Eugenics: what do you think?

[TheCheeseBurgerKing]

[MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION] I never said that I wanted to steralize 10% of the population either, I started on this thread by saying I thought limiting their birth after a certain point was a good idea.

Instead of asking me what I think like an intelligient adult, you just keep trying to trap me in what I've already said, lol.

Here's fresh start.

I simply think that genetic manipulation, in theory, is good.
I am not familiar with the history of what has happened with eugenics in communistic countries.
No, I do not think that Joseph Stalin's ghost should come back and kill all of the mentally handiapped people.
I do think that the idea of reducing mentally handicapped people is good.
Because of that belief, I would advocate research on the subject of manipulation.
Like I said, i understand that tampering with genes is dangerous.
I get that for this to be done in an ethical manner, I would have to happen quite gradually.
I also know that communism has not worked in the past 100 years.
No, I am no going to start a communist movement.

Any other questions?


EDIT: I just saw your last edit. I agree mostly. I mean I guess if it were really that cut and dry then I don't have one. I made my earlier point under the assumption that the better genes could be isolated. Either way though, research can never be a bad thing.
[MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION]
Now I'm starting to see what I believe to be your point. That eugenics movements have good intentions, but they are mislead and will not achieve what they set out to do. Just like communism.

 

[ygolo]

[MENTION=17452]collierm48[/MENTION] I certainly was not trying to be condescending. But I was frustrated by what I saw as a misunderstanding of what I was saying. When I say things like "you failed to understand ___", I simply mean that I think you didn't understand ___. I don't like status or things of that sort. I know that my tendency to use facts when I argue can seem as if I am trying to be smarter.

But I am actually just trying to either convince you of something, and this is the way I have been trained to think and argue--Close to the facts, using logic and math, and trying to elicit enough of an emotional response so that people look at the facts and the logic.

Also, I would like for people to struggle less for sure.

However, "Eugenics" is not just an idea to many people. The philosophy of Eugenics as it is usually conceived is based on the following errors:
1) We know genetically what is good or bad
2) By controlling reproduction we can control how much good or bad we have

Neither of these things are true. Rather:
1) Only nature knows what is fit or unfit genetically
2) Controlling reproduction even to control traits we want is clumsy and can have unforseen consequences.

Those are my points.

My question to you is then, what was the vision you had for eugenics? How would this be done in an ethical manner?

 

[TheCheeseBurgerKing]

[MENTION=17452]collierm48[/MENTION] I certainly was not trying to be condescending. But I was frustrated by what I saw as a misunderstanding of what I was saying. When I say things like "you failed to understand ___", I simply mean that I think you didn't understand ___. I don't like status or things of that sort. I know that my tendency to use facts when I argue can seem as if I am trying to be smarter.

But I am actually just trying to either convince you of something, and this is the way I have been trained to think and argue--Close to the facts, using logic and math, and trying to elicit enough of an emotional response so that people look at the facts and the logic.

Also, I would like for people to struggle less for sure.

However, "Eugenics" is not just an idea to many people. The philosophy of Eugenics as it is usually conceived is based on the following errors:
1) We know genetically what is good or bad
2) By controlling reproduction we can control how much good or bad we have

Neither of these things are true. Rather:
1) Only nature knows what is fit or unfit genetically
2) Controlling reproduction even to control traits we want is clumsy and can have unforseen consequences.

Those are my points.

My question to you is then, what was the vision you had for eugenics? How would this be done in an ethical manner?

My vision was to simply make the population struggle less, as I'm sure was the vision of SilentMusings.
Earlier on it seemed like people were trying to argue that mentally handicapped could be handy in the future.

When you said that you couldn't tell which features would be beneficial in the future, it seemed like you were saying that mentally handicapped people had some sort of feature that non-MH'd people didn't and that just maybe we would want that in the future. I was simply arguing that this would never be the case.
Now I know that we agree on this.

You were trying to say that the genes need to be left un-touched because we can't simply modify genes for there to be "less struggle". That genetic make-up is very complicated and so therefore we should leave it be.

What I was suggesting be done is something that isn't possible at this point in time. But I do think that we should continue to research to further our knowledge on the subject of genetic manipulation so that maybe in the future we can have a great deal of control over which genes are past on through insemination. This would be the absolute best scenario because we could sure handedly and safely produce less struggle.

It seems to me that we agreed on knowing what is good, we just don't know how to sure handedly create it.


I do get it though. You are saying that naturally we will figure it out on our own, and that we are best off to just trust nature to take care of itself.

 

[ygolo]

[MENTION=17452]collierm48[/MENTION] I do understand the impulse. I believe we understand where each other is coming from.

Still, I disagree on the first two paragraphs. But it may be too late at night for me to make the distinction I was trying to make clear.

I could be wrong, but it seemed like you are talking about the externally visible trait of mental retardation (phenotype) and controlling it as we might a breed of dog that no longer has mental retardation. Like breeding for smartness, except in people instead of dogs. Or in the case of negative Eugenics breeding out dumbness.

My point is that there are features that we want to preserve, they just might not be externally visible phenotypes, but the genes themselves. Maybe this is just a technical point to you. But to me, it is the whole thing.

Good vs. bad, depends on context, and what we are trying to put in context are not traits (phenotypes) but genes (genotype).

There are some people who equate genetic manipulation with eugenics, and perhaps that includes you. I am still ambivalent about this. Gene therapy, and even designer babies are somethings I have mixed feelings about. But I am wary of using the same word for all these things.

James Watson does advocate this version of "Eugenics". http://www.dnalc.org/view/15472-Eugenics-and-bioethics-James-Watson.html But he clearly says not to let the state control it, but rather individuals. I am undecided about this particular interpretation of eugenics.

Also, like I said, I am wary of using the same word for things like mate selection, and individuals wanting healthier offspring for themselves with state enforced sterilization of those they deem unfit (which is the Eugenics history).

I have a similar feeling about GMOs. I think it's actually a wonderful thing to fortify staple crops in regions where malnutrition is rampant with genetically modified sorgum and such. But it is an entirely different thing to force farmers to grow that and only that (which no one I know of advocates).

The stronger argument against doing any sort of forced genetic manipulation is the denial of someone else's will without due process.

But the genetic complications, I think, make the whole endeavor of doing things like this en mass problematic in itself, and amplifies the moral issues that must be dealt with.

 

[Mane]

[MENTION=17452]collierm48[/MENTION] & [MENTION=21639]SilentMusings[/MENTION]

To understand how genetic instructions works, you need to stop thinking in the faulty term of traits and start thinking in the mechanical terms of what they actually manifest as - proteins.

In a more concrete equivalent, imagine you are running an army, and one of your airforce bases is running at low efficiency. Using the over simplification of trait logic, you can argue that this army has the trait of inefficient airforce bases, and any mutation of that would be a mutation of airforce inefficiency. But a true mechanical understanding of how those systems work allows us to find out that the airforce base is running at low efficiency because people are hungry, and people are hungry because one of the logistics soldiers in the kitchen is very meticulous and is throwing away every potato that isn't perfectly round. A mutation of that "trait" wouldn't be a slight change in the result (air force base inefficiency), it would be a slight change in that soldier, where you put him or what you do with him. Retraining him to supervise ammo supplies would reduce the toll of deaths and damage due to ammo accidents considerably, and improve the base's immunity to attempts at sabotage.

In other words - what you perceive as a broken trait is a wrench in the cogs, but that's the very same trait that has any chances to mutate into a wrench in the toolbox. The genetic mutation of a mentally handicap person is not the actual handicap in itself, but rather a protein that changed the functionality of a biological system in a way that ended up either damaging mental development or unable to provide for it, for instance a protein released in the embryo's early development that damaged neurological connectivity. But it doesn't take much mutation for that exact same protein to change the development stage it's being released in, and what stopped the development of neurological connections within early development could end up helping the brain handle dysfunctional neurological connections and result in an adult brain that is more resistant to seizures or epileptic shock.

I hope that helps minimizing the gap here.

 

[ygolo]

EDIT: I just saw your last edit. I agree mostly. I mean I guess if it were really that cut and dry then I don't have one. I made my earlier point under the assumption that the better genes could be isolated. Either way though, research can never be a bad thing.
[MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION]
Now I'm starting to see what I believe to be your point. That eugenics movements have good intentions, but they are mislead and will not achieve what they set out to do. Just like communism.

Even my own counter characterization is overly simplistic. There are indeed a few such isolatable genes (in terms of percentage). But things like autism, and mental retardation (which are both very broad phenotypes) do not fall under this category.

If I, as an individual, finds out that I have some genetic disorder that have a high probability to cause my children to be miserable, I would seriously consider not having them. If other individuals chose the same, I would not fault them for it.

Things like contraception, and encouraging people to not have children in overcrowded and overburdened areas also makes sense to me. This form of "negative eugenics", I think, are fairly innocuous, and frankly already happening.

However, in this thread, the discussion was framed in terms of government run eugenics aimed at blanket removal trait(phenotypes). This, obviously, I am passionately opposed to.

When numbers were quoted it was at 10% of the population, and this made me go through the roof. Trying to do something like that, I believe, would lead to mass genocide because even if the aim was sterilization, it would be on a scale that is unprecedented.

Frankly, I think involuntary sterilization of even one individual is morally wrong, and many others feel that way. I think a mass sterilization program of that scale implies mass genocide and war because the people aimed to be sterilized, and many more who find the action wrong would rebel. Thus, eugenics, as it seemed to be conceived in this thread (and I could have misinterpreted) was something I found appalling and ultimately self-defeating.

But, if you were just thinking about individuals refraining from having children is certain circumstances of their own free will, that is another matter entirely, and not something I would consider "eugenics".

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Gene doping, gene therapy and a host of other emerging medical technologies are going to be a "thing" this century whether we like it or not.

On the whole I think the upsides of tinkering with our genetic code outweigh the downsides. The tech has both a huge potential for positive impact and a huge potential for abuse.

I'm ultimately an optimist, and think we will keep from realizing the worst case scenarios with this stuff.

The potential to bifurcate society into those who can afford it for their kids (themselves etc.) and those who can't does pose an issue.

 

[Tiltyred]

How about if we could even move toward encouraging voluntary sterilization? I had my tubes tied as soon as I could find a doctor that would do it, for various reasons, some having to do with passing things on, and some financial. It was considered a very rash thing to do when I did it, and it still is -- just a year or two ago a doctor who was treating me for something entirely unrelated wanted to know why on earth I didn't have children.

If we could just promote regular birth control and make it accessible and affordable, and educate that sterilization is a good option, NOT having children is a good option, that would go a long way toward correcting things. But these small steps in themselves would be considered radical and probably blasphemous.

At the very least, making prospective parents pass the same kinds of test that prospective adoptive parents must pass seems a good idea to me. But again, a hard sell.

 

[Kullervo]

[MENTION=17452]collierm48[/MENTION] & [MENTION=21639]SilentMusings[/MENTION]

To understand how genetic instructions works, you need to stop thinking in the faulty term of traits and start thinking in the mechanical terms of what they actually manifest as - proteins.

In a more concrete equivalent, imagine you are running an army, and one of your airforce bases is running at low efficiency. Using the over simplification of trait logic, you can argue that this army has the trait of inefficient airforce bases, and any mutation of that would be a mutation of airforce inefficiency. But a true mechanical understanding of how those systems work allows us to find out that the airforce base is running at low efficiency because people are hungry, and people are hungry because one of the logistics soldiers in the kitchen is very meticulous and is throwing away every potato that isn't perfectly round. A mutation of that "trait" wouldn't be a slight change in the result (air force base inefficiency), it would be a slight change in that soldier, where you put him or what you do with him. Retraining him to supervise ammo supplies would reduce the toll of deaths and damage due to ammo accidents considerably, and improve the base's immunity to attempts at sabotage.

In other words - what you perceive as a broken trait is a wrench in the cogs, but that's the very same trait that has any chances to mutate into a wrench in the toolbox. The genetic mutation of a mentally handicap person is not the actual handicap in itself, but rather a protein that changed the functionality of a biological system in a way that ended up either damaging mental development or unable to provide for it, for instance a protein released in the embryo's early development that damaged neurological connectivity. But it doesn't take much mutation for that exact same protein to change the development stage it's being released in, and what stopped the development of neurological connections within early development could end up helping the brain handle dysfunctional neurological connections and result in an adult brain that is more resistant to seizures or epileptic shock.

I hope that helps minimizing the gap here.

What you are suggesting is that a change in protein structure is often not deleterious and may in fact be beneficial. This might get past others, but it will not get past me and in is the most laughable thing posted on the thread yet. I don't want to divert the discussion though, so read on.

All that you, ygolo and others have been saying rests on a weak premise: that an unfavourable change in structure & hence function now might become useful in the future. However, you cannot say when, or even if this will be the case, which greatly weakens your argument. Back in the real world, millions of people live shitty lives due to inherited disorders - the probability is that changes in the genetic code will have no or a negative effect, and as evolution works over generations, sudden environmental stresses will not favour a useful mutation that has just appeared in the population. I have explained why this is so earlier.

To take your latest example, for the one advantage listed, think of all the disadvantages. Dysfunctional neurological connections early in a person's life could lead to a whole range of physical and mental issues.

 

[TheCheeseBurgerKing]

Gene doping, gene therapy and a host of other emerging medical technologies are going to be a "thing" this century whether we like it or not.

On the whole I think the upsides of tinkering with our genetic code outweigh the downsides. The tech has both a huge potential for positive impact and a huge potential for abuse.

I'm ultimately an optimist, and think we will keep from realizing the worst case scenarios with this stuff.

I agree with this guy.

To [MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION] and the other guy, I see the point that you two are trying to make, but you're guys are overthinking it in my opinion.


The choice is a simple one to make.

 

[Evee]

It is time to get back on topic. People who can't relate their posts to eugenics in some way, could you do everyone else the honour of starting a new thread or shutting up.

Jimmies status: rustled

 

[Mane]

All that you, ygolo and others have been saying rests on a weak premise: that an unfavourable change in structure & hence function now might become useful in the future. However, you cannot say when, or even if this will be the case, which greatly weakens your argument.

Are you serious? That is the exact same error most ignorant people make against evolution in general, if you can't understand the game of probability behind evolution then you can't understand the basic tenants of eugenics in the first place. We might as well be arguing different agricultural approaches with a kid who's conception of 'the real world' is that food is made in the supermarket.

Build a basic grasp of your own ideology. Make the argument for eugenics, don't be the argument for eugenics

 

[Kullervo]

Are you serious? That is the exact same error most ignorant people make against evolution in general, if you can't understand the game of probability behind evolution then you can't understand the basic tenants of eugenics in the first place. We might as well be arguing different agricultural approaches with a kid who's conception of 'the real world' is that food is made in the supermarket.

You keep evading the fact that the probability being too low to be useful means that we practically cannot act on that chance. Directed eugenics is about doing the work for nature so that we can get the outcome we want in a short period of time (by evolutionary standards).

Build a basic grasp of your own ideology. Make the argument for eugenics, don't be the argument for eugenics

I understand my own ideology a lot better than you ever will, by the quality of your posts.

 

[Mane]

I understand my own ideology

Evidently not - you are arguing in favor of controlled evolution without understanding the basic concepts of evolution.

 

[ygolo]

What you are suggesting is that a change in protein structure is often not deleterious and may in fact be beneficial. This might get past others, but it will not get past me and in is the most laughable thing posted on the thread yet. I don't want to divert the discussion though, so read on.

All that you, ygolo and others have been saying rests on a weak premise: that an unfavourable change in structure & hence function now might become useful in the future. However, you cannot say when, or even if this will be the case, which greatly weakens your argument. Back in the real world, millions of people live shitty lives due to inherited disorders - the probability is that changes in the genetic code will have no or a negative effect, and as evolution works over generations, sudden environmental stresses will not favour a useful mutation that has just appeared in the population. I have explained why this is so earlier.

To take your latest example, for the one advantage listed, think of all the disadvantages. Dysfunctional neurological connections early in a person's life could lead to a whole range of physical and mental issues.

The things I have been saying are fairly well established. If you are going to say these things are not part of the "real world" and want to continue with the fantasy that you can eliminate 700 million people from the population aimed specifically at removing traits without adverse effects, I am not sure what to do with you. My image of you is someone who has never held a real job, and sits at home posting fantasies on the internet and disputing scientific fact as not having to do with reality. I could be wrong.

Here is a quote from wikipedia to emphasize that not only primary sources but secondary sources say the same things that so many in this thread have been saying (Heterozygote advantage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , emphasis is mine):

A heterozygote advantage (heterozygous advantage) describes the case in which the heterozygote genotype has a higher relative fitness than either the homozygote dominant or homozygote recessive genotype. The specific case of heterozygote advantage due to a single locus is known as overdominance.[1][2] In more general terms, overdominance is a condition in genetics where the phenotype of the heterozygote lies outside of the phenotypical range of both homozygote parents, and heterozygous individuals have a higher fitness than homozygous individuals.

Polymorphism can be maintained by selection favoring the heterozygote, and this mechanism is used to explain the occurrence of some kinds of genetic variability. A common example is the case where the heterozygote conveys both advantages and disadvantages, while both homozygotes convey a disadvantage. A well-established case of heterozygote advantage is that of the gene involved in sickle cell anaemia.

Often, the advantages and disadvantages conveyed are rather complicated, because more than one gene may influence a given trait or morph. Major genes almost always have multiple effects (pleiotropism), which can simultaneously convey separate advantageous traits and disadvantageous traits upon the same organism. In this instance, the state of the organism's environment will provide selection, with a net effect either favoring or working in opposition to the gene, until an environmentally determined equilibrium is reached.

Heterozygote advantage is a major underlying mechanism for heterosis, or "hybrid vigor", which is the improved or increased function of any biological quality in a hybrid offspring. Previous research, comparing measures of dominance, overdominance and epistasis (mostly in plants), found that the majority of cases of heterozygote advantage were due to complementation (or dominance), the masking of deleterious recessive alleles by wild-type alleles, as discussed in the articles Heterosis and Complementation (genetics), but there were also findings of overdominance, especially in rice.[2] More recent research, however, has established that there is also an epigenetic contribution to heterozygote advantage, primarily as determined in plants,[3][4] though also reported in mice.[5]

I agree with this guy.

To [MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION] and the other guy, I see the point that you two are trying to make, but you're guys are overthinking it in my opinion.


The choice is a simple one to make.

I pretty much agree with [MENTION=6724]DiscoBiscuit[/MENTION] in this respect too. I share his optimism for the technology, and I think people like [MENTION=22098]Jarlaxle[/MENTION] and others might as well.

It turned out we are in agreement with almost everything in terms of the use of genetic manipulation except perhaps what we mean by eugenics.

I initially thought you were on board with [MENTION=21639]SilentMusings[/MENTION] idea of eliminating 10% of the population based on traits he found undesirable. If this is not what you had in mind, but instead things like gene therapy, then we are in agreement.

I was lumping you two together, and perhaps that was a mistake.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I understand my own ideology a lot better than you ever will, by the quality of your posts.

Understanding ideology is one thing. Understanding reality is something else.

 

[Kullervo]

Evidently not - you are arguing in favor of controlled evolution without understanding the basic concepts of evolution.

 

[Mane]

I pretty much agree with [MENTION=6724]DiscoBiscuit[/MENTION] in this respect too. I share his optimism for the technology, and I think people like [MENTION=22098]Jarlaxle[/MENTION] and others might as well.

Yes - my first post in this thread outright said that:

That is what they should be informed of. If they have Googled genetically related problems and have not yet heard of PDG clinics, then Google Adsense has failed us miserably.

As for eugenics, the benefit of a society that knows how to squeeze the potential from people despite their problems far outweighs the benefit of a society that doesn't have those people to began with. But if a family is going to have X number of kids, then why not enable them to have the healthiest kids they can have? yes, PDG can have a cost in terms of genetic diversity, but I would rather put my money on the potential of genetic engineering then make people suffer on the slim chance that the genes for diabetes or breast cancer will mutate to that one genetic trait that will help us survive the next plague.

 

[Kullervo]

The things I have been saying are fairly well established. If you are going to say these things are not part of the "real world" and want to continue with the fantasy that you can eliminate 700 million people from the population aimed specifically at removing traits without adverse effects, I am not sure what to do with you. My image of you is someone who has never held a real job, and sits at home posting fantasies on the internet and disputing scientific fact as not having to do with reality. I could be wrong.

Here is a quote from wikipedia to emphasize that not only primary sources but secondary sources say the same things that so many in this thread have been saying (Heterozygote advantage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , emphasis is mine):

Hybrid vigour occurs when you breed two highly homogyzogus parents for a number of different traits together to get the best of both worlds. However, the random mating of two people who will be homogyzous for one trait, hetereozygous for others, and have a whole lot of traits with more complex inheritance patterns, just because they are appreciably "different", will not increase health. You have no idea whatsoever what you are doing in this case. It would be like me knocking up your sister after a one night stand compared to controlled pedigree dog breeding.

If you can explain how the benefits of being heterozygous for any of the disorders I listed outweigh the consequences then you will have won this debate. But until then, you have not.

As I have consistently pointed out, the probability of there being an advantage to being heterozygous for the cystic fibrosis gene, for example, does not outweigh the disadvantages. Not by a country mile. The reason these disorders persist in the population is not because they convey some advantage but because the heterozygous individual often does not have such severe symptoms if any and may be able to reproduce. This is not an argument against evolution, only that any useful mutation would take a while to spread in any given population unless the environment drastically changed. Bargining on that chance occuring during our lifetimes is not rational because it is very low indeed. That is why I posted the meteorite analogy.

Why you people can't understand what I'm trying to tell you is utterly beyond me...

That you are optimisitic about genetic technology is highly hypocritical considering what you have stated earlier. As I have pointed out, enhancement will also lead to a loss of genetic diversity, and along with it a whole set of societal problems created by the population being unnaturally healthy. Be consistent.

 

[Kullervo]

Anyway, enough is enough. I have spent enough time on this thread, and I mean it this time.