they'd prefer to exist with or without that disorder.

    Drawing the line is changing genes for any other reason than to fix a disorder that will affect your ability to function. Ginger hair does not affect your capacity to learn, grow, speak and get a job as far as I'm aware.

    We're all talking about if it is right to remove these disorders before they're an issue. You're talking about designer babies, yet for some reason you can't see that.

    You also say that it's possible for people with these disorders to become a productive member of society, which it is. But I'd be willing to bet that they're the outliers and not the main bulk. You just hear about them more because "oh what a great life success story to put in the newspaper".
    I get the argument I just don't agree with it. Variety is an important part of our lives and any attempt to reduce the natural variety we get from nature is not something I think we should pursue. There's also an evolutionary concern. We could genetically remove a mutation which could eventually serve some unseen evolutionary advantage to us, but was quashed because it didn't meet the standards set out.

    And yes, it is mostly the outliers that go on to do things in society, though a large part of that is probably due to culture and attitudes. Also, I'm not sure that making disability even more marginalised than it already is would help that.

  12. #52
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Liverpool, laaaa
    Posts
    4,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    The choice isn't between asking someone with a disorder if they'd prefer to exist or not. The choice is between asking someone with a disorder if they'd prefer to exist with or without that disorder.

    Drawing the line is changing genes for any other reason than to fix a disorder that will affect your ability to function. Ginger hair does not affect your capacity to learn, grow, speak and get a job as far as I'm aware.

    We're all talking about if it is right to remove these disorders before they're an issue. You're talking about designer babies, yet for some reason you can't see that.

    You also say that it's possible for people with these disorders to become a productive member of society, which it is. But I'd be willing to bet that they're the outliers and not the main bulk. You just hear about them more because "oh what a great life success story to put in the newspaper".
    I get the argument I just don't agree with it. Variety is an important part of our lives and any attempt to reduce the natural variety we get from nature is not something I think we should pursue. There's also an evolutionary concern. We could genetically remove a mutation which could eventually serve some unseen evolutionary advantage to us, but was quashed because it didn't meet the standards set out.

    And yes, it is mostly the outliers that go on to do things in society, though a large part of that is probably due to culture and attitudes. Also, I'm not sure that making disability even more marginalised than it already is would help that.
    In evolutionary terms, a lot of these people would die out in nature or be a dead end of the evolutionary cycle. It is only because of the society we have now that they are able to maintain their quality of life, or even have life. That argument also must include that fact that for that to happen then these people must procreate, and a lot of them are physically or mentally incapable of such a thing, as bad as that might sound. I'm not saying all, but most. I know there are exceptions.

  13. #53
    Donor Aramendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    1,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    If you make the decision to have children then you should have to live with that choice however much hardship it might bring you.
    Why? If you keep flying your immoral flag see my last post - why it is immoral to be able to decide which life you want to create? If beneficial - why it is impossible that it is beneficial? You seem to think that the "natural" DNA is a flawless gem. It isn't. It is something random which was then tempered by survival of the fittest.

    We could genetically remove a mutation which could eventually serve some unseen evolutionary advantage to us, but was quashed because it didn't meet the standards set out.
    If we can put it out we can put it in. From an evolutionary viewpoint manipulating our own DNA is if anything greatly beneficial because we can increase our evolutionary speed by several orders of magnitude.
    The survival of the fittest aspect still applies - if someone removes a certain characteristics from his/her children and said characteristics has a hidden beneficial aspect then the children of other people will have an advantage. Also, loosing certain characteristics happens all the time naturally as well. By doing it ourselves we can reintroduce them while in nature those gens would be lost forever. There are things called "gene databases".
    Another thing is that we can avoid getting steered into an evolutionary dead end by directing our evolution ourselves. Also something which happens naturally all the time. Which *cannot* just reverse it naturally. If a species gets steered into a dead end by blind evolution it's extinction time, baby!

    Seriously, do not even try to play the "Evolution" card here. It so massively is in favor of eugenics it isn't even funny.

    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    And yes, it is mostly the outliers that go on to do things in society, though a large part of that is probably due to culture and attitudes. Also, I'm not sure that making disability even more marginalised than it already is would help that.
    You are seriously claiming that someone with downs is in the outliers mainly because "due to culture and attitudes" and not because the only jobs he can do are those which nowadays machines can do better?
    Last edited by Aramendel; July 26 2012 at 01:06:42 PM.

  14. #54
    Donor Pattern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    6,037
    I don't think I'm taking a bold stance by saying that any real attempt at eugenics is indefensible. Practically speaking, though, eugenics is just as much of a bust as it is morally. We can't positively select for "better people," and we may face dire consequences if we try to weed out genetic problems, too.
    "Should" is a rather vague English word. Saying we "shouldn't" do something can mean that it is immoral to do it or that it won't have the desired result. When it comes to eugenics, we tend to circle around the first kind of "shouldn't," without paying attention to the second. Eugenics programs of the past have lead to attempted genocide, mass sterilization, and garden variety needless suffering. There are plenty of reasons for people to cut off the conversation about eugenics at the moral. Too often, though, that leaves the practical drawbacks unexamined. Beyond the possibility of bungling the job, there are concrete reasons why eugenics just wouldn't work.

    Not All Animals Respond to Eugenics The Same Way

    One of the primary arguments for practical eugenics resides right in a number of people's homes. There's no denying the effects of selective breeding on a species. Over only a few thousand years, humans have managed to breed in, or out, any number of traits when it comes to dogs. Certain breeds are smarter, stronger, faster, or bigger. It's proof of concept that selective eugenics can produce desired results.

    But humans aren't dogs. In fact, almost no animal is a dog when it comes to its genetic plasticity. Everything about them makes them more practically suited to selective breeding. In canine DNA are specific sequences known as SINEC_Cf elements. These are sequences of DNA that are especially prone to wandering, whole from one part of the DNA strand to another. In dogs, they often insert themselves into stretches that act as regulatory agents on processes, vastly but for the most part safely changing the expression of genes. Dogs have about 11,000 of these sequences, and they go back to their wolf ancestors. Humans have less than one thousand. Dog DNA is also shown to have strange repeating segments more often than humans. They're prone to benign mutation. They're also, unlike many animals, prone to develop in a way that allows for more biodiversity. The skull of a puppy often doesn't much resemble the dog it will grow into, whereas other animals have juvenile forms that are more templates of their adult selves. Starting from a basic pattern and drawing on variation from there developmentally allows dogs a huge plasticity of form that cannot be copied by other animals, humans included.

    Selective eugenics cannot do otherwise but have an effect. Obsessively manage a familial line over generations, and it will change a species. However, every species will respond differently. Assuming that eugenics will have as much of an effect on humans as it does on other species is wrong. Assuming it will have the same effect it does on the more genetically pliable species can be fatal.

    It Will Squander Our Limited Biodiversity

    Even the success that we see with dogs comes at a price. Though different breeds of dogs might have a trait that's desirable to humans, they aren't more fit to survive than their wild compatriots. And what becomes of all their selective breeding? Aside from any number of diseases, weaknesses, and health problems endemic to dog breeds, they lose biodiversity. It's estimated that five percent of wolves' diversity was lost when they became domesticated dogs. When those domestic dogs were obsessively bred to make, say, a golden retriever, they lost another thirty-five percent of their diversity.

    Full size
    Humans don't have that much biodiversity to lose. Grab any two humans on Earth and they're likely to be more similar to each other, at the genetic level, than two chimps from the same tribe. It's thought that the human race came close to extinction in the past, and that the few survivors became genetically close to each other. Losing another thirty-five percent of our diversity is not a tempting prospect. Going back to the dog model, scientists generally agree that their mutations don't involve introduction of new genes, but expressions of ones already existing ones, which is why they can still interbreed so well. All that difference in genetics is what allowed them to change form in order to adapt to different conditions. Human eugenics isn't going to be about trying to create many different breeds, but about going for an ideal. Limiting our biodiversity in the name of one ideal, or even a chosen few, doesn't just change the human species in the present, it cuts off our capacity for change in the future. It's widely acknowledged that a species that limits its gene pool leaves itself extremely vulnerable to any change from its ideal conditions. If the world itself changes — which is pretty much a guarantee — the human population could very well be stranded at a dead end.

    It's No Way to Add Quality

    So what would we gain for this vulnerability, and this expenditure of energy and care on selective human eugenics? What's the ideal trait that we'd like for future humans to have? The general consensus on what we'd like to breed into the human population is intelligence. The human brain wants to preen and protect itself. This separates us from the animals! Except there's no pure way, genetically, to do that. During a recent interview with Io9, Gary Karpen, a UC Berkeley biologist, has said flat-out that, given all possible genetic information about a child, it is in no way possible to predict intelligence. There are too many traits bound together, too many ways that genes might be expressed. The leader of the Human Genome Process, Francis Collins, said the same in his own book, claiming that no amount of genetic tinkering could give people designer babies with intelligence to order.

    Well, what about other things? Strength? Fertility? Resilience? The problem is there is no one smart gene, or fertile gene, or strong gene. Mix the DNA of two geniuses and, even assuming somewhere in the soup of their DNA intelligence is passed down, it drags a net of other traits along with it. Those who manage animal breeding notice the same. When one can breed in a trait like swiftness in horses, or health and fertility in chickens, it generally comes with any number of other characteristics. Thoroughbreds and "hot-blooded" horses are notoriously temperamental. One study in poultry husbandry showed that even moderate increases in hen fertility and health came with increase in aggression, hysterical behavior, weird imprinting responses in the young, and odd sexual behavior. Good luck with that mixed in to the human population. Eugenics can't be a scalpel. It's a club. Even assuming we could get an extraordinary trait in one area, it would come with a whole host of other traits that wouldn't be so desirable.

    We Can't Be Sure What's Unnecessary

    But surely eugenics, at its most benign, can be used to eliminate the more terrible genetic conditions in a population? No one could actually approve of a human child suffering? Since the beginning of the concept, this was the most socially acceptable side of eugenics. Some would say that it's in practice today, since parents often consult genetic scientists to see if a fetus actually carries an incurable genetic disease.

    At the same time, there are relatively few diseases that are guaranteed by a person's genes, and science is for the most part at work to use gene therapy to eliminate the expressed disease in one person, not the genes in an entire group. Even the elimination of genes that cause genetic disorders can pose a problem. For a some time, it seemed that genetically heritable diseases such as Tay Sachs and sickle cell anemia were biological mysteries. Why would any population pass down a disease that would kill the next generation? Recently, though, it was found that the sickle cell anemia allele helped protect against malaria, arguably the most widespread killer of humans, and that the allele that caused Tay Sachs protected against tuberculosis, another famous killer. Again, a complete elimination of these genes from the human population may very well lose humankind the capacity to naturally guard against two widespread non-heritable diseases.

    Too often eugenics is dismissed on moral grounds by people who say science shouldn't meddle with nature because it's wrong, or cruel. Practically speaking, that's not the only "should" to use. To express the argument fully, we need to employ the practical use of the word "should." Selecting and deselecting certain genes of people shouldn't be done because it's the wrong way to go about building up a strong, healthy, and smart population. Instead, the widest array of genes should be supported. Differing genetics should be seen as opportunities to understand the hidden strengths of different human beings. And we should understand the many ways that stubborn genetic diversity benefits our society.
    http://io9.com/eugenics/
    /thread

  15. #55
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    27,579
    Quote Originally Posted by Aramendel View Post
    Seriously, do not even try to play the "Evolution" card here. It so massively is in favor of eugenics it isn't even funny.
    Really?

    Let's look at an example of eugenics in action that many of us will be familiar with, Dogs. For thousands of years we have selectively bred traits that seem desirable to us into dogs while ignoring others. This has resulted in many breeds having persistent health issues including arthritis, breathing problems and neurological conditions.

    So I'm not convinced evolution is in any way in favour of eugenics.

  16. #56
    Donor Aramendel's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    1,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Let's look at an example of eugenics in action that many of us will be familiar with, Dogs. For thousands of years we have selectively bred traits that seem desirable to us into dogs while ignoring others. This has resulted in many breeds having persistent health issues including arthritis, breathing problems and neurological conditions.
    The little difference is here that WE steered the evolution of OTHERS.

    If we steered our own evolution and noticed "Oh, people who had gene A removed/changed/added have issues X" you think we wouldn't try to fix it and instead go "Oh, but he has no hair loss, that is totally worth it."

    If a dog has health issues or pain it doesn't really effect us. We ourselves having it though....


    Quote Originally Posted by Pattern View Post
    Not really. The major thing that article ignores is that genetics has the ability to add things which do not exist naturally yet. It is not just a reshuffling and reduction of what is already there. This kills that articles main argument of biodiversity.
    Last edited by Aramendel; July 26 2012 at 01:20:59 PM.

  17. #57
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    16,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    My answer is that the choice should not be given at all because to make such a choice is immoral, regardless of how scientifically feasible it might be.
    wat

  18. #58
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    16,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Pattern View Post
    I don't think I'm taking a bold stance by saying that any real attempt at eugenics is indefensible. Practically speaking, though, eugenics is just as much of a bust as it is morally. We can't positively select for "better people," and we may face dire consequences if we try to weed out genetic problems, too.
    "Should" is a rather vague English word. Saying we "shouldn't" do something can mean that it is immoral to do it or that it won't have the desired result. When it comes to eugenics, we tend to circle around the first kind of "shouldn't," without paying attention to the second. Eugenics programs of the past have lead to attempted genocide, mass sterilization, and garden variety needless suffering. There are plenty of reasons for people to cut off the conversation about eugenics at the moral. Too often, though, that leaves the practical drawbacks unexamined. Beyond the possibility of bungling the job, there are concrete reasons why eugenics just wouldn't work.

    ...

    Too often eugenics is dismissed on moral grounds by people who say science shouldn't meddle with nature because it's wrong, or cruel. Practically speaking, that's not the only "should" to use. To express the argument fully, we need to employ the practical use of the word "should." Selecting and deselecting certain genes of people shouldn't be done because it's the wrong way to go about building up a strong, healthy, and smart population. Instead, the widest array of genes should be supported. Differing genetics should be seen as opportunities to understand the hidden strengths of different human beings. And we should understand the many ways that stubborn genetic diversity benefits our society.
    http://io9.com/eugenics/
    /thread
    That's very nicely written but its totally wrong.

    The article rests on a fundamental belief that there is no such thing as "better" genetic material, only different. I've highlighted the sentence that makes this point most strongly.

    In my view that is simply fundamentally wrong - the more we learn about genetics and genetic treatments the more we realise what an incredibly pivotol role in human capability they play. In the future we WILL be able to engineer traits into all humans. Imagine if every child is born with capability of, with the right nurture, doing a PHD in astrophysics or composing an orchestral piece or competiting at the highest level (well what counts as the highest level now) of sport? Why is that anything other than a noble aim?

    It always makes me a little queasy when someone makes some vapid half-statement about how we cant aim for better because of discrimination against those less well off. This is poisonous thinking - genetic ludditism.

    If my child was born with Tay Sachs because some ivory tower neckbeard stroking ethicist had decided that "we need to celebrate each others differences" and ensured genetic screening and ultimately selection to avoid it was not available, I'd lose the plot. "Different is good" is all very well until "different" means a short life punctuated by agony.
    Last edited by Lallante; July 26 2012 at 03:09:38 PM.

  19. #59
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    16,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aramendel View Post
    Seriously, do not even try to play the "Evolution" card here. It so massively is in favor of eugenics it isn't even funny.
    Really?

    Let's look at an example of eugenics in action that many of us will be familiar with, Dogs. For thousands of years we have selectively bred traits that seem desirable to us into dogs while ignoring others. This has resulted in many breeds having persistent health issues including arthritis, breathing problems and neurological conditions.

    So I'm not convinced evolution is in any way in favour of eugenics.
    You realise those health issues are the result of poor genetic material resulting from inbreeding - something that would not only not apply to genetic eugenics BUT BE IMPOSSIBLE under it?

  20. #60
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    16,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    The choice isn't between asking someone with a disorder if they'd prefer to exist or not. The choice is between asking someone with a disorder if they'd prefer to exist with or without that disorder.

    Drawing the line is changing genes for any other reason than to fix a disorder that will affect your ability to function. Ginger hair does not affect your capacity to learn, grow, speak and get a job as far as I'm aware.

    We're all talking about if it is right to remove these disorders before they're an issue. You're talking about designer babies, yet for some reason you can't see that.

    You also say that it's possible for people with these disorders to become a productive member of society, which it is. But I'd be willing to bet that they're the outliers and not the main bulk. You just hear about them more because "oh what a great life success story to put in the newspaper".
    I get the argument I just don't agree with it. Variety is an important part of our lives and any attempt to reduce the natural variety we get from nature is not something I think we should pursue. There's also an evolutionary concern. We could genetically remove a mutation which could eventually serve some unseen evolutionary advantage to us, but was quashed because it didn't meet the standards set out.

    And yes, it is mostly the outliers that go on to do things in society, though a large part of that is probably due to culture and attitudes. Also, I'm not sure that making disability even more marginalised than it already is would help that.

    "It's like, playing god man" "Don't mess with nature, man".

    These aren't arguements, its just reactionary gut conservatism. The idea that given perfect genetic choice, everyone would choose the same is simply ludicrous in its lack of support. Individualism is hardwired into the human psyche. Sure everyone would choose to be healthy and intelligent, but are you seriously advocating condemning people to a life of confusion, ignorance or sickness solely because you "prefer more variety"? That seems perverse in the extreme.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •