Eugenics good or bad?

[Prometheus]

What an embarrasing error. My genomics professor would kill me.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Prometheus What an embarrasing error. My genomics professor would kill me.

Indeed, I thought you were describing a bacteria for a moment there.

[CallousGiant]

I think research into eliminating down's syndrome and the likes is a good idea...

[Prometheus]

Down syndrome is not a very good candidate for any kind of cure because it is only marginally genetic. The most common cause of downs syndrome is old eggs. The problem with downs syndrome is a trisomy of the 21'st chromosome, making the disease more mechanical than chemical. The only affective way to treat this is prevention, by only conceiving while young, or through screening (which involves considerable discomfort for the woman).


"And the likes" ??? Are you talking about the other trisomies, or just diseases in general?

[Trent]

I can't see the sense in 'seeking perfection'. What's perfection anyway? Who can be the judge? There is strength in variety - it's a mathmatical truth.

I also think we shouldn't fuck with with nature.

I asked S about starting this thread when he brought up the subject else where. It's a sensitive subject because of the 'threat to poorer races' associated with eugenics.

I suspect that doesn't mean much to some of you, but who cares? This thing isn't going to happen in our life time. Perhaps nature will make sure that we don't have the power of eugenics until such a time as we have the wisdom to never use it.

Happily, you and me will never know.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Samildanach I happen to be a supporter of the idea of Eugenics and while not supporting hitlers methods I do support the idea of genetic engineering to improve the human populace.

Better improved for what? If you could predict the future with great accuracy then I might be able to see the advantage of preparing the genome for what is to come. But people who advocate eugenics do not understand evolution and how it works and why it works as it does. That what they may consider an undesirable trait may be just the ticket for survival under a given set of circumstances however that same trait under a different set would be an express ticket to oblivion.

Starboy

[Paavo]

That what they may consider an undesirable trait may be just the ticket for survival under a given set of circumstances however that same trait under a different set would be an express ticket to oblivion.

Indeed, this is why I'm not totally in favour of any official Eugenics. I think we should stick with what nature has taught us, in very, very general terms. High intelligence and good general health would be win-wins I'd imagine.

[fedfem]

I too support eugenics but not in the way it has been implemented in the past by some nor by any genetic modification.

I lean more toward Margaret Sanger's views. Economic/population eugenics if you will.

As someone mentioned above, we already tend to use genetic selection unconsciously.

Do women in dire economic circumstances really choose to have 8 kids?

Should a crack whore who has had 3 babies removed from her be sterilized? I think so.

I also agree with a post above that an "undesirable characteristic" today, may mean survival tomorrow, so I don't agree with messing too much in that area.

[Prometheus]

We are breeding for people too stupid to use condoms. We are doomed.

[FIFI]

A crack whore may not desire to have three babies, but those innocent children do not need to be punished for there mothers mistakes. How do we know that the children won't be good parents, or good members of society??

No offense, but we have already practiced eugenics on races: such as American Blacks. They were bred for labor and physical activity....and it is very morally wrong. But, wrong as this sounds, but maybe thats why they tend to excel in certin areas of sports???

[fedfem]

Quote by: FIFI A crack whore may not desire to have three babies, but those innocent children do not need to be punished for there mothers mistakes. How do we know that the children won't be good parents, or good members of society?? No offense, but we have already practiced eugenics on races: such as American Blacks. They were bred for labor and physical activity....and it is very morally wrong. But, wrong as this sounds, but maybe thats why they tend to excel in certin areas of sports???

Well how are the children punished by sterilizing the mother who they have already been removed from?

[Samildanach]

Better improved for what? If you could predict the future with great accuracy then I might be able to see the advantage of preparing the genome for what is to come. But people who advocate eugenics do not understand evolution and how it works and why it works as it does. That what they may consider an undesirable trait may be just the ticket for survival under a given set of circumstances however that same trait under a different set would be an express ticket to oblivion.

You are missing the point, while what you say is true, we should be engineering all survival traits into the species which express themselves only under a given stimulus. Its been a long time since I did my genetics courses..is junk DNA still considered junk these days or have they finally found a use for it as I suspected they would? If it is still junk its a perfect candidate to be removed and substituted with something useful...or maybe it could be possible to set up a second man made nucleus to perform adaptive functions within the cell. You dont just select one genotype to evolve. You choose all genotypes and code them into a human to be expressed as and where needed. That is where we should be heading.

[Samildanach]

We are breeding for people too stupid to use condoms. We are doomed.

Hahahah...yeah those religious types....

[eggosphere]

Eugenics would be the next step to continue natural selection, unfortuantly it would be in the hands fanaticle psychos. In this society it could never work. Genocide on the other hand..... :X

Really, Eugenics in the hands of a government like the Bush regime would be a subtler version of genocide. The'll weed out what THEY deem as human weakness, like that evil trait know as 'free will'.

[belverron]

Quote by: Paavo High intelligence and good general health would be win-wins I'd imagine.

That's a dangerous assumption. We could be incidentally knocking out a trait along with the undesirable one which would become vital for the survival of humans. Look at things like sickle-cell anemia. It has its positive side-effects when it comes to combating malaria, even though it is generally considered undesirable. We need all the variety we can get to protect future generations. I might support it if it were more feasible.

[Paavo]

That's a dangerous assumption.

Well I think it's a stretch calling it an assumption; high intelligence and good general health are traits we've always looked for in a partner, no?
What was discussed earlier, nowadays people with high intelligence and good work-ethics etc etc tend to breed less than vice versa. That has to stop sooner or later, or we'll end up with a bunch of dumb and lazy people.
I'm not sure if this can be called "Eugenics," but in essence, that's what it is.

[fedfem]

Quote by: Paavo Well I think it's a stretch calling it an assumption; high intelligence and good general health are traits we've always looked for in a partner, no? What was discussed earlier, nowadays people with high intelligence and good work-ethics etc etc tend to breed less than vice versa. That has to stop sooner or later, or we'll end up with a bunch of dumb and lazy people. I'm not sure if this can be called "Eugenics," but in essence, that's what it is.

Agree and that is what I referred to as population eugenics. Not enforced or implemented by government however but by ourselves.

I don't think high intelligence and work ethic are genetic traits per se, however...proper education, healthcare and opportunity would encourage all.

[Paavo]

I don't think high intelligence and work ethic are genetic traits per se...

Well we're not 100% sure, but twin studies and the likes have shown that there is at least some genetic reasons for intelligence and other characteristics;

These days, no respectable scientist denies the role of genes in forming our brains and characters. The question over which argument continues to rage is just how big that role is.

- The Economist

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: eggosphere Eugenics would be the next step to continue natural selection

Thats a contradiction. When eugenics starts, natural selection stops. Of course it depends on how ambitious the eugenics program is. If anything like the American eugenics program that preceded Hitlers, the diversity would be eliminated. Gypsies and Blacks were sterilized and eliminated first. They are still a target today, with the controlled introduction of cheap narcotics into the selective communities. These narcotics accellerate their demise. Its no accident that Afghanistan is back at the top of the poppy trade.

Quote by: eggosphere Really, Eugenics in the hands of a government like the Bush regime would be a subtler version of genocide. The'll weed out what THEY deem as human weakness, like that evil trait know as 'free will'.

I agree, these people are scary. How did such elitists ever rise to power in such a great nation? Oh yeah, they own the election counting machines.

[Rave7pt0]

I've been wrangling with this problem for a while, and it occurs to me that we can stop people from crossing the street where they want to, and driving a car whenever they want to, so why, logically, is it so wrong to stop them from having babies when they want to?

It think in an ideal world, we'd have the tools, benevolence, and infrastructure to execute a plan to control breeding, but here, now, it would be a disaster.