Eugenics. Genetic engineering 'A third way'.

[epepke]

I think we have wandered a little off topic here, 'as is often the case'. I'd just like to keep focus on the subject of genetic intervention as a possible '3rd way' for eugenics rather than selective breeding (where all the traits are thrown in) and/or culling (where unwanted traits are excised from the population). Selective breeding or culling would occur before or after conception without genetic intervention at the genomic level. My thought specifically focuses on intervention at the genomic level prior to and/or post to conception.

Well, just to be clear, mostly I'm just trying to be snarky, but it's for a purpose.  I think it's valuable to challenge basic assumptions, and a basic assumption here is that there is some sort of qualitative difference between genetic engineering (which Hitler did not have), other forms of eugenics, social influences, and individual choices that most people use in an attempt to ensure the viability of their offspring.  The technology issues seem different, but the moral issues are extremely fuzzy, and I think it's valuable to think about them.

The Nazi eugenics seems to be considered bad because it has been decided, in retrospect, that the Nazis were doing bad things.  I'm not so sure that the majority of people thought so at the time; there was a lot of sentiment, even amongst intellectuals, that Hitler was just peach.  The Jewish prohibition against marrying outside, good or bad?  There are some diseases that are far more common amongst Jews, including Kaposi's Sarcoma before HIV.  On the other hand, Jews have been subject to quite a lot of selection pressure, and it seems to have resulted in some good traits.

People have talked about if there were a gene that increases the probability of being gay, would it be ethical to treat it?  Most people say "no," because being gay isn't an illness.  OK.  So how about deafness?  There are oodles and oodles of deaf people who shriek that deafness is superior to having hearing.  Fortunately, when they shriek about it, it sounds silly, and there is a widely known sign for STFU.  Or dwarfism; there are a lot of dwarfs who will loudly proclaim that there is nothing wrong with being a dwarf.  These groups have publically opposed cochlear implants and growth hormone treatments.  (Giants don't seem to be like this, maybe because nobody dares pick on them.)

[PoopShoot]

People have talked about if there were a gene that increases the probability of being gay, would it be ethical to treat it?  Most people say "no," because being gay isn't an illness.  OK.  So how about deafness?  There are oodles and oodles of deaf people who shriek that deafness is superior to having hearing.  Fortunately, when they shriek about it, it sounds silly, and there is a widely known sign for STFU.  Or dwarfism; there are a lot of dwarfs who will loudly proclaim that there is nothing wrong with being a dwarf.  These groups have publically opposed cochlear implants and growth hormone treatments.  (Giants don't seem to be like this, maybe because nobody dares pick on them.)

This is exactly why talking about the issue before it's an issue is important.  Maybe deaf people are against cochlear implants and maybe some are ok with it.  Deafness isn't deadly or debilitating, so maybe they should be allowed to be born deaf and then make the choice for a cochlear implant.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Nazi eugenics seems to be considered bad because it has been decided, in retrospect, that the Nazis were doing bad things.  I'm not so sure that the majority of people thought so at the time; there was a lot of sentiment, even amongst intellectuals, that Hitler was just peach.  The Jewish prohibition against marrying outside, good or bad?  There are some diseases that are far more common amongst Jews, including Kaposi's Sarcoma before HIV.  On the other hand, Jews have been subject to quite a lot of selection pressure, and it seems to have resulted in some good traits.

It should be noted that America practiced one aspect of eugenics, the forcible sterilization of people with DS, well before Hitler came to power.  The patina of "Nazi evil" that has settled over the subject of eugenics is often in service to maintaining the national myth that America is good all the time.

[Tank]

I think we have wandered a little off topic here, 'as is often the case'. I'd just like to keep focus on the subject of genetic intervention as a possible '3rd way' for eugenics rather than selective breeding (where all the traits are thrown in) and/or culling (where unwanted traits are excised from the population). Selective breeding or culling would occur before or after conception without genetic intervention at the genomic level. My thought specifically focuses on intervention at the genomic level prior to and/or post to conception.

Well, just to be clear, mostly I'm just trying to be snarky, but it's for a purpose.  I think it's valuable to challenge basic assumptions, and a basic assumption here is that there is some sort of qualitative difference between genetic engineering (which Hitler did not have), other forms of eugenics, social influences, and individual choices that most people use in an attempt to ensure the viability of their offspring.  The technology issues seem different, but the moral issues are extremely fuzzy, and I think it's valuable to think about them.

The moral issues are very fuzzy indeed. Technology does have an impact here as there was little or no finesse in historical methods. However at some point that will change because the detailed knowledge of carrying recessive faulty genes will be available whereas previously it was not.

The Nazi eugenics seems to be considered bad because it has been decided, in retrospect, that the Nazis were doing bad things.

Hmmmm. Not sure I agree with that. My position on eugenics has not been influenced because the Nazis practised it and it is therefore evil by association. I don't agree with it because it treats people in a manner that I would not wish to be treated. It objectifies and dehumanises a person to an extent I feel uncomfortable with.

I'm not so sure that the majority of people thought so at the time; there was a lot of sentiment, even amongst intellectuals, that Hitler was just peach.

While that is true, that a lot of people admired Hitler, would such a man have such a following now? I don't think so. Fortunately people do appear to have the capacity to learn from previous mistakes. Using your point about historical acceptability of the behaviour of a significant figure we should all be able to marry and have intercourse with 9 year old girls. The fact that we don't demonstrates that what is and is not acceptable behaviour changes. In both case what has changed is society's empathy with the individual, the child and the congenitally deformed individual, in these cases. I don't feel there is any evidence to show that that trend will reverse.

The Jewish prohibition against marrying outside, good or bad?  There are some diseases that are far more common amongst Jews, including Kaposi's Sarcoma before HIV.  On the other hand, Jews have been subject to quite a lot of selection pressure, and it seems to have resulted in some good traits.

That's a whole forums worth of debate right there! So I'll take the point but leave the detail for the moment.

People have talked about if there were a gene that increases the probability of being gay, would it be ethical to treat it?  Most people say "no," because being gay isn't an illness.  OK.  So how about deafness?  There are oodles and oodles of deaf people who shriek that deafness is superior to having hearing.  Fortunately, when they shriek about it, it sounds silly, and there is a widely known sign for STFU.  Or dwarfism; there are a lot of dwarfs who will loudly proclaim that there is nothing wrong with being a dwarf.  These groups have publically opposed cochlear implants and growth hormone treatments.  (Giants don't seem to be like this, maybe because nobody dares pick on them.)

I think this point is illustrative of individual selfishness and stupidity. But in due course this will have to be addressed in context of asking an person with CF to not reproduce or a CF carrier to selectively abort their carrier offspring.

[epepke]

t should be noted that America practiced one aspect of eugenics, the forcible sterilization of people with DS, well before Hitler came to power.  The patina of "Nazi evil" that has settled over the subject of eugenics is often in service to maintaining the national myth that America is good all the time.

I think that's beside the point, which is that the Nazis hadn't done it, I don't think that there would be such a strong reaction to the concept.  I could be wrong or right about this, but I don't think it has a lot to do with German/US pissing contests.

[epepke]

While that is true, that a lot of people admired Hitler, would such a man have such a following now? I don't think so.

I don't really know.  The events in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s indicate to me that there at least is some spirit of acquiescence toward that sort of thing.  I saw videos of incredibly emaciated people behind hurricane fences at least a year before anybody tried to stop it.  Also, we look at Hitler in retrospect, after the camps had been opened and theretofore unaffected people could see the extent of the carnage and brutality.  It built up, and at first, there was just some vile rhetoric to contend with.  I think that there are a lot of intellectuals who still accept the vile rhetoric provided that it was on behalf of a people for whom they have sympathy.

I don't know how far this could go in the modern era.  If there be hope, then I think it come from technology.  It is so much easier to get information widespread these days.

Fortunately people do appear to have the capacity to learn from previous mistakes. Using your point about historical acceptability of the behaviour of a significant figure we should all be able to marry and have intercourse with 9 year old girls.

It's not merely historical acceptability.  People do learn, but a lot of the time I think they learn the wrong lessons.  I'm pretty sure that for the foreseeable future, people would not support a German genocide.  There is still the possibility that they might not have learned about genocides in general.  Again, the former Yugoslavia.  It did not go to the extent of the German genocide, but I think it went on a lot longer than it should have.  I am specifically bothered by the Srebrenica massacre.  That's because, I think, there were two things that let Hitler get as far as he did.  One was complacency, especially in the US.  The other was the need to re-arm, again, especially in the US.  Fortunately, after the Srebrenica massacre, NATO was armed to the teeth.  However, I think it was still evidence of complacency, in my estimation.

Although it was stopped, still, I can remember it as being a rather scary time.  My girlfriend at the time remarked to me, "Why does every other World War have to start in Yugoslavia?"

Anyway, this is rather off-topic for this thread.  My point is that we look at eugenics through a Hitlerian lens these days.

I think this point is illustrative of individual selfishness and stupidity. But in due course this will have to be addressed in context of asking an person with CF to not reproduce or a CF carrier to selectively abort their carrier offspring.

I quite agree; I think so, too.  I have, however, given up the idea that large numbers of people will agree with me.  A lot of people don't even seem to understand what I say.  Anyway, there was a time during the 1980s, and there was a time during the late 1980s, on the heels of Children of a Lesser God, when there was a lot of sympathy for organizations of deaf people who wanted cochlear implants to stop.  There was a lot of stuff that was just nuts during the 1980s, and most of it seems to have gone away, which is one thing that gives me hope for humanity.  Still, a friend of mine who lives in India tells me that there is some nuttiness there reminiscent of the 1980s, and I've seen some evidence for that in the UK.

We've really done an impressive job of muddling through.  As an aside irrelevant in content but very relevant in structure (which is the real message), it was not too many decades ago that people were convinced that everyone was in imminent danger of annihilation by nuclear weapons.  The use of these on a global scale now seems unlikely.  Still the idea isn't very happy-making.  Maybe we were just lucky.

[Tank]

Gene therapy for blood disorder a 'success'

Gene therapy has been used for the first time to treat an inherited blood disorder in what doctors say is a major step forward.

A man given pioneering treatment to correct a faulty gene has made "remarkable" progress, a US and French team has revealed.

Gene therapy is an experimental technique that manipulates genes in order to treat disease.

It has seen some successes, but also setbacks, including a patient's death...

Relevant to the debate as gene therapy cures the symptoms of gene related illness in an individual while not addressing the issue of inheritance should that individual reproduce.

[PoopShoot]

Relevant to the debate as gene therapy cures the symptoms of gene related illness in an individual while not addressing the issue of inheritance should that individual reproduce.

A question I don't see answered is whether the gene therapy affects the germ line.

[Tank]

Relevant to the debate as gene therapy cures the symptoms of gene related illness in an individual while not addressing the issue of inheritance should that individual reproduce.

A question I don't see answered is whether the gene therapy affects the germ line.

I would not expect it to. Which is the issue affecting this thread. If gene therapy works for the individual does it negate the idea of eugenics or reinforce it?

[Thumpalumpacus]

t should be noted that America practiced one aspect of eugenics, the forcible sterilization of people with DS, well before Hitler came to power.  The patina of "Nazi evil" that has settled over the subject of eugenics is often in service to maintaining the national myth that America is good all the time.

I think that's beside the point, which is that the Nazis hadn't done it, I don't think that there would be such a strong reaction to the concept.  I could be wrong or right about this, but I don't think it has a lot to do with German/US pissing contests.

Yeah, I'm not talking about a pissing contest either, I'm unsure where you got that out of what I wrote.

I was merely pointing out that cultures have blind spots which overlook the evils they themselves do while they decry the exact same evils in others; and that this attitude of self-forgiveness may well come into play here as well.

[PoopShoot]

I would not expect it to. Which is the issue affecting this thread. If gene therapy works for the individual does it negate the idea of eugenics or reinforce it?

If the gene therapy affects the germ line, it is a form of active eugenics,; if it does not, the pragmatic reasoning behind eugenic sterilization still stands.  I would still prefer the former, as it would wipe out the "bad" genes without the negative effects of compulsory sterilization.