User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 62

Thread: Eugenics?

  1. #31
    No Cigar Litvyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,787

    Default

    I think we're even, since you're also missing my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Halla74 View Post
    (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 familiar with this. Earth is fully explored, and with all those satellites orbiting the globe, there's hardly a blind spot on it, so we can consider this as a problem humanity has already solved. A few hundred years ago, people thought that this (Flat Earth or not) is an impossible task. Now you're saying that unlocking the human genom without negative effects is impossible.

    Now where did I hear that before? Impossible for today is possible for tomorrow.

    I strongly believe in the law of accelerating change, and I think recurring paradigm shifts help us to reach our goals faster. Even if you don't, in case we don't destroy ourselves in a few hundred years, we will eventually reach this stage of scientific development. There is not a single non morality-based criticism able to disprove this theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Halla74 View Post
    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.
    Rejected. This has nothing to do with my personal preferences.

    Quote Originally Posted by Halla74 View Post
    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?
    I agree. Society and genetics at their current stage do not make such changes possible - but the goal of applying eugenics in the future is exactly to exclude the chances of such miserable biological failures as being born without toes etc.
    Positive variances presumed to foster the evolution of humans will be welcomed though, I'm sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Halla74 View Post
    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.
    Please stop such personal remarks, my family or my bloodline has nothing to do with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubbles View Post
    Eugenics has been enforced before, in the USA, with negative consequences.
    It was too early to do so.

  2. #32
    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
    I think we're even, since you're also missing my point.
    I'm not keeping score.

    Quote Originally Posted by Litvyak View Post
    I'm familiar with this. Earth is fully explored, and with all those satellites orbiting the globe, there's hardly a blind spot on it, so we can consider this as a problem humanity has already solved. A few hundred years ago, people thought that this (Flat Earth or not) is an impossible task. Now you're saying that unlocking the human genom without negative effects is impossible.

    Now where did I hear that before? Impossible for today is possible for tomorrow.
    Regarding the bolded above:

    (1) I'm saying it's not likely to occur within our lifetimes, that is for sure.
    (2) I'm also stating that I think the "early apadpters" (aka "guinea pigs") of such technologies will be subjected to significant risks, as is the case in any new and complicated medical endeavor, look at back surgeries for example, first considered not an option unless absolutely necessary due to risks of paralysis, now many are common everyday procedures, but even still with lasers and advanced imaging systems the medical community continues to exercise great caution when performing newer procedures.
    (3) Finally, I'm stating that to me, using such technology for anything other than attempting to save the life of a person doomed to die or suffer during life because of "sick genes" has more potential RISK than BENEFIT, especially for the early adapters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Litvyak View Post
    I strongly believe in the law of accelerating change, and I think recurring paradigm shifts help us to reach our goals faster. Even if you don't, in case we don't destroy ourselves in a few hundred years, we will eventually reach this stage of scientific development. There is not a single non morality-based criticism able to disprove this theory.
    You can guarantee NOTHING with 100% certainty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Litvyak View Post
    Rejected. This has nothing to do with my personal preferences.
    Next...

    Quote Originally Posted by Litvyak View Post
    I agree. Society and genetics at their current stage do not make such changes possible - but the goal of applying eugenics in the future is exactly to exclude the chances of such miserable biological failures as being born without toes etc.

    Positive variances presumed to foster the evolution of humans will be welcomed though, I'm sure.
    As the blind man said: "We shall see..."

    Quote Originally Posted by Litvyak View Post
    Please stop such personal remarks, my family or my bloodline has nothing to do with you.
    OK, I honestly did not mean to offend you. Here's my edited remark:

    "If you are OK with all that, then I feel sorry for wish anyone born of your bloodline in the day and age where such technology is possible to wield the best of luck in not being stricken with side effects caused by use of Eugenics in their embryonic development."

    Quote Originally Posted by Litvyak View Post
    It was too early to do so.
    I don't think the time to do so is anywhere near this era of history.

    Alas this all comes down to personal choice. Youu have yours, and I have mine, and that is great, we are allowed to disagree.

    You have more faith in man's capacity to (correctly) decipher the human genome, modify/improve gene sequences in a desirable manner without side effects, and not allow such technology to be misused/abused by future administrations of civil and corporate governance.

    Do you have children of your own? Are you a father? Just curious. I know that becoming a father changed my outlook on life in many ways. I am fiercely protective of my children.

    At any rate, I have not meant to offend you, I am just stating my opinion on this matter.
    --------------------
    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

  3. #33
    Senior Member Into It's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont know that there is a straight forward population problem, for instance the small number in the developed world consume way more than those in subsaharan africa, so population growth in the developed world is the problem not population growth per se and its more the case that consumption and consumerism the the problem than population growth.
    Population growth is a problem, and would be continue to be a problem even if we all lived like bush-people. As far as population in underdeveloped areas, it is actually a HUGE problem precisely BECAUSE of the lack of resources available to those populations. Simply put, there are lots of people starving to death already, and they're growing on an exponential curve - that's a problem.

    But even if there were no problems of overpopulation today, a plan for who should be allowed to procreate and how much should still be put into place. I just did the numbers, and I'll give them to you. Tell me if you still think overpopulation is itself not an issue.


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    The growth rate is currently 1.2% In '63, it was almost double that. To be on the safe side, I lowered the growth rate to 1%.

    Population today: ~7Billion

    T+60 years (around when I'm going die): 12.7 Billion

    T+160 years: 34.3 Billion

    T+250 years: 84.2 Billion

    T+500 years: over 1 Trillion
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even if there were only 20 billion people on the planet, (T+100) we would all be in trouble, regardless of class status or geography. I think laws should be put into place now. Artificial population control (as opposed to starving and disease - the *natural* methods) is a necessary evil. And if we don't use genes to maximize our future IQ and get rid of undesirable genes such as those with hereditary diseases built in, but instead choose who can procreate at *random,* then we will be putting a lot of good science to waste.

    So that's the first reason artificial selection is a good idea:
    We're going to be encroaching on some serious liberties - so we might as well be wise about it.

    The second reason is that we have reached our Intellectual Peak within the species. We don't get smarter from here. Sure, we will learn more in the future, but we won't be smarter. That is because Smart people don't get selected over idiots today. A two-toothed Texan has the same chance to procreate as a Hawking, and if you ask me, they are even MORE likely to, though I don't have any numbers.
    An inscription above the gate to Hell:
    "Eternal Love also created me"

  4. #34
    DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    Hype
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by incubustribute View Post
    ....
    hey, I'm not whining, and i'm not complaining about health care, and I certainly don't think capitalism sux0rz. Like the late and wise George Carlin, I don't care what the hell we do anymore, I almost WANT to see us fuck ourselves up more than we already are.

    I'm just pointing out that PASSIVE eugenics policies, whether they were intended to be there or not, are already in place via limitations/restrictions of health care to the poor.

    The question isn't whether eugenics is "good or bad", it's what to do about eugenic policies we already inadvertantly support, and if we ought to offer other ones on top of/in place of our current ones.

    And hey, why shouldn't they be there? don't you all think that people with schizophrenia or alcoholism deserve to be cast off from our system of support for superior citizens and die? For the Motherland!!!

  5. #35
    No Cigar Litvyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Halla74 View Post
    Regarding the bolded above:

    (1) I'm saying it's not likely to occur within our lifetimes, that is for sure.
    (2) I'm also stating that I think the "early apadpters" (aka "guinea pigs") of such technologies will be subjected to significant risks, as is the case in any new and complicated medical endeavor, look at back surgeries for example, first considered not an option unless absolutely necessary due to risks of paralysis, now many are common everyday procedures, but even still with lasers and advanced imaging systems the medical community continues to exercise great caution when performing newer procedures.
    (3) Finally, I'm stating that to me, using such technology for anything other than attempting to save the life of a person doomed to die or suffer during life because of "sick genes" has more potential RISK than BENEFIT, especially for the early adapters.
    I agree with your first point. I agree with your second one, though as you've already said, every new scientific achievement comes with sacrifices from airplanes to nuclear power, which does not necessarily mean it wasn't worth it. As for your third point: eugenics could make it possible for a person not to suffer for decades because of his inabilities by birth. If used in the name of ideologies, science becomes a twisted game for sick minds. If used properly, science is the greatest aid of humanity.

    It's all about usage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Halla74 View Post
    I don't think the time to do so is anywhere near this era of history.
    I don't know. Have you ever seen a chart of paradigm shifts?
    http://singularity.com/images/charts...For15Lists.jpg

    It's pretty convincing to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Halla74 View Post
    Do you have children of your own? Are you a father? Just curious. I know that becoming a father changed my outlook on life in many ways. I am fiercely protective of my children.

    At any rate, I have not meant to offend you, I am just stating my opinion on this matter.
    Thank you, I wasn't offended. I'm pretty sure you've lived nearly twice as much as I did, so to answer your question I won't have any children in the near future I'm 19.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Dooraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTp
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    105

    Default

    The two paths shall ultimately intertwine...
    I'm not arguing they won't, but intertwining will take years if not decades. Genetics isn't even at the point where we can alter genes sensibly yet. After that, it is the Government and People's duty to ensure that Science is not misused not Sciences, Science is like an idea, politicians and the public must choose weather to allow or implement the Idea.

    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...
    I would like a source on this due to fact that the US government and its institues of Health were a main proponent of the Project and Celera is a US based company which was at the helm of the private area of the partnership.

    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.
    This is true, at which point I shall stop supporting such a project. If a mother wants it to be natural, it should stay natural. But it stops being natural after the parents want to use IVF at which point we can alter the DNA of the sperm and the egg before fertilization with their consent.

    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.
    Which I why I agree that all genes need to be thoroughly researched before they are altered, we can grow clones, organs and even organ systems before we implement this on living humans to see what the side effects are. I agree that we can never 100% guarantee anything and I agree that some symptoms take years or even decades to manifest which is why I do not support nor believe that Gene alteration of embryos/people will take place in my lifetime or even my child's. If it does, then something is seriously wrong with the area.


    OK, great. Now, how do you propose to use these corrected "Eugenified" gene sequences to cure those already with these diseases?:
    I don't. This is like the Polio vaccine, we cannot do much for those already with the disease but we can do something to prevent others from getting the disease. Would you have opposed the polio vaccine (when it was being introduced) because there might be a small chance of people developing polio or other side effects due to the vaccine?


    In adults/children already alive and born ONLY???
    Where did I say this?

    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.
    I know, you can't guarantee anything in life but you can minimize the possibility of occurring drastically. Paracetamol for instance is one of the most widely used drugs on the planet to relieve pain but there are side effects like liver damage due to over dose but these are quite rare, or do you not take any medication at all.

    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?
    Botox as used commercially is more in tune with designer babies, so no I wouldn't take that for wrinkles, I wouldn't take anything for wrinkles. I would however take Botulinium if I had Cervical Dystonia however (though I don't see how I can considering I'm a male).

    I'm sure that makes the people whose lives were affected by the use of Thalidimide better BEFORE science learned from that debaucle.
    That is like saying it won't make the family of the murdered victim any better even if the killer has been put in jail for life. True it won't bring their losses back but it does help them know that particular killer won't be harming anyone else.


    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.
    No I'm not arguing that, that would be like saying that economic industry regulations destroyed all possibilities of recession. There is always a possible chance that the drugs will harm people but these industry regulations have made it tougher to harm people on a significant wide-spread scale.

    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.
    Agreed but do you see any doctors or medical professionals being tried and prosecuted for the Thalidomide debacle? The only people who were tried was the company which had to pay a bunch of million.

    Above is edited...
    Agreed

    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?
    Okay I agree that it is a massive oversimplification - but we can cultivate organs, organ systems and see what their effect is. I don't want any starting of gene alteration within the next 100 - 200 years, we need to properly and thoroughly research what the potential consequences of any alteration is. Human trials can work but the patients need to be voluntary.

    Again, idealistic over simplification, IMO.
    Do you disagree that we are made of essentially the same parts? (with some exceptions like the male and female reproductive organs). Do you disagree that genes are what us makes us different? I'm well aware of the consequences of a stuff up in genetics, it will be much much greater than Thalidomide or any other current medical tragedy - which is why I support full extensive, documented and transparent research of every single gene and the results of any alterations to that gene in clinical trials or in stem cells.

    Boy, I feel better already...
    Valid point, names of organizations aren't going to quell my fears in anything either.

    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...
    I agree with this, however you have to realize that the GINA and HIPAA are two different sets of regulations with two different sets of targets. The HIPAA targets the health insurance industry which is a massive and powerful lobby while GINA targets the Genetics industry which is composed of a bunch of researchers and scientists. Of course when/if we do get to gene alteration as a business then GINA will be as useless as the HIPAA but this will probably take a couple of decades at the very least.

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

    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
    .

    Agreed, however I am not "dazzled" by the scientific community of genetics, I realize that there some potentially frightening consequences of genetics which is why I fully support documented transparent genetics research before any alterations on the gene.


    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.
    Yes, unfortunately this is a major stuff up in the medical community.

    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.
    Agreed 100%, but you seem to forget that there is pretty much no genetics industry or if there is one it doesn't really have much influence on the world.

    (2) I'm also stating that I think the "early apadpters" (aka "guinea pigs") of such technologies will be subjected to significant risks, as is the case in any new and complicated medical endeavor, look at back surgeries for example, first considered not an option unless absolutely necessary due to risks of paralysis, now many are common everyday procedures, but even still with lasers and advanced imaging systems the medical community continues to exercise great caution when performing newer procedures.
    Does this not apply to every industry? Even in Video games?
    Early adopters are most likely to take the risk of something greater than anyone else.


    I am not against Genetics but I bitterly oppose Eugenics. They are not the same thing.
    INTp (MBTI)
    LII (Socionics) but typed as ILI as well
    5 wing 6
    Ti > Ni > Si > Ne > Te > Fi > Se > Fe

  7. #37
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    I think its a bit daft dumping eugenics because of Nazi euvenicists, a bit like dumping the welfare state or public health care because those things were popular with the Nazis too.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Sizzling Berry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    187

    Default

    For me it is a question who has a right to decide with what set of genes you are going to be born. Your parents who on a genetic level are your equals and will live only for a few decades or natural selection that touches whole ecosystem and survived millions of years. We don't know enough about genetic processes on the population level to temper with it, as prplchknz said the more the merrier (by the way what a name - give the dyslexics a break ).

    But the worst is the feeling that somebody has power to temper with my genes - blah, blah. If there is anything private about me it's my combination of genes. If somebody has a power to modify it I am a product. What an ultimate power, somebody can change you as a person even before you exist.

    Another thing is stopping genetic basis of medical conditions - but that issue is not as straight forward as removing and replacing genes - there is always a trade-off.
    Hot-hearted head

  9. #39
    Supreme High Commander Andy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,108

    Default

    There are certain genes that are beneficial when you have one copy, but crippling when you have two. An example would be the genes that produce sickle cell traita nd sickle cell amenia. Haveing one copy of the gene cause the red blood cells to develop a slight curve to them, which makes the person resistant to melaria. However, if you have two, the cells curve so much it starts to interfier with their ability to carry oxygen, resulting in the person beng worn out and exhauseted all the time.

    There are lots of traits that we know are disadvantagous when you have two of them, such as those that produce MS. We don't know for certain that there is no advantage to these traits. Perhaps they reflect something that existed in the past, like smallpox or the bubonic plague. Maybe they will be useful again some day. Maybe they still are, if we but knew it.

    What we do know for certain, is that you don't want two copies of them! Putting a system in place that warns of matings that might produce such combinations is a good idea. I've been led to believe that certain jewish populations already have such a system because they suffer from so many genetic diseases.

    I don't believe that attempting to do more than that is a good idea. Not so much because of the moral objections to the process, but rather because I don't think we currently know enough to get it right. For me, the pragmatic reason that it's too hard is enough to rule it out. I don't need any length philosophical debate. The effort needed to identify these traits, and track them in the populace would generate plenty of data to keep scientist busy for years.

    By the time we have enough knowledge to make a selective breeding worki, we probably wont need one because we will be able to modify genes directly. A child would still be 99.99% the sames as their parents, just with harmful traits removed. Of course, then we would get to the moral debate...

  10. #40
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    I might not be opposed to the idea of offering people who are on assistance or who have children that receive assistance being offered some sort of reasonably generous compensation for submitting to a sterilization procedure.

    Not a lump sum that exceeded the cost of a reversal surgery (unless there was a 5+year waiting period or something.) My husband thinks it wouldn't be a bad idea to give deadbeat parents that option of sterilization in exchange for the state forgiving back child support debt owed to it.

    It should not be required in order to receive basic assistance like TANF, Medicaid, or Foodstamps, but sort of a bonus.

    It's not primarily eugenics, but would be the same idea.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

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