Eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics)
Quote from: "Wiki"Eugenics is "the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."[2] Eugenics was widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century, but has fallen into disfavor after having become associated with Nazi Germany. Since the postwar period, both the public and the scientific communities have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced racial hygiene, human experimentation, and the extermination of "undesired" population groups. However, developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century have raised many new questions and concerns about the meaning of eugenics and its ethical and moral status in the modern era.
With the potential of genetic engineering to 'fix' genetic faults is it time to consider an approach of 'interventionist' eugenics as opposed to the 'positive' and 'negative' external methods described above?
One of many worries I have is that eugenics has to hold an ideal of what an 'ideal' human is before it can start creating said ideal. Who decides the 'ideal'?
With genetic engineering becoming more prevalent and sophisticated combined with human curiosity and a desire to 'solve every problem' I would contend that at some point in the future the human race will have to make a choice to leave itself alone and simply let evolution take its naturally selected course or become interventionist in its own genetic future.
I think that when we do have the technology to genetically modify zygotes, and have done so successfully on animals, the pressure to do so on humans will become intolerable. I personally feel that, even if outlawed, rich people would use the technology to 'improve' their offspring or at the very least repair known genetic problems.
Would it be reasonable to repair a genetic fault, any one of many (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders), while be unreasonable to boost a child's IQ (should this be possible through genetic manipulation)?
I'm not sure why eugenics has such a bad rap. I think that pretty much everyone who wants to reproduce tries to do eugenics by their own personal mate selection. I know that some people mate pretty much at random or select mates by traits unrelated to whether they want them passed on, but it's not generally considered particularly a good thing to do.
Quote from: "epepke"I'm not sure why eugenics has such a bad rap.
No, neither do I.
Fiction seems fond of imagining modified humans will be somehow flawed.
In various star trek iterations genetic modification is banned, the modified lack humanity.
Me, I could do with some augmentation.
Some contraceptives in those catholic wafers would be worth a thought.
Quote from: "epepke"I'm not sure why eugenics has such a bad rap. I think that pretty much everyone who wants to reproduce tries to do eugenics by their own personal mate selection. I know that some people mate pretty much at random or select mates by traits unrelated to whether they want them passed on, but it's not generally considered particularly a good thing to do.
I'm not sure one can conflate eugenics with personal choice of mate. Eugenics is interventionist in the act of mate choice in the example of 'positive eugenics' cited above. It would appear to me to be about choosing people to mate regardless of those people's desire to mate with each other. It would be similar to a forced marriage in the sense that it would be a loveless coupling made to breed a better human rather than through cultural traditions. So it would depend to some extent if one considered that 'the end justifies the means' in a human procreative program to eradicate a genetic disease.
One could conceive of a future where one is gene typed at birth and one is given a profile of probability of developing particular genetically pre-disposed conditions. One could then have a personal and informed choice about ones future partners by comparing their gene profile with ones own and determining the probability of developing unhealthy offspring. The key point here would be that it is left to the individuals to choose based on the information available to them. Eugenics in its historical application has been at the behest of the state and forced upon the individual, which I would suspect most people would call the 'unacceptable face' of eugenics.
Quote from: "Tank"The key point here would be that it is left to the individuals to choose based on the information available to them. Eugenics in its historical application has been at the behest of the state and forced upon the individual, which I would suspect most people would call the 'unacceptable face' of eugenics.
It's likely to be parents choosing unnatural interventions for children.
An argument against is, parents will feel pressured to seek intervention to keep up with others.
I saw a documentary series recently, they considered it unlikely governments could prevent it.
The example of failure to control illicit drugs was used.
The root problem with eugenics and interventionist genetics is the fact that we are evolved and not designed. There is no 'user manual' or 'design schematic' for the human genome. It's a bit like a beautiful old rose garden, all tangled up and unpredictable so that if you cut one stem you don't know which head will fall. In the case of genetic manipulation one problem would be false correlation of gene to manifestation. Gene A may look like it is linked to manifestation B but A to B is in fact mediated by C and removing/modifying A does not have the desired effect on B as C was in the loop and nobody realised. It's going to a brave/fool-hardy scientist that produces the first genetically modified embryo and, after implanting it, lets it grow to term. Would it have to be his own child with the mother's full consent? And what if it goes wrong? Would the child be able to sue its parents for any harm it suffered because it was the result of an experiment?
Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Quote from: "Tank"The key point here would be that it is left to the individuals to choose based on the information available to them. Eugenics in its historical application has been at the behest of the state and forced upon the individual, which I would suspect most people would call the 'unacceptable face' of eugenics.
It's likely to be parents choosing unnatural interventions for children.
An argument against is, parents will feel pressured to seek intervention to keep up with others.
I saw a documentary series recently, they considered it unlikely governments could prevent it.
The example of failure to control illicit drugs was used.
I agree that the pressure on parents would be virtually irresistible and that some would succumb to that.
I actually started writing a story along similar lines based on cloning. Once scientists have got stem cells sussed out one could create a mindless womb and then clone oneself thus making a consenting partner irrelevant for reproduction be one male or female, but that is yet another thread!
Quote from: "Tank"I'm not sure one can conflate eugenics with personal choice of mate.
I think it's pretty close, though. I am definitely trying to improve the species with my choice of mate.
Nevertheless, if that doesn't satisfy, let's go back to the definition from the Wikipedia article: "the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."
I think we can safely assume that we're not talking about the "study of."
Now, what satisfies the quoted text? All standards of beauty and desirability. All fashion, inasmuch as it involves behavior and body appearance. The former explicit discouragement of nerds from reproduction (when they were perceived as having undesirable traits, such as by doing technical projects instead of playing sports), and the modern encouragement (once it has been realized that they become innovators, which is looking pretty good in a post-high-school-and-a-union-job economy).
Still, I think that individual mate selection counts. There have been a fair number of studies finding standards of beauty to reflect perceptions of health and wealth. You might argue that it doesn't count because it's not explicitly conscious, but in a culture that clearly frowns upon admitting having rational reasons for mating, that doesn't seem to me to matter much.
Though perhaps it's a clue as to why people dislike the concept of eugenics. It's too honest about sexuality and mate selection, which people aren't supposed to talk or think about. If people just didn't talk about it or have a word for it, it would be fine.
Quote from: "epepke"Quote from: "Tank"I'm not sure one can conflate eugenics with personal choice of mate.
I think it's pretty close, though. I am definitely trying to improve the species with my choice of mate.
Nevertheless, if that doesn't satisfy, let's go back to the definition from the Wikipedia article: "the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."
I think we can safely assume that we're not talking about the "study of."
Now, what satisfies the quoted text? All standards of beauty and desirability. All fashion, inasmuch as it involves behavior and body appearance. The former explicit discouragement of nerds from reproduction (when they were perceived as having undesirable traits, such as by doing technical projects instead of playing sports), and the modern encouragement (once it has been realized that they become innovators, which is looking pretty good in a post-high-school-and-a-union-job economy).
Still, I think that individual mate selection counts. There have been a fair number of studies finding standards of beauty to reflect perceptions of health and wealth. You might argue that it doesn't count because it's not explicitly conscious, but in a culture that clearly frowns upon admitting having rational reasons for mating, that doesn't seem to me to matter much.
Though perhaps it's a clue as to why people dislike the concept of eugenics. It's too honest about sexuality and mate selection, which people aren't supposed to talk or think about. If people just didn't talk about it or have a word for it, it would be fine.
I think my point of view is that for mate selection to be called eugenics it would have to involve a specific act of genetic 'sifting' or choosing by the partners involved. And the purpose of that selection would have to be specifically aimed at producing offspring with specific traits (which could be a lack of a genetic disease). One also has to factor in the situation that mate choice in the western world is predominantly an act of individual self expression. People in the west don't like being
told what to do they like to
choose what to do.
I don't think humanity can work without words for things/behaviours. Not having a symbol for something does not stop that something existing. A symbol (word) simply becomes the focus upon which meaning is concentrated for the purposes of communication. The act of eugenic behaviour causes the word to be created as much as the word causes the behaviour to occur.
Quote from: "Tank"One also has to factor in the situation that mate choice in the western world is predominantly an act of individual self expression. People in the west don't like being told what to do they like to choose what to do.
Tank, I love you to pieces, but this is the most naive thing I've seen in a long time. People in the "West" have a cult of pretense to individual self expression, but if some really big pop star were to decide to wear the nests of paper wasps on her hair for a big awards ceremony, entire fortunes would be made providing them to young wannabees, and I think you know that.
Quote from: "epepke"Quote from: "Tank"One also has to factor in the situation that mate choice in the western world is predominantly an act of individual self expression. People in the west don't like being told what to do they like to choose what to do.
Tank, I love you to pieces, but this is the most naive thing I've seen in a long time. People in the "West" have a cult of pretense to individual self expression, but if some really big pop star were to decide to wear the nests of paper wasps on her hair for a big awards ceremony, entire fortunes would be made providing them to young wannabees, and I think you know that.
I agree with you. It's naive to think that people don't follow trends and think they aren't. What I do think is that people in the
west believe that they make up their own minds. Thus the man rattled the bars of his cage to demonstrate his freedom.
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.
I'm all for eugenics in cases of painful, debilitating and deadly genetic disorders. I'm sorry if some poor girl with CF has to be sterilized or some guy who carries it has to be, but we have the power to wipe these out. That said, I don't advocate eugenics in the case of "preferable traits" or anything like that.
Those arguing the negative may argue too much attention to genetics, may have seen Stephen Hawking not born.
Also for some genius such as Van Gogh, their madness seems entwined with their genius.
I don't have much sympathy for the argument deaf people some times make, that they would prefer deaf children.
Everyone is familiar with the film Gattaca?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca)
Yes, Gattaca was an amazing film. Probably one of the only films where Jude Law was any good.
Quote from: "PoopShoot"I'm all for eugenics in cases of painful, debilitating and deadly genetic disorders. I'm sorry if some poor girl with CF has to be sterilized or some guy who carries it has to be, but we have the power to wipe these out. That said, I don't advocate eugenics in the case of "preferable traits" or anything like that.
CF?
Quote from: "Tank"Quote from: "PoopShoot"I'm all for eugenics in cases of painful, debilitating and deadly genetic disorders. I'm sorry if some poor girl with CF has to be sterilized or some guy who carries it has to be, but we have the power to wipe these out. That said, I don't advocate eugenics in the case of "preferable traits" or anything like that.
CF?
https://health.google.com/health/ref/Cystic+fibrosis (https://health.google.com/health/ref/Cystic+fibrosis)
Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Those arguing the negative may argue too much attention to genetics, may have seen Stephen Hawking not born.
Yes absolutely true. This pertains to an 'ideal', should the criteria simply be 'adequate'. I also realise that there would be a million arguments about where and how to draw the 'adequate' line in grey areas. This all hinges on who makes the choice to have a child with known and identified genetic defects. Do the parents have the right to? Can the state say no if they have to foot the bill for a lifetime of care for the individual? In an already overpopulated world should any 'defective' be allowed to be born? That's getting awfully Orwellian to me.
Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Also for some genius such as Van Gogh, their madness seems entwined with their genius.
I don't have much sympathy for the argument deaf people some times make, that they would prefer deaf children.
Never heard that one (and yes that was a serious comment).
Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Everyone is familiar with the film Gattaca?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca)
Seen it a couple of times. Enjoyable and thought provoking if a little 'up its own arse'. Quite pertinent to this thread.
Quote from: "PoopShoot"Quote from: "Tank"Quote from: "PoopShoot"I'm all for eugenics in cases of painful, debilitating and deadly genetic disorders. I'm sorry if some poor girl with CF has to be sterilized or some guy who carries it has to be, but we have the power to wipe these out. That said, I don't advocate eugenics in the case of "preferable traits" or anything like that.
CF?
https://health.google.com/health/ref/Cystic+fibrosis (https://health.google.com/health/ref/Cystic+fibrosis)
Cheers. I know what Cystic Fibrosis is I'd never seen it referred to by an acronym before.
Well here we have a wonderful dilemma. A person with CF will pass on the faulty gene when they reproduce. However unless their partner also has CF their offspring will only carry the faulty gene as a recessive and will thus not suffer from the disease. This gives the offspring the opportunity to abort CF effected embryos and thus clear the trait from the line. So the reproductive rule could be that a CF effected individual may not reproduce with another CF effected individual. No need for enforced sterilisation. And frankly what right do you or I or anybody have to forcibly sterilise another? The state could offer an incentive to sterilisation based on the potential saving of not having to support a CF effected offspring. But then we are on the slippery slope to putting a value on the life of an individual.
Quote from: "Tank"Well here we have a wonderful dilemma. A person with CF will pass on the faulty gene when they reproduce. However unless their partner also has CF their offspring will only carry the faulty gene as a recessive and will thus not suffer from the disease.
Yet carriers are carriers.
QuoteThis gives the offspring the opportunity to abort CF effected embryos and thus clear the trait from the line. So the reproductive rule could be that a CF effected individual may not reproduce with another CF effected individual.
Genetic sequencing in search of carriers is inefficient and costly. Additionally, we are then still enforcing a relationship ban.
QuoteNo need for enforced sterilisation.
Substitute forced abortion. Kind of a lateral move, dontcha think?
QuoteAnd frankly what right do you or I or anybody have to forcibly sterilise another?
The same as we have the right to forcibly abort a fetus or restrict a loving relationship or any other right granted by the state.
So we are either restricting some rights at some point or doing nothing. I personally feel that compulsory sterilization, while a bit odious, is less odious than the alternatives mentioned. Compulsory abortion is a bit of a lateral idea (morally speaking anyway) but is more costly than compulsory sterilization of individuals known to have the defective genes. Restricting relationships is less effective and more invasive on the lifestyle front. Sterilized women could still adopt children (there is a huge need for this in America anyway), meaning that they could have children, just not children that are genetically their own. It's not ideal, but it's the least invasive method as far as tampering with individual lifestyles goes.
As for slippery slopes, I don't advocate eugenics being implemented in subjective cases, only in cases where there is an objectively verifiable disease that is genetic based
and is deadly or debilitating.
Quote from: "Tank"Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Also for some genius such as Van Gogh, their madness seems entwined with their genius.
I don't have much sympathy for the argument deaf people some times make, that they would prefer deaf children.
Never heard that one (and yes that was a serious comment).
Never heard of the deaf thing or the Van Gogh business?
Quotehttp://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/2009/07/refusing-cochlear-implants-is-it-child-neglect.html
Lobby group Deaf Australia says the implant "implies that deaf people are ill or incomplete individuals, are lonely and unhappy, cannot communicate effectively with others and are all desperately searching for a cure for their condition. [This] demeans deaf people, belittles their culture and language and makes no acknowledgment of the diversity of lives deaf people lead, or their many achievements."
Some deaf parents have denied their children cochlear implants. Is this right?
Quote from: "PoopShoot"Quote from: "Tank"Well here we have a wonderful dilemma. A person with CF will pass on the faulty gene when they reproduce. However unless their partner also has CF their offspring will only carry the faulty gene as a recessive and will thus not suffer from the disease.
Yet carriers are carriers.
But they are people first. I could go on about how one first de-humanises somebody before they kill them, but I'm sure you've heard that and get the point.
Quote from: "PoopShoot"QuoteThis gives the offspring the opportunity to abort CF effected embryos and thus clear the trait from the line. So the reproductive rule could be that a CF effected individual may not reproduce with another CF effected individual.
Genetic sequencing in search of carriers is inefficient and costly. Additionally, we are then still enforcing a relationship ban.
Genetic sequencing will get cheaper and more efficient, so while that point may hold some weight now that will become less of an issue. There will be those that will break the ban but if it goes to the normal level 97% will hold to the prohibitions. Even if the level drops to 90% it won't take too many generations to effectively eradicate any given condition.
Quote from: "PoopShoot"QuoteNo need for enforced sterilisation.
Substitute forced abortion. Kind of a lateral move, dontcha think?
No, not really. It's one thing to totally deny a person the ability to reproduce by sterilisation but quite another to require them to selectively 'weed out' CF effected embryos.
Quote from: "PoopShoot"QuoteAnd frankly what right do you or I or anybody have to forcibly sterilise another?
The same as we have the right to forcibly abort a fetus or restrict a loving relationship or any other right granted by the state.
Not sure I follow this as the state has no rights in the are you mention. There would be no restriction on the relationships people with CF could have just the production of CF effected offspring. IF society went the way of attempting to eliminate CF via an inforced eugenics methodology of eradication. Which I'm not sure it would. Take psychology as an example of the types of ethical constraints placed on it by its own organisational bodies. In the nature vs nurture debate it would be brilliant to separate orphaned identical twins at birth and experiment on them. This just isn't allowed. If that level of intervention is not permitted I don't think that the compulsory sterilisation of 30,000 people in the US would be either.
Quote from: "PoopShoot"So we are either restricting some rights at some point or doing nothing. I personally feel that compulsory sterilization, while a bit odious, is less odious than the alternatives mentioned. Compulsory abortion is a bit of a lateral idea (morally speaking anyway) but is more costly than compulsory sterilization of individuals known to have the defective genes. Restricting relationships is less effective and more invasive on the lifestyle front.
No. I don't agree re sterilisation and abortion. On the cost front I would not expect there to be a massive difference, except you only need to sterilise once.
Quote from: "PoopShoot"Sterilized women could still adopt children (there is a huge need for this in America anyway), meaning that they could have children, just not children that are genetically their own. It's not ideal, but it's the least invasive method as far as tampering with individual lifestyles goes.
I agree that infertile people could adopt children but I'm not sure that is a reason or good excuse to sterilise somebody who does not want to be sterilised.
Quote from: "PoopShoot"As for slippery slopes, I don't advocate eugenics being implemented in subjective cases, only in cases where there is an objectively verifiable disease that is genetic based and is deadly or debilitating.
Understood. This is a very emotive subject and one where there is little consensus. But it is a subject that needs to be constantly revisited in light of constantly changing medical capabilities.
Quote from: "Tank"But they are people first. I could go on about how one first de-humanises somebody before they kill them, but I'm sure you've heard that and get the point.
By the same token a doctor dehumanizes a person before healing them. The oncologist must first reduce the patient to a biopsy sample to discover the histopathology and only then can he diagnose and treat the cancer. That's not to make light of compulsory sterilization or to say that dehumanization is good (indeed, even when necessary, it's terrible), but to say that it's not inherently bad. Regardless, a person who carries a person who carries a defective gene is still a carrier of that gene and must be addressed as such if that gene is to be eradicated.
QuoteGenetic sequencing will get cheaper and more efficient, so while that point may hold some weight now that will become less of an issue. There will be those that will break the ban but if it goes to the normal level 97% will hold to the prohibitions. Even if the level drops to 90% it won't take too many generations to effectively eradicate any given condition.
Perhaps. My country's medical establishment has a vested interest in medical procedures, including genetic sequencing, remaining expensive.
QuoteNo, not really. It's one thing to totally deny a person the ability to reproduce by sterilisation but quite another to require them to selectively 'weed out' CF effected embryos.
Of course. The former is a single traumatic event, the latter is a series of traumatic events. Dehumanizing indeed.
QuoteNot sure I follow this as the state has no rights in the are you mention.
Sure it does. The state has whatever rights it chooses. The only way to prevent the state from exercising its chosen rights is revolution, which merely replaces one state with another, the new state exercising what rights it chooses. Rights are a construct, not a reality. You and I have NO rights, but enjoy a system by which we are granted rights by the state. Go somewhere else and your rights instantly change. If you're there on vacation, your rights are generally null and void altogether. My rights exist only in books and I get them only because a judge enforces them.
QuoteThere would be no restriction on the relationships people with CF could have just the production of CF effected offspring.
Which is 50% or more.
QuoteI agree that infertile people could adopt children but I'm not sure that is a reason or good excuse to sterilise somebody who does not want to be sterilised.
I didn't mean to imply that it was. In fact, it's nothing more than small consolation. The REASON for compulsory sterilization is the defective genome. The reasons for choosing it over other alternatives are subjective.
QuoteUnderstood. This is a very emotive subject and one where there is little consensus. But it is a subject that needs to be constantly revisited in light of constantly changing medical capabilities.
Well, right now the emotional reasoning for "no" seems to be in power. But in the end, you're right, it's one of those unpleasant subjects that can easily become a reality and quickly. In fact, the slippery slope is a very possible one if for no other reason than the state can use eugenics programs to its advntage and will quickly jump on one the moment it's socially accpetable.
What of genes which carry, say, sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs? In certain contexts they are beneficial.
Also, a reduction in genome variability is rarely a benefit for species. I see no reason to conclude otherwise with humans.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"What of genes which carry, say, sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs? In certain contexts they are beneficial.
I can't see a benefit for Tay-Sachs and the benefit of sickle cell anemia is outweighed by medicines. Of course, I wouldn't consider sickle cell anemia to be debilitating enough to warrant sterilization.
QuoteAlso, a reduction in genome variability is rarely a benefit for species. I see no reason to conclude otherwise with humans.
Yep. This is one of the reasons that eugenics is a veritable Pandora's box.
Quote from: "PoopShoot"I can't see a benefit for Tay-Sachs and the benefit of sickle cell anemia is outweighed by medicines. Of course, I wouldn't consider sickle cell anemia to be debilitating enough to warrant sterilization.
I was under the impression that Tay-Sachs was thought to aid in TB resistance.
I personally find the idea of forced sterilization emotionally repulsive. It is entirely possible that this bias of mine has colored my fact-collection.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I was under the impression that Tay-Sachs was thought to aid in TB resistance.
Tay-Sachs is fatal in infants. I'll take the TB (which can be treated with antibiotics).
QuoteI personally find the idea of forced sterilization emotionally repulsive.
Me too, but I'm not making an emotional argument.
Quote from: "PoopShoot"Tay-Sachs is fatal in infants. I'll take the TB (which can be treated with antibiotics).
Actually, treating multiresistant strains of TB is notoriously difficult.
Quote from: "PoopShoot"Tay-Sachs is fatal in infants. I'll take the TB (which can be treated with antibiotics).
One form of TSD is, yes, infantile. I understand there's another form referred to as "late-onset" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay%E2%80%93Sachs_disease#Late_Onset_Tay_Sachs_.28LOTS.29), which allows for full lives in the primacy of youth, including survival to reproductive age, which appears to be salient.
And yes, we'd both take the antibiotics against the TB, but let's face it; that option wasn't handy when selection was sculpting the genome, which is what we're discussing: genome sculpture.
QuoteMe too, but I'm not making an emotional argument.
Understood; nor am I. I was merely pointing out the fact that I have a bias in the matter, which is only fair.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"And yes, we'd both take the antibiotics against the TB, but let's face it; that option wasn't handy when selection was sculpting the genome, which is what we're discussing: genome sculpture.
Of course, but we're talking about removing genes whose benefit is irrelevant and whose detriment is huge.
QuoteUnderstood; nor am I. I was merely pointing out the fact that I have a bias in the matter, which is only fair.
Fairy nuff.
GATTACA is stupid because it brings up so many things that would not happen merely because gene sequencing for humans became possible. Several other things would have to happen for there to be discrimination against the unsequenced "race," unconditional selection of only the "best" genes rather than simply exclusion of genes known to be harmful, etc.
--worrying about losing money by training someone that could end up dying of a heart attack at age 40? --It's not like we won't be able to clone hearts by then...
Quote from: "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 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.)
Quote from: "epepke"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.
Quote from: "epepke"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.
Quote from: "epepke"Quote from: "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.
Quote from: "epepke"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.
Quote from: "epepke"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.
Quote from: "epepke"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.
Quote from: "epepke"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.
Quote from: "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.
Quote from: "Tank"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.
QuoteFortunately 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.
QuoteI 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.
Gene therapy for blood disorder a 'success' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11313273)
QuoteGene 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.
Quote from: "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.
Quote from: "PoopShoot"Quote from: "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?
Quote from: "epepke"Quote from: "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.
Quote from: "Tank"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.