Eugenics?

[Litvyak]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Dooraven]

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

 

[Quinlan]

Today's disorder is tomorrows order, and vice versa.

 

[Litvyak]

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

 

[Halla74]

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...

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...

Today's disorder is tomorrows order, and vice versa.

Exactly.

 

[incubustribute]

^ 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

 

[Dooraven]

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?

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.

 

[Bubbles]

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.

 

[Halla74]

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...

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...

I don't see the problem with researching and finding out the genes that cause a genetic illness.

Neither do I...

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.

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.

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.

I overwhelmingly don't support designer babies,

Good for you, neither do I...

I certainly don't support Genetics being used for anything other than genetic illness curing...

In adults/children already alive and born ONLY???

...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.

Genetics and Chemical Drugs are completely different.

I'm aware of this.

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...

the only possible way most commonly used methods to do this are 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].

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?

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.

...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.

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.

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...

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?

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.

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...

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.

 

[Gerbah]

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.

 

[Litvyak]

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

(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.

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.

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.

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.

Eugenics has been enforced before, in the USA, with negative consequences.

It was too early to do so.

 

[Halla74]

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

I'm not keeping score.

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.

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.

Rejected. This has nothing to do with my personal preferences.

Next...

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..."

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."

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.

 

[Into It]

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.

 

[nozflubber]

....

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!!!

 

[Litvyak]

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.

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/ParadigmShiftFor15Lists.jpg

It's pretty convincing to me.

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.

 

[Dooraven]

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.

 

[Lark]

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.

 

[Sizzling Berry]

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.

 

[Andy]

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...

 

[cafe]

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.