(+)Eugenics, Yea or Nay?

[JBeukema]

Where eugenics is defined for the sake of this discussion as:

The use of genetic technologies that we possess or shall come to possess to enable parents to determine what genetic traits are passed on to their children, with the stated aims and goals of eliminating genetic disease, improving the human form (eg:restoring the human ability to synthesize our own vitamin C, should it prove possible to repair the damaged pseudogene), prolonging life, and improving the quality of human life.
​

Honestly, I'm kind of torn. The idea of being able to ensure my children would be entirely healthy and not ever have to endure some of the health conditions my family has faced (diabetes, heart disease, etc.) is a very nice thought. They're my kids, and I love them, and naturally want them to be healthy. But...on the other hand, people get sick, they die. It does happen, sad though it may be. And what would happen if people didn't get sick and die? We could end up with an even more grossly overpopulated planet.

People will always get sick. There is no end in sight to viruses and bacteria. There's a case to be made, in fact, that our eliminations of the weaker forms continues to fuel their evolution into more dangerous forms. This seems be be how MRSA came into being.

People will always age. At least that is to say that genetics cannot stop the aging process. That comes to more bizarre technologies, such as 'brain uploading', which are of questionable possibility and feasibility.


Also, the world's not really overpopulated. It can produce enough food and potable water (especially with modern methods) for everyone and its a matter of opinion as to what level of population density in a given area becomes unpleasant/alienating. It's the distribution of people and resources, as well as the inefficient and 'dirty' technologies we now use that are problematic.

And it starts with improving the quality of life...but where does it end? A prospective mom goes in intending nothing more than to ensure her baby won't get diabetes like the baby's grandmother and father did, and walks out having decided she's going to have a blue-eyed, blond-haired girl that will be 5'9" and be thin all her life, and with an IQ higher than Einstein's.

Would that be so horrible? She has given her child the bet form she can, just as the woman who marries a man with the desired traits gives her child the best form she can through the means available to her (that is, through selectively breeding with someone she believes carries the desired attributes). Indeed, natural selection and selective breeding are the same thing; the application of intelligence and awareness of the decision is simply another environmental pressure.

Is there any difference in trying to help your child appear attractive by providing the best form and buying her makeup so she can appear attractive? Either way, you're helping her succeed (1, 2, 3) and also to be happy. [While attractiveness does not guarantee happiness, it increases the chances of success in the social aspect of life, as well as attracting a mate later in life.

What difference, then, is there? I myself carry the alleles for blond hair and blue eyes, though I do not express them. Is it any more wrong for me to choose to marry a blonde woman in the hopes of passing down a trait I believe will help our child be perceived as beautiful and improve her quality of life than it is to buy her, when she is a teen, the hair dye and makeup she wishes to use to appear more beautiful? Is it any more wrong to forgo the roll of the dice and use what methods I have to ensure I pass those alleles along? Is that any different than choosing the blonde partner instead of blindly wondering what alleles my partner might carry?


You are effectively declaring it immoral to know anything about your partner's appearance, lest your views of what is attractive effect your decision to have a child with someone you consider attractive. You are declaring it immoral for a woman to refuse the fat guy who sweats too much and choose the muscular man across the bar because, should they have children in the future, she has actively chosen what traits she wishes to pass to her children.

Truly, your condemnations of a love for one's child and the desire to pass along the best traits and provide one's child with the best possible form are absurd in the highest order.

 

[JBeukema]

Lest say right now you are pregnant and have the choice of repairing the diabetic gene. Would you do it or not? Would you repair you unborn babies diabetic flaw?

This isn't a simple question for me. You see, I already have 2 children. Both seem to be perfectly healthy, fortunately. So...if I were pregnant right now, and had the option of correcting the diabetic gene as you suggest, I would want to fix it, but I would also feel guilty, as though I cheated my two existing children and favored this new baby. Does that make sense?

Only if it's 'cheating the other two children' to buy the third child glasses whilst the other two did not need them or you could not afford them that early in your career.

I think, if there were a way to ensure that the only purpose it was used for was ensuring health, it'd be a great thing. It's when it goes beyond that that I am concerned.

Even if it did, how is choosing to have a child with someone attractive and possessing what traits are desirable wrong? Should sperm banks mix all the sperm up and provide no information as to the donor? Should men and women cover themselves with burkas their whole lives and never be allowed to know eachother's appearance? Should men not be able to compete in sports to prove their fitness and attract females?

How is it any different if I use what means are available to e to ensure I pass along the best traits possible? It is no different than doing the same thing by choosing a partner who possesses those traits.

 

[JBeukema]

Where eugenics is defined for the sake of this discussion as:

The use of genetic technologies that we possess or shall come to possess to enable parents to determine what genetic traits are passed on to their children, with the stated aims and goals of eliminating genetic disease, improving the human form (eg:restoring the human ability to synthesize our own vitamin C, should it prove possible to repair the damaged pseudogene), prolonging life, and improving the quality of human life.
​

I always worry about unintended consequences......as such, is there any such thing as "positive" eugenics?


Gattica?

You people really need to read the definitions before you throw words around

 

[JBeukema]

I have said from the beginning that there is no such thing as positive eugenics because it has negative effects.

Once again you fail at literacy.

Positive Eugenics: Increasing the prevalence of desirable alleles/traits through genetic manipulation, selective breeding, etc.

Negative Eugenics: Reducing undesirable (oft racial) traits through sterilization, extermination, etc.

Again, I ask what seems to be a simple question. What do you do with the mistakes?

The same thing we do with you now.

 

[JBeukema]

Random mutations will occur in descendants of even people with customized genes

And also in those who do not have them. They happen all the time.

Evolution 101, guy

 

[JBeukema]

You are trying to convince a religious zealot that God actually does not speak to him. Unintended consequences are impossible because he thinks positive thoughts.

So if they find the gene for breast cancer and the entire female line in your family has died of it, would you have the gene fixed in any daughter you may have?

Probably

So according to your earlier posts and your 'thanking' Allie- you'd probably be a NAZI?

and I would do it with the intellectual honesty that I am using eugenics

As opposed to... the OP, which asks ' (+)Eugenics, Yea or Nay?' and then goes on to define eugenics?

, and that I might be dooming other people to die horrible deaths as a result of unintended consequences.

No more than we condemned those to death those got MRSA and died.

You seem to assume nobody here advocates extensive studies and trials on other species prior to human application. I assumed that such measures would go without saying; clearly I failed to account for your amazing stupidity.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then the bottom line is that you do support positive eugenics.

No, the bottom line is there is no such thing as positive eugenics. I am just a selfish asshole sho thinks I have the right to do whatever I need to equip my family as much as possible for the dangers of the world we live in.

Its semantics QW,positive/negative The bottom line is you would avail yourself of eugenics if the opportunity presented itself to save your children and fix a gene.

You are correct that it is semantics, but I am not the one attempting to deceive people by using it. Some people object to being honest, and think that by throwing adjectives around they change the facts, I am not one of them.

 

[syrenn]

No, the bottom line is there is no such thing as positive eugenics. I am just a selfish asshole sho thinks I have the right to do whatever I need to equip my family as much as possible for the dangers of the world we live in.

Its semantics QW,positive/negative The bottom line is you would avail yourself of eugenics if the opportunity presented itself to save your children and fix a gene.

You are correct that it is semantics, but I am not the one attempting to deceive people by using it. Some people object to being honest, and think that by throwing adjectives around they change the facts, I am not one of them.

Thank you.

 

[JBeukema]

No, the bottom line is there is no such thing as positive eugenics. I am just a selfish asshole sho thinks I have the right to do whatever I need to equip my family as much as possible for the dangers of the world we live in.

Its semantics QW,positive/negative The bottom line is you would avail yourself of eugenics if the opportunity presented itself to save your children and fix a gene.

You are correct that it is semantics, but I am not the one attempting to deceive people by using it.

Yes, you are. You act like making sure your child doesn't have haemophilia (positive eugenics) is the same as wiping out the Lower Tenth via murder and sterilization (negative eugenics)

Some people object to being honest, and think that by throwing adjectives around they change the facts, I am not one of them.

Except you keep trying to do just that

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Would that be so horrible? She has given her child the bet form she can, just as the woman who marries a man with the desired traits gives her child the best form she can through the means available to her (that is, through selectively breeding with someone she believes carries the desired attributes). Indeed, natural selection and selective breeding are the same thing; the application of intelligence and awareness of the decision is simply another environmental pressure.

Is there any difference in trying to help your child appear attractive by providing the best form and buying her makeup so she can appear attractive? Either way, you're helping her succeed (1, 2, 3) and also to be happy. [While attractiveness does not guarantee happiness, it increases the chances of success in the social aspect of life, as well as attracting a mate later in life.

What difference, then, is there? I myself carry the alleles for blond hair and blue eyes, though I do not express them. Is it any more wrong for me to choose to marry a blonde woman in the hopes of passing down a trait I believe will help our child be perceived as beautiful and improve her quality of life than it is to buy her, when she is a teen, the hair dye and makeup she wishes to use to appear more beautiful? Is it any more wrong to forgo the roll of the dice and use what methods I have to ensure I pass those alleles along? Is that any different than choosing the blonde partner instead of blindly wondering what alleles my partner might carry?


You are effectively declaring it immoral to know anything about your partner's appearance, lest your views of what is attractive effect your decision to have a child with someone you consider attractive. You are declaring it immoral for a woman to refuse the fat guy who sweats too much and choose the muscular man across the bar because, should they have children in the future, she has actively chosen what traits she wishes to pass to her children.

Truly, your condemnations of a love for one's child and the desire to pass along the best traits and provide one's child with the best possible form are absurd in the highest order.

Why is blond hair, blue eyes, and being skinny the best form possible? Fair complected people are more susceptible to skin cancer, which would make darker complexions more healthy, and growing evidence suggest that people who are slightly overweight tend to live longer than skinny people, yet you dismiss this evidence and go for attractive. Then you call me a hypocrite or something because I chose to call you on this way back in the beginning of the thread before the truth came out.

 

[JBeukema]

Interesting that, when forced to answer the question, everyone here (save Allie, who seems to have left without answering) support positive eugenics when it's their child we're talking about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where eugenics is defined for the sake of this discussion as:

The use of genetic technologies that we possess or shall come to possess to enable parents to determine what genetic traits are passed on to their children, with the stated aims and goals of eliminating genetic disease, improving the human form (eg:restoring the human ability to synthesize our own vitamin C, should it prove possible to repair the damaged pseudogene), prolonging life, and improving the quality of human life.
​

I always worry about unintended consequences......as such, is there any such thing as "positive" eugenics?


Gattica?

You people really need to read the definitions before you throw words around

Once again you fail at literacy.

Positive Eugenics: Increasing the prevalence of desirable alleles/traits through genetic manipulation, selective breeding, etc.

Negative Eugenics: Reducing undesirable (oft racial) traits through sterilization, extermination, etc.

Again, I ask what seems to be a simple question. What do you do with the mistakes?

The same thing we do with you now.

Random mutations will occur in descendants of even people with customized genes

And also in those who do not have them. They happen all the time.

Evolution 101, guy

What do you do with the mistakes? Why are you ignoring a simple question? Maybe because the truth is that you think they should all be killed, in spite of your insistence that you are not talking about that. Mistakes are inevitable, and cannot be tolerated if your goal is to improve a breeding stock you have to be willing to cull the defects, otherwise you are wasting your time. Ask anyone who breeds anything.

 

[syrenn]

Why is blond hair, blue eyes, and being skinny the best form possible? Fair complected people are more susceptible to skin cancer, which would make darker complexions more healthy, and growing evidence suggest that people who are slightly overweight tend to live longer than skinny people, yet you dismiss this evidence and go for attractive. Then you call me a hypocrite or something because I chose to call you on this way back in the beginning of the thread before the truth came out.

Its not. Its about parental choices. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I would choose genes for dark hair, olive skin and blue or green eyes. If you dont care to choose then dont. But as you have said, you WILL choose health related genes

So bottom line is you do approve of some eugenics.

 

[JBeukema]

Why is blond hair, blue eyes, and being skinny the best form possible?

Presumably, they also chose, as best as they could, for overall health and wellness, including overall attractiveness. If they then choose to pass along traits generally viewed as attractive in their society, that is merely another means by which they try to provide their child with all the advantages they can provide.

Intelligence And Physical Attractiveness Both Impact Income
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies
http://www.miller-mccune.com/blogs/news-blog/attractiveness-enhances-income-prospects-3714/

Fair complected people are more susceptible to skin cancer, which would make darker complexions more healthy

Unless you live somewhere with little sun, where it becomes a matter of vitamin d deficiency. You're an idiot if you really think one particular race is better suited for the whole earth when it comes to melanin levels.

, and growing evidence suggest that people who are slightly overweight tend to live longer than skinny people, yet you dismiss this evidence and go for attractive

Where did I say anything about skinny people? Personally, I find super-skinny females unattractive. I prefer women with hips, but that's a matter of personal preference.

You realize, of course, that such matters are largely (if not mostly) environmental, right? You seem to have no real understanding of what eugenics can and cannot achieve.

 

[JBeukema]

I always worry about unintended consequences......as such, is there any such thing as "positive" eugenics?


Gattica?

You people really need to read the definitions before you throw words around

Random mutations will occur in descendants of even people with customized genes

And also in those who do not have them. They happen all the time.

Evolution 101, guy

What do you do with the mistakes

The same thing we do with you now.



Repeating stupid questions makes you appear stupid.

Why are you ignoring a simple question? Maybe because the truth is that you think they should all be killed

right... which is why I'm a social democrat who advocates welfare and assistance for the old, sick, and disabled and why I've repeatedly attacked those on the Right who would let them starve if they are not useful to the bourgeoisie. Yep, that all fits together perfectly with your little assertion

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So according to your earlier posts and your 'thanking' Allie- you'd probably be a NAZI?

Not at all. I am not claiming this is for the greater good, I am being selfish for my family. You probably don't get the difference, but it is a it more substantial than sticking positive in front of a word. I am honest about my intentions, are you?

No more than we condemned those to death those got MRSA and died.

You seem to assume nobody here advocates extensive studies and trials on other species prior to human application. I assumed that such measures would go without saying; clearly I failed to account for your amazing stupidity.

I never said you did not advocate them, I keep challenging you to answer one simple question, which you keep refusing to do. Yet you accuse me of avoiding the issue, and accepting your definitions, and not declaring you right simply because you have good intentions. Pass around the Kool-Aid as much as you want, I am not drinking it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, you are. You act like making sure your child doesn't have haemophilia (positive eugenics) is the same as wiping out the Lower Tenth via murder and sterilization (negative eugenics)

No, I am insisting that your distinction is a false one, and the product of wishful thinking. Culling is the only way to make a breeding program work, so positive eugenics is a pipe dream. On top of that I am insisting that eugenics is not even science, another issue you have failed to adequately deal with.

Except you keep trying to do just that

How? By challenging you to tell me how you think this fakery piled on top of a false science will work in the real world?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Interesting that, when forced to answer the question, everyone here (save Allie, who seems to have left without answering) support positive eugenics when it's their child we're talking about.

I do not support positive eugenics because it only exists in deluded minds. Do not attempt to put words in my mouth again.

 

[JBeukema]

Yes, you are. You act like making sure your child doesn't have haemophilia (positive eugenics) is the same as wiping out the Lower Tenth via murder and sterilization (negative eugenics)

No, I am insisting that your distinction is a false one

Wow...so distinguishing between genocide and gene therapy and parents working with their doctors to ensure their child's health... is a false distinction... ,meaning you think they're not distinct, but equivalent.

You really assert that genocide and forced sterilization and parents making sure their children don't have haemophilia are equivalent..


What more can be said?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why is blond hair, blue eyes, and being skinny the best form possible? Fair complected people are more susceptible to skin cancer, which would make darker complexions more healthy, and growing evidence suggest that people who are slightly overweight tend to live longer than skinny people, yet you dismiss this evidence and go for attractive. Then you call me a hypocrite or something because I chose to call you on this way back in the beginning of the thread before the truth came out.

Its not. Its about parental choices. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I would choose genes for dark hair, olive skin and blue or green eyes. If you dont care to choose then dont. But as you have said, you WILL choose health related genes

So bottom line is you do approve of some eugenics.

No, I approve of gene therapy. Eugenics is not science, and I approve it no more than I do UFOs.