User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 62

Thread: Eugenics?

  1. #21
    No Cigar Litvyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by incubustribute View Post
    It certainly was not intended as one, but perhaps I misunderstand the goal of implementing eugenics.
    Nah, I just mean that "you have big brother from Brave New World" sounded funny, since there is no connection between Orwell's Big Brother and Huxley's Brave New World.
    But I guess you know that, sorry for being a prick.

    Quote Originally Posted by Halla74 View Post
    Our gifts are infinitely variable, as is our uniqueness, as are our possible imperfections.
    And if our greatest 'gift' is to evolve and seek perfection? Who are you to assess God's intent with the human race? Isn't that blasphemy?

    I do not believe in a god, I'm just playing by your rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by Halla74 View Post
    A person's DNA code is so complex, it is impossible to know the totality of interrealtions between genes
    Yeah. Well, 800 years ago the world was flat, and the center of it was Jerusalem. Anybody who said otherwise was ridiculed and burned.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Dooraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTp
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Litvyak View Post
    Yeah. Well, 800 years ago the world was flat, and the center of it was Jerusalem. Anybody who said otherwise was ridiculed and burned.
    I agree with most of which you posted. Knowledge is evolving and thus the human species is evolving due to our expansion of knowledge but saying that in the 13th Century the consensus of knowledge was that the earth was flat is actually not true at all.

    Myth of the Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    INTp (MBTI)
    LII (Socionics) but typed as ILI as well
    5 wing 6
    Ti > Ni > Si > Ne > Te > Fi > Se > Fe

  3. #23
    Intriguing.... Quinlan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    Booo
    Posts
    3,005

    Default

    Today's disorder is tomorrows order, and vice versa.
    Act your age not your enneagram number.

    Quinlan's Creations

  4. #24
    No Cigar Litvyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,787

    Default

    Thanks for the side note, I never really knew this. Interesting.

  5. #25
    Artisan Conquerer Halla74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sx/so
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Litvyak View Post
    Yeah. Well, 800 years ago the world was flat, and the center of it was Jerusalem. Anybody who said otherwise was ridiculed and burned.
    AND...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooraven View Post
    I agree with most of which you posted. Knowledge is evolving and thus the human species is evolving due to our expansion of knowledge but saying that in the 13th Century the consensus of knowledge was that the earth was flat is actually not true at all.
    You're both missing my point, but that is OK. I'll try to clarify it:

    (1) Unlocking the human genome and having the capability to modify single (or even paired) codons WITHOUT NEGATIVE SIDE EFFECT(S) is an entirley different AND MORE COMPLICATED enterprise than exploring the world, regardless of what vessels were used to do it, old or modern...

    AND...

    (2) As opposed to get into some type of useless argument where we all toss logic, facts, and theories at each other trying to prove who is right, I propose a simple alternative. If you have so much faith in "eugenics" or even more so man's ability to alter the unborn with scientific tools/techniques, would you allow a scientist/geneticist to make changes to your unborn child in an effort to change an "imperfect" or "undesirable" gene/codon/strand of DNA? Would you be OK if you were to be de-evolved into an embryo, and "optimized" ala one of the first implemented Eugenics programs?

    I don't think you would. Do you want to be a guinea pig? Do you want your kids/grandchildren/everyone who will ever be born of the being that YOU chose to allow to be modified (while alive) with knowledge of the full risks of possible sicknesses/deformities that could be introduced by a (vain) inclination such as
    Eugenics" that assumes (human = fallible) scientists know better how to form (human) life than what the human race has managed to do in vivo as a living body of knowledge?

    Look at all the sickness/deformity/birth derfects introduced into the human population as a whole from just CHEMISTRY (Thalidimide = Loss of fingers and toes, Fetal alcohol syndrome, etc.), and how could you allow something that is potentially far more dangerous, such as genetics, to be unleashed, and allowed to recklessly affect posterity?

    If you are OK with all that, then I feel sorry for anyone born of your bloodline in the day and age where such technology is possible to wield. To each his own, but I think you have far too much faith in conceptual scientific ideals, which is not kept in check by knowledge of its full applicability or risks.

    I'm not ranting, just expanding on my earlier notes...

    Quote Originally Posted by Quinlan View Post
    Today's disorder is tomorrows order, and vice versa.
    Exactly.
    --------------------
    Type Stats:
    MBTI -> (E) 77.14% | (i) 22.86% ; (S) 60% | (n) 40% ; (T) 72.22% | (f) 27.78% ; (P) 51.43% | (j) 48.57%
    BIG 5 -> Extroversion 77% ; Accommodation 60% ; Orderliness 62% ; Emotional Stability 64% ; Open Mindedness 74%

    Quotes:
    "If somebody asks your MBTI type on a first date, run". -Donna Cecilia
    "Enneagram is psychological underpinnings. Cognitive Functions are mental reasoning and perceptional processes. -Sanjuro

  6. #26
    Senior Member incubustribute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    297

    Default

    ^ this is more what I was getting at.

    I think I'll leave this thread alone for a bit because I either lack the knowledge about eugenics to make valid arguments, or I lack the knowledge on literature to make good analogies :P

  7. #27
    Senior Member Dooraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTp
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    105

    Default

    I would like to point out that you are arguing against more of genetics than eugenics in this post. Eugenics does not have a significant importance by scientists in genetics or genome modification.

    (1) Unlocking the human genome and having the capability to modify single (or even paired) codons WITHOUT NEGATIVE SIDE EFFECT(S) is an entirley different AND MORE COMPLICATED enterprise than exploring the world, regardless of what vessels were used to do it, old or modern...
    I'm not saying its not more complicated, but humans would eventually be able
    to utilize it, there was a project called the Human Genome Project that was a massive undertaking of Genetics from both the private and public sectors of the industry which identified many different types of genes and alleles. I don't see the problem with researching and finding out the genes that cause a genetic illness. I don't have a problem if they started testing and modifying the gene if they started it on stem cells.

    (2) As opposed to get into some type of useless argument where we all toss logic, facts, and theories at each other trying to prove who is right, I propose a simple alternative. If you have so much faith in "eugenics" or even more so man's ability to alter the unborn with scientific tools/techniques, would you allow a scientist/geneticist to make changes to your unborn child in an effort to change an "imperfect" or "undesirable" gene/codon/strand of DNA? Would you be OK if you were to be de-evolved into an embryo, and "optimized" ala one of the first implemented Eugenics programs?
    Quote Originally Posted by Dooraven
    I oppose eugenics due to the simple fact that one person who is extremely good at something probably sucks at something else. This is where IQ tests fail miserably at.
    Also, I would like to expand on this. I am completely and utterly opposed to these so called designer babies and anything that is an alteration that does not relieve genetic illness/disease.

    But I 100% support research and alterations to genes on human stem cells that were donated provided these genes are defects in genes or illness causing genes like the defects/genes that cause diseases like cystic fibrosis, Bardet-Biedl syndrome, Meckel-Gruber Syndrome, Ciliopathy and many many others. I overwhelmingly don't support designer babies, I certainly don't support Genetics being used for anything other than genetic illness curing or being it used on live babies unless it is proven to do no damage with no side effects what so ever.

    Look at all the sickness/deformity/birth derfects introduced into the human population as a whole from just CHEMISTRY (Thalidimide = Loss of fingers and toes, Fetal alcohol syndrome, etc.), and how could you allow something that is potentially far more dangerous, such as genetics, to be unleashed, and allowed to recklessly affect posterity?
    Genetics and Chemical Drugs are completely different. In order for an accurate representation of a Chemical Drug you need to understand the effects on the body due to the usually pathogenic nature of the illness., the only possible way to do this is through human and animal trials, Thalidomide was one of the worst medical tragedies in the history of science, it was a truly terrifying experience that rocked the medical world but the fact is that Thalidomide is very effective in curing what it is meant to cure and has started being re-introduced [source].Science has learnt from that debacle and there are much much stricter provisions and regulations that are required to be passed before any new drugs can be introduced into the market.

    However blaming Science and Chemistry for Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is like blaming Nature for the cancer causing effects of Tobacco.

    Genetics however has a fail-safe mechanism, our body is made up of cells, a deterioration of a part of the human body is due to a deterioration of the cells that make up the parts of the cell. Since we have stem cell research we can determine how the changes of the cell correlate with genetic diseases. We can completely skip over human and animal testing because we know that any change that occurs to the embryonic stem cell will happen to a normal human. Every human has the same foundation, our genes make us different. Genetics does not attempt to kill diversity, it is there to basically explore the human code. If we can fix hereditary diseases with it then what is the problem.

    To each his own, but I think you have far too much faith in conceptual scientific ideals, which is not kept in check by knowledge of its full applicability or risks.
    I would like to point out that Genetics is actually very well regulated, by
    a) The Federal/Central Government of countries.
    b) National Human Genome Research Institute and thier various affiliates in other countries.

    Proof of accountability in Genome and Genetics: the Federal Government passed GINA into law. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. the NHGRI supports this move.

    There are many other Acts as well, but this is the most significant recent one.
    INTp (MBTI)
    LII (Socionics) but typed as ILI as well
    5 wing 6
    Ti > Ni > Si > Ne > Te > Fi > Se > Fe

  8. #28
    See Right Through Me Bubbles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w3
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    1,037

    Default

    Eugenics has been enforced before, in the USA, with negative consequences. In fact, we had states that sterilized people who did not fit society's standards of behavior, and it all boils down to this:

    Who has the right to say what people's children are "worthy" to be born or not? You simply cannot expect the world as a whole to agree with this. You can't. People will love who they love and have children with whom they will. Are you proposing forced sterilization? Forced birth control? Many religions won't agree with this. Many individuals, even.

    You want to take this up with the parents of an autistic boy? A woman in charge of a home for the mentally impaired? Blind people, deaf people, cripples?

    I find the whole idea of eugenics to be rather repulsive, elitist, and unnecessary. I like the fact that we all get a shot at being worth something in this world, to ourselves at least. What if someone scoffs at your genes? Should they be allowed to determine your breeding rights?

    Honestly, it's no one's damn business.
    4w3, IEI, so/sx/sp, female, and Cancer sign.

    My thoughts on...
    Enneagram:
    Socionics:
    MBTI:

    DISCLAIMER: If I offend you, I'm 99.9% sure it's unintentional. So be sure to let me know, m'kay? (And yes, an INFP would stick this in their signature, lol.)

  9. #29
    Artisan Conquerer Halla74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sx/so
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooraven View Post
    I would like to point out that you are arguing against more of genetics than eugenics in this post. Eugenics does not have a significant importance by scientists in genetics or genome modification.
    The two paths shall ultimately intertwine...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooraven View Post
    I'm not saying its not more complicated, but humans would eventually be able to utilize it, there was a project called the Human Genome Project that was a massive undertaking of Genetics from both the private and public sectors of the industry which identified many different types of genes and alleles.
    Yes, I'm aware of it. Did you know it's been reported that the United States does not donate its genetic findings to the human genome project? I wonder why...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooraven View Post
    I don't see the problem with researching and finding out the genes that cause a genetic illness.
    Neither do I...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooraven View Post
    I don't have a problem if they started testing and modifying the gene if they started it on stem cells.
    Nor do I, but that's not happening now as (viable) stem cells are in very short supply. And, that ultimately will not be the case, as at some point Eugenics will consider alteration of human embryos in theri mothers' wombs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooraven View Post
    Also, I would like to expand on this. I am completely and utterly opposed to these so called designer babies and anything that is an alteration that does not relieve genetic illness/disease.
    Yes, me too. But you seem to fail to realize that what appears to be a legitimate correction to a gene thought ot cause a genetic illness/disease could have UNINTENTIONAL CONSEQUENCES that could take DECADES to manifest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooraven View Post
    But I 100% support research and alterations to genes on human stem cells that were donated provided these genes are defects in genes or illness causing genes like the defects/genes that cause diseases like cystic fibrosis, Bardet-Biedl syndrome, Meckel-Gruber Syndrome, Ciliopathy and many many others.
    OK, great. Now, how do you propose to use these corrected "Eugenified" gene sequences to cure those already with these diseases?:

    (1) How about preventing these diseases from manifesting in an embryo that trested positive for a problematic gene? You might have to modify the embryos DFA, right?

    (2) Only living organisms with a mature and fully expressed genotype are candidates for "gene therapy" or "smart drugs" manufactured with regard to that individual's unique DNA sequence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooraven View Post
    I overwhelmingly don't support designer babies,
    Good for you, neither do I...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooraven View Post
    I certainly don't support Genetics being used for anything other than genetic illness curing...
    In adults/children already alive and born ONLY???

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooraven View Post
    ...or being it used on live babies unless it is proven to do no damage with no side effects what so ever.
    Neither you, nor the world's greatest scientists can guarantee that no damage or side effects can occur. Don't you understand that? How could that possibly be proven beyond a reasonably doubt in a format that is mutually accepted by all? It's not possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooraven View Post
    Genetics and Chemical Drugs are completely different.
    I'm aware of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooraven View Post
    In order for an accurate representation of a Chemical Drug you need to understand the effects on the body due to the usually pathogenic nature of the illness.,
    ...yes...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooraven View Post
    the only possible way most commonly used methods to do this are through human and animal trials,
    Quote Originally Posted by Dooraven View Post
    Thalidomide was one of the worst medical tragedies in the history of science, it was a truly terrifying experience that rocked the medical world but the fact is that Thalidomide is very effective in curing what it is meant to cure and has started being re-introduced [source].
    Yes, I am aware of this. I am also aware tha Thalidimide has been successfully used as on "off label" drug for its propensity to weaken/kill off the blood supply of cancerous tumors, much like it eliminated the blood supply of the fingers and toes of children born to mothers that took Thalidimide for motion sickness. How about botulinium toxin and wrinkles? You interested?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooraven View Post
    Science has learnt from that debacle...
    I'm sure that makes the people whose lives were affected by the use of Thalidimide BEFORE science learned from that debaucle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooraven View Post
    ...and there are much much stricter provisions and regulations that are required to be passed before any new drugs can be introduced into the market.
    Oh, and I'm sure that those more strict provisions and regulations mitigated any and all possibilities of any new drugs or "Eugenics" therapies from harming people treated with them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooraven View Post
    However blaming Science and Chemistry for Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is like blaming Nature for the cancer causing effects of Tobacco.
    Sure, that was just a simplistic example of a chemical that causes birth defects, an unknown until it was expressed and studied, not an effort to get alcoholic mothers off the hook, much like the medical professionals that get sued in class action lawsuits will not be let off the hook if they use a Eugenics treatment on a person that is inadvertantly harmed as a result of the treatment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooraven View Post
    Genetics however has a fail-safe mechanism, our body is made up of cells, a deterioration of a part of the human body is due to a deterioration of the cells that make up the parts of the cell. Since we have stem cell research we can determine how some of the changes of the cell correlate with genetic diseases.
    Above is edited...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooraven View Post
    We can completely skip over human and animal testing because we know that any change that occurs to the embryonic stem cell will happen to a normal human.
    This statement is an oversimplification, sorry. If you believe it to be the case then I invite you to sign up for whatever future Eugenics therapies you wish for that have "guaranteed results" because of stem cell research. The Titanic wasn't supposed to skink, remember?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooraven View Post
    Every human has the same foundation, our genes make us different. Genetics does not attempt to kill diversity, it is there to basically explore the human code. If we can fix hereditary diseases with it then what is the problem.
    Again, idealistic over simplification, IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooraven View Post
    I would like to point out that Genetics is actually very well regulated, by
    a) The Federal/Central Government of countries.
    b) National Human Genome Research Institute and thier various affiliates in other countries.
    Boy, I feel better already...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dooraven View Post
    Proof of accountability in Genome and Genetics: the Federal Government passed GINA into law. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. the NHGRI supports this move.

    There are many other Acts as well, but this is the most significant recent one.
    Oh please. That document isn't worth the paper it is written on. It will be about as effective at maintaining people's rights to proper usage of the human genome/their personal genetics as HIPAA has been at maintaining personal health information. Again, great in theory, much different in practice...

    -----------------------

    In short, we're probably saying some things more similary than is apparent, but I am obviously less dazzled by the scientific community let alone the government agencies that (purport to) regulate them than you appear to be.

    I'm no expert in this area, but I'm not an idiot either. I finished 3 of 4 years towards a B.S. in biology, of which a genetics class and laboratory were part of my curriculum. I've also kept current as to developments of science and health care my whole adult life out of personal interest.

    Also, I am all for therapies such as injecting embryonic stem cells into the pancreas of a person suffering from Type II diabetes, as it is very likely that the stem cells will assimilate into the islets of Langerhans in the (improperly functioning) pancreas of the diabetic patient, and eventually begin secreting insulin of their own as the differentiate. That's a viable therapy the IS NOT used on yet to be born embryos...but that is coming, just you wait.

    Finally, I paid $1,000 to have each of my daughter's embryonic cord blood (obtained via extraction of the blood of the placenta and umbilical cord after their birth) centrifuged down, to isolate the stem cells, and have been paying to have them cryogenically preserved, so that I HAVE THE OPTION to use them for my daughters or other family members later in life IF NEED BE.

    There is a HUGE shortage of embryonic stem cells in the U.S. especially, thanks to W's legislation banning creation of new lines from aborted fetuses. Too bad that dumb ass didn't consider collection/processing/categorization/storing/researching the umbilical/placental cord blood from children (whose parents did not desire to, or maybe didn't have the money to) born each day in U.S. hospitals. The quality of umbilical stem cells is equivalent to that of aborted fetuses.

    Like I said, I'm not razzing you, I just have strong beliefs against inappropriate use of Eugenics or other similar therapies because I know all too well the nature of mankind, and I also kjnow how many government programs, especially those that are purportedly "regulating" powerful special interest group industries are understaffed, underfunded, and politically crippled because if their bureau chief made some major finding that caused the industry too mucjh shame, embarrassment, or loss of profit, he/she would be terminated. I've seen it happen. That's how it goes.

    You can get your genes or the genes of your kids modified as much as you want, go for it, it's your bloodline, the only thing that can really serve as a proxy for your success as a living organism once you are gone. I'm sure the scientists will do what's best for your kids, and grandchildren forever more, based upon what they knoew about the therapioes you elected to administer based on what they knew about them at he time you elected to receicve them. It's all so cut and dry, you need not fear. Go for it.
    --------------------
    Type Stats:
    MBTI -> (E) 77.14% | (i) 22.86% ; (S) 60% | (n) 40% ; (T) 72.22% | (f) 27.78% ; (P) 51.43% | (j) 48.57%
    BIG 5 -> Extroversion 77% ; Accommodation 60% ; Orderliness 62% ; Emotional Stability 64% ; Open Mindedness 74%

    Quotes:
    "If somebody asks your MBTI type on a first date, run". -Donna Cecilia
    "Enneagram is psychological underpinnings. Cognitive Functions are mental reasoning and perceptional processes. -Sanjuro

  10. #30
    Senior Member Gerbah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    433

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Crime or life science? What's your view? I'm a total supporter of Eugenics in theory, I'm unsure how to put it into practice but I believe that the majority of misery created by anti-social behaviour and other equally troubling behaviour arises mainly from not simply neglect or abuse and its impact across the life span but the genetic inheritance passed on through the years. Bad or recessive genes combine with environment with predictable results.

    It's a pressing problem, I've read and considered research that all the existing therapeutic interventions in the form of health and social services in the UK will be totally ineffective with certain hard core populations since they are so cognitively challenged the chances of responding to any intervention is remote.
    But don't you think the problem stems down to the fact that the society as a whole is unhealthy (e.g. poverty, lack of moral values, trafficking of drugs, the promotion of consumerism and non-thinking in general, etc.)? The individual can't fulfil their potential in an environment that doesn't promote it. Personally, I don't think the problem is that some individuals will inevitably turn out bad. There are plenty of people born into hard circumstances who don't succumb to those circumstances. But of course, they are the stronger ones and relatively few.

    If you turn the argument around, there are a lot of people creating a lot of misery in the very high levels of society. You could say their behaviour is very anti-social, even psychopathic. They are sick people. They do a lot more harm than some inner-city kids. They're just more privileged and the system protects them. Should we also test the rich and tell them that their “bad” genes have to bred out? Of course this wouldn't work. You could only ever impose such a policy on the poor.

Similar Threads

  1. Eugenics. How much should it cost?
    By LEGERdeMAIN in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 07-23-2011, 11:32 PM
  2. America's Eugenic and Intellectual Role in the Holocaust
    By Venom in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07-09-2011, 04:29 AM
  3. What's wrong with eugenics?
    By Perch420 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 157
    Last Post: 05-24-2011, 01:57 PM
  4. Pelosi calls for birth control to stimulate the economy (eugenics?)
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 141
    Last Post: 02-07-2009, 01:20 AM
  5. Eugen Weber
    By Haight in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-22-2007, 09:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO