eugenics thread.
- Thread starter 4l20Blackbird
- Start date
And even in the case of smallpox, we keep a small amount of the virus for research purposes.
The end of all arguments regarding eugenics to me is, who decides what road science should take? The reason I do what I do is that in my field, what I study and research is caused by man, which is radiological engineering.
We already have eugenics taking place with couples having abortions because of the wrong sex. Prenatal testing allows couples to abort due to the possibility of a child carrying or developing a disease present at birth or developed later in life.
We perform DNA studies to see what diseases we're susceptable to as we age and we can try to change our life styles to prevent said diseases. Eugenics isn't a theory, its already here...
The end of all arguments regarding eugenics to me is, who decides what road science should take? The reason I do what I do is that in my field, what I study and research is caused by man, which is radiological engineering.
We already have eugenics taking place with couples having abortions because of the wrong sex. Prenatal testing allows couples to abort due to the possibility of a child carrying or developing a disease present at birth or developed later in life.
We perform DNA studies to see what diseases we're susceptable to as we age and we can try to change our life styles to prevent said diseases. Eugenics isn't a theory, its already here...
i is confused...
why are you explaining competitive advantages and niche in natural selection to me ?- im so confused...
i said that our biological incentive is to pass on our genetic material not destroy the competition as Bunny suggested.
@Fubag - want some soy lent green?
They would just take a different way to kill.
imagine that genes are like a dice - there are different forms of the gene like the sides of a dice called alleles.
each side of this dice is strong at something but weak at another thing because one allele can only code for one thing.
say for example the side of the dice:
1. is the fire resistant side
2. is water resistant
3. is sugar resistant
4. is salt resistant
5. is light resistant
6. is dark resistant
The fire resistant side is not water, sugar, salt, light or dark resistant therefore there are 5 ways to kill each allele or each side of the dice.
Adapting to an environment makes you good for that environment but if you change the environment you're not well suited.
you can put the water resistant side of the die in the see but if you put it in fire it dies, same if you put it in salt, sugar light or dark environments.
(yes im using a variant of Magic playing card to explain genes and alleles in the simplest terms possible)
why are you explaining competitive advantages and niche in natural selection to me ?- im so confused...
i said that our biological incentive is to pass on our genetic material not destroy the competition as Bunny suggested.
@Fubag - want some soy lent green?
They would just take a different way to kill.
imagine that genes are like a dice - there are different forms of the gene like the sides of a dice called alleles.
each side of this dice is strong at something but weak at another thing because one allele can only code for one thing.
say for example the side of the dice:
1. is the fire resistant side
2. is water resistant
3. is sugar resistant
4. is salt resistant
5. is light resistant
6. is dark resistant
The fire resistant side is not water, sugar, salt, light or dark resistant therefore there are 5 ways to kill each allele or each side of the dice.
Adapting to an environment makes you good for that environment but if you change the environment you're not well suited.
you can put the water resistant side of the die in the see but if you put it in fire it dies, same if you put it in salt, sugar light or dark environments.
(yes im using a variant of Magic playing card to explain genes and alleles in the simplest terms possible)
Carolina1989
New member
- Apr 15, 2008
- 22
- 0
- 1
I still don't see where it could work outside of a totalitarian system. You simply cannot enforce it without impeding people's freedom of choice.
No you can't - but you can offer it to those who are interested. If/when it becomes clear that eugenically selected embryos result in healthier/smarter kids more people will be interested. Social pressure might even swing in favour of it, after all, don't you want your child to have the best start in life?
I'm entirely in agreement with LilBunnyRabbit. Done carefully it's beneficial, and there are a few different approaches. Given the world population is now 7 billion I say we start now on a smaller, healthier/smarter population.
I'm entirely in agreement with LilBunnyRabbit. Done carefully it's beneficial, and there are a few different approaches. Given the world population is now 7 billion I say we start now on a smaller, healthier/smarter population.
tru_beauty601
Member
- Apr 14, 2008
- 38
- 0
- 6
Which isn't taking away the privilege to breed, simply removing the children from those who shouldn't have bred in the first place.
Depends entirely on the reasoning. If there was some genetic trait being passed down which would cause huge problems, I'd rather have it either engineered out or adopt a child instead.
No, before starting a family with someone I'd actually want to look in to genetic compatibility with the potential partner. If there's a risk of something nasty, then look at other options to remove that risk.
Killed off? Not quite the same thing, is it? We're not talking about taking their family away and exterminating them - we're talking about making sure that their family are genetically fit before they come into existence. We're stopping an evolutionary dead end before we waste resources on supporting it.
We already impede people's freedom of choice for the benefit of the majority, this is simply making it a little more obvious.
Depends entirely on the reasoning. If there was some genetic trait being passed down which would cause huge problems, I'd rather have it either engineered out or adopt a child instead.
No, before starting a family with someone I'd actually want to look in to genetic compatibility with the potential partner. If there's a risk of something nasty, then look at other options to remove that risk.
Killed off? Not quite the same thing, is it? We're not talking about taking their family away and exterminating them - we're talking about making sure that their family are genetically fit before they come into existence. We're stopping an evolutionary dead end before we waste resources on supporting it.
We already impede people's freedom of choice for the benefit of the majority, this is simply making it a little more obvious.
Capodastaro
Member
- Feb 27, 2008
- 32
- 0
- 6
The reality is, eugenics is already being practiced. Sperm banks screen donors - that's eugenics.
So is this:
Someone tell me how this is a bad thing? What LilBunnyRabbit (and I) are advocating is the wide-spread practice of such genetic selection. There are a number of obviously undesirable genes/variations that can already be identified. As technology and genetic knowledge improve, we can screen for more. I myself am myopic, with a colour vision defect. Either one of those disqualifies me from breeding! I'm actually the lucky one in my family - both my brothers are myopic, with auto-immune conditions. My sister also has an auto-immune condition. My father was bipolar (manic-depressive). So even in my immediate family there are obvious genetic defects. Goodness knows what else there might be.
Like it or not, eugenics is the future. At first it will be small-scale and voluntary, after a while it will become mainstream practice. Eventually it will become either mandatory (why waste resources on the inferior, as LBR mentioned?) or the gap between the eugenically selected and the free-for-all breeders will be so great that the latter will either die off, or become permanently consigned to the lower class.
I hope I live long enough to see this happen.
So is this:
Someone tell me how this is a bad thing? What LilBunnyRabbit (and I) are advocating is the wide-spread practice of such genetic selection. There are a number of obviously undesirable genes/variations that can already be identified. As technology and genetic knowledge improve, we can screen for more. I myself am myopic, with a colour vision defect. Either one of those disqualifies me from breeding! I'm actually the lucky one in my family - both my brothers are myopic, with auto-immune conditions. My sister also has an auto-immune condition. My father was bipolar (manic-depressive). So even in my immediate family there are obvious genetic defects. Goodness knows what else there might be.
Like it or not, eugenics is the future. At first it will be small-scale and voluntary, after a while it will become mainstream practice. Eventually it will become either mandatory (why waste resources on the inferior, as LBR mentioned?) or the gap between the eugenically selected and the free-for-all breeders will be so great that the latter will either die off, or become permanently consigned to the lower class.
I hope I live long enough to see this happen.
JENNYtheGREATt
New member
- Feb 27, 2008
- 22
- 0
- 1
What you are saying is that you support policies that, had they been in effect already, would prevent you from being born in the first place?
I find it somewhat amusing, and more than a bit depressing.
I find it somewhat amusing, and more than a bit depressing.
VerrueckterKomponist
New member
- Mar 6, 2008
- 27
- 0
- 1
Indeed - it's amusing. But it's logical, which IMHO trumps nearly everything else. As for me, I'm a productive taxpaying member of society, so I see no need to kill myself. I'm doing my bit for the next generation by contributing to the economy and not breeding!
I'm curious about something. Those of us advocating eugenics are doing so based on a clear difference in quality of life, and health, for those who would receive such selective breeding compared to those that do not.
The opponents of eugenics, on the other hand, seem to just find the idea distasteful and feel that it infringes upon some nebulous human right. Can anyone provide me with an argument against it which is not based upon this privilege? I'm not saying that the right/privilege argument is invalid, but it boils down to a point of view rather than a clear position.
The opponents of eugenics, on the other hand, seem to just find the idea distasteful and feel that it infringes upon some nebulous human right. Can anyone provide me with an argument against it which is not based upon this privilege? I'm not saying that the right/privilege argument is invalid, but it boils down to a point of view rather than a clear position.
^ I'm actually all in favor of parenting licenses; mostly because because I know too many people barely fit to take care of a Tamagochi, let alone an actual child.
I just find people arguing for policies working directly against them humorous in a "sailor drowned in his own bathtub" kind of way.
I just find people arguing for policies working directly against them humorous in a "sailor drowned in his own bathtub" kind of way.
MakeAmyUpt
New member
- Apr 11, 2008
- 28
- 0
- 1
I would say I'm against it because a lot of the time it either
1 - lacks a clear aim in what physical traits are desired
2 - we simply do not know enough about human genetics to make a decision about some traits.
3 - Certain genetic diseases could be 'cured' by in the future by genetic technologies.
3 - The cost involved in genetic screening of a population to determine 'allowable' genotypes.
I do not believe things such as prenatal testing to determine genetic disease markers and possible subsequent termination is classified as eugenics. Eugeneics is a population wide thing and not everyone has the means or inclination to do such a thing. "Eugenics" if implimented would have to be done at a higher level than personal or parental decisions.
1 - lacks a clear aim in what physical traits are desired
2 - we simply do not know enough about human genetics to make a decision about some traits.
3 - Certain genetic diseases could be 'cured' by in the future by genetic technologies.
3 - The cost involved in genetic screening of a population to determine 'allowable' genotypes.
I do not believe things such as prenatal testing to determine genetic disease markers and possible subsequent termination is classified as eugenics. Eugeneics is a population wide thing and not everyone has the means or inclination to do such a thing. "Eugenics" if implimented would have to be done at a higher level than personal or parental decisions.
sexybi731
New member
- Mar 15, 2008
- 19
- 0
- 1
Reduction in genetic diversity - removing undesirable traits will decrease genetic diversity?
BeatleSoul
New member
- Apr 8, 2008
- 21
- 0
- 1
There are 7 billion people on Earth. I'm sure we can remove a lot of undesirable genes without adversely impacting on genetic diversity. Besides, using embryonic selection, you don't have to discard the potential breeder - just the embryos that carry the undesirable genes.
Deliberately so - if you start saying a particular body type or skin colour is desired, you've opened a new bottle of worms. We're talking about genetic illnesses and obvious flaws which could be eliminated instead - hereditary disabilities for example.
We know enough to put a probability on a particular matching producing a viable, healthy human being.
Or could be cured now by genetic technologies (i.e. scanning and application of eugenics).
Pricey - but likely less than the cost of providing life time care to those who would otherwise be born with hereditary diseases and susceptibility to other diseases.
They are. Eugenics is the advocation of technologies or practices aimed at improving the genetic compopsition of a population. Screening, as is already done, and even retroviral therapy are technically eugenics.
I agree. Effective eugenics would have to be done at a higher level than personal or parental decisions - it's long been established that people do not make altruistic decisions when it comes to their personal lives.
Not at all - we have huge genetic diversity in place already, countless genetic families of humans. It's also notable that cross-breeding between genetically diverse populations tends to produce more durable offspring than breeding within a particular phenotype. Immunities and strengths are carried over with the breeding.
I suppose you could see, say, reducing susceptibility to cancer could be considered reducing diversity, but I don't really see that it's the type of diversity we need.
We know enough to put a probability on a particular matching producing a viable, healthy human being.
Or could be cured now by genetic technologies (i.e. scanning and application of eugenics).
Pricey - but likely less than the cost of providing life time care to those who would otherwise be born with hereditary diseases and susceptibility to other diseases.
They are. Eugenics is the advocation of technologies or practices aimed at improving the genetic compopsition of a population. Screening, as is already done, and even retroviral therapy are technically eugenics.
I agree. Effective eugenics would have to be done at a higher level than personal or parental decisions - it's long been established that people do not make altruistic decisions when it comes to their personal lives.
Not at all - we have huge genetic diversity in place already, countless genetic families of humans. It's also notable that cross-breeding between genetically diverse populations tends to produce more durable offspring than breeding within a particular phenotype. Immunities and strengths are carried over with the breeding.
I suppose you could see, say, reducing susceptibility to cancer could be considered reducing diversity, but I don't really see that it's the type of diversity we need.
some of those genes may not be desirable in one set of conditions but might be in another.
it decreases genetic diversity greatly.
and what if we get to the point that we start calling those with a lower level of intelligence inferior, are considered diseased and must stop breeding.
where do we draw the line?
eugenics projects can spiral out of control very very quickly.
also, by wanting to breed out disease and genetic abnormalities, we're saying that everyone with a disability doesnt deserve their life.
we're saying that those with downs syndrome dont deserve to be born because the have a chromosomal abnormality.
we'll tell a parent of a downs syndrome (granted they cant breed but they are a drain on resources in this very logical eugenic world Bunny is talking of) child that. no MA will prevent the beating you'll get.
we're saying that those with disabilities have no place even existing in our society, and thats where things get tricky.
but to quote Darwin:
Bunny - you're saying we should eliminate disease and we have enough diversity already.
but that assumes that the alleles causing certain diseases do not have an affect on another part of functioning or genetic code.
ive given the sickle cell example already but there are infinitely more.
if we're gonna use your "bubble" scenario we need to stick with a small population, in a stable location that never has any immigration or emigration.
it wont work for any real population.
it decreases genetic diversity greatly.
and what if we get to the point that we start calling those with a lower level of intelligence inferior, are considered diseased and must stop breeding.
where do we draw the line?
eugenics projects can spiral out of control very very quickly.
also, by wanting to breed out disease and genetic abnormalities, we're saying that everyone with a disability doesnt deserve their life.
we're saying that those with downs syndrome dont deserve to be born because the have a chromosomal abnormality.
we'll tell a parent of a downs syndrome (granted they cant breed but they are a drain on resources in this very logical eugenic world Bunny is talking of) child that. no MA will prevent the beating you'll get.
we're saying that those with disabilities have no place even existing in our society, and thats where things get tricky.
but to quote Darwin:
Bunny - you're saying we should eliminate disease and we have enough diversity already.
but that assumes that the alleles causing certain diseases do not have an affect on another part of functioning or genetic code.
ive given the sickle cell example already but there are infinitely more.
if we're gonna use your "bubble" scenario we need to stick with a small population, in a stable location that never has any immigration or emigration.
it wont work for any real population.
I've a feeling the genome (and subsequent development from it) is just too complex to wholesale remove unwanted gene variants without some unforeseen outcome.
For example the genes responsible for sickle cell aneamia in African people also confer resistance to malaria.
So trying to remove one genetic outcome could impact the other.
For example the genes responsible for sickle cell aneamia in African people also confer resistance to malaria.
So trying to remove one genetic outcome could impact the other.