51 replies to this topic

[abolitionist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMIM

"The Mendelian Inheritance in Man project is a database that catalogues all the known diseases with a genetic component, and—when possible—links them to the relevant genes in the human genome and provides references for further research and tools for genomic analysis of a catalogued gene."

[lunarsolarpower]

a) a couple or individual parent to be gets a procreation license by demonstrating their committment to raising a child as well as the knowledge and ability to do so.

If that step right there were possible, you would already have solved a huge number of problems such as the abortion debate. Unfortunately that's not the way fertility works. Currently many people are fertile in their younger years when they aren't societally ready to have children and a greater proportion are infertile later on when they are ready and eager to have children. Has anyone heard of any proposed technological methods to turn this paradigm around?

[abolitionist]

I haven't read this yet, but Martine Rothblatt has done her book on the subject;

http://www.amazon.co...hangesurferradi

Edited by abolitionist, 20 January 2008 - 09:48 AM.

[abolitionist]

a) a couple or individual parent to be gets a procreation license by demonstrating their committment to raising a child as well as the knowledge and ability to do so.

If that step right there were possible, you would already have solved a huge number of problems such as the abortion debate. Unfortunately that's not the way fertility works. Currently many people are fertile in their younger years when they aren't societally ready to have children and a greater proportion are infertile later on when they are ready and eager to have children. Has anyone heard of any proposed technological methods to turn this paradigm around?

How is that impossible? Through teaching and certification we can ensure that young people do not procreate until they are ready. Longevity research definately helps as well as manipulation of the sex drives;

http://www.abolition...ghlight=bonding

[Reno]

I would much rather see problem genes repaired. The problem becomes who decides what genes are labeled defective. What man or group can honestly say they know what the right traits are. Sure there are dangerous genes that cause diseases like mine, morfans. Then there are genes that cause cancer and a higher risk for stroke. But what prevents someone from saying the genes for skin color doesn't also cause some secondary side effect. The potential for abuse of such a system is too great in our current society to allow it to be mandatory.

I think this idea of selective breading is tantamount to genocide. The 21st century version of Hitler's master race. He had no problem removing undesirable traits from the gene pool. If you go to the holocaust museum you can look at the eye color chart used to see if peoples eyes were blue enough. All the people on here talking about the pros of such a system should take a walk down to their local holocaust museum and see the cons close up.

Edited by bobscrachy, 20 January 2008 - 07:36 AM.

[abolitionist]

I would much rather see problem genes repaired. The problem becomes who decides what genes are labeled defective. What man or group can honestly say they know what the right traits are. Sure there are dangerous genes that cause diseases like mine, morfans. Then there are genes that cause cancer and a higher risk for stroke. But what prevents someone from saying the genes for skin color doesn't also cause some secondary side effect. The potential for abuse of such a system is too great in our current society to allow it to be mandatory.

I think this idea of selective breading is tantamount to genocide. The 21st century version of Hitler's master race. He had no problem removing undesirable traits from the gene pool. If you go to the holocaust museum you can look at the eye color chart used to see if peoples eyes were blue enough. All the people on here talking about the pros of such a system should take a walk down to their local holocaust museum and see the cons close up.

It would be nice if there were a way to repair problem genes. But even if we develope this technology for the long list of medically recognized genetic diseases - you still create a child with that condition for a period of time and require later treatment - what is the purpose in this?

We require that these diseases are medically treated - and consider it unethical to withhold treatment - so why create them in the first place?

We have to ask ourselves if we would want to be given one of these medical diseases against our will - or if we think that others should be forced to recieve them involuntarily.

If we value the freedom to choose : why not first create them without diseases - then give them the choice to adopt them - and see if they do?

Edited by abolitionist, 20 January 2008 - 10:08 AM.

[Brainbox]

If we eliminate bad genes, wouldn't we also eliminate biological diversity and our ability to adapt in an evolutionary context? Maybe you cannot have the one without the other? Unless we are able to predict the consequences of our manipulative actions, which is, at this moment in time, not the case as far as I understand.
Furthermore, I think along the line of risk of misuse of this technology to be able to create the "perfect brave new world". I agree that individual choices should eventually be possible, but where's the distinction between individuality and commonality in a civilisation were several forms of pressure will influence individual choices?

Edit typo.

Edited by brainbox, 20 January 2008 - 10:10 AM.

[abolitionist]

If we eliminate bad genes, wouldn't we also eliminate biological diversity and our ability to adapt in an evolutionary context? Maybe you cannot have the one without the other? Unless we are able to predict the consequences of our manipulative actions, which is, at this moment in time, not the case as far as I understand.
Furthermore, I think along the line of risk of misuse of this technology this to be able to create the "perfect brave new world". I agree that individual choices should eventually be possible, but where's the distinction between individuality and commonality in a civilisation were several forms of pressure will influence individual choices?

If you use cultural designations for bad genes - then yes, I think we might eliminate useful biological diversity.

But if we correctly use medical designations for bad genes - then no - I think that eliminating these bad genes would aid our evolution.

If think a useful heuristic when making a distinction between what is a bad (medical) gene and what is a cultural designation for a bad gene is : we should ask if we think that any person should be given this gene (and the associated disease) involuntarily.

Also, whether or not the gene and associated disease leads to a detriment should be a further qualification - IE : a known bad gene leads to a detriment in lifelong individual happiness.

Edited by abolitionist, 20 January 2008 - 10:18 AM.

[Brainbox]

If we eliminate bad genes, wouldn't we also eliminate biological diversity and our ability to adapt in an evolutionary context? Maybe you cannot have the one without the other? Unless we are able to predict the consequences of our manipulative actions, which is, at this moment in time, not the case as far as I understand.
Furthermore, I think along the line of risk of misuse of this technology this to be able to create the "perfect brave new world". I agree that individual choices should eventually be possible, but where's the distinction between individuality and commonality in a civilisation were several forms of pressure will influence individual choices?

If you use cultural designations for bad genes - then yes, I think we might eliminate useful biological diversity.

But if we correctly use medical designations for bad genes - then no - I think that eliminating these bad genes would aid our evolution.

Yes, I agree, in case we are able to predict the consequences on the long term, which we can't right now.

If think a useful heuristic when making a distinction between what is a bad (medical) gene and what is a cultural designation for a bad gene is : we should ask if we think that any person should be given this gene (and the associated disease) involuntarily.

The distinction between cultural and medical designation is theoretical. In practice, it would be a combination. Hence, dangerous.

[abolitionist]

If we eliminate bad genes, wouldn't we also eliminate biological diversity and our ability to adapt in an evolutionary context? Maybe you cannot have the one without the other? Unless we are able to predict the consequences of our manipulative actions, which is, at this moment in time, not the case as far as I understand.
Furthermore, I think along the line of risk of misuse of this technology this to be able to create the "perfect brave new world". I agree that individual choices should eventually be possible, but where's the distinction between individuality and commonality in a civilisation were several forms of pressure will influence individual choices?

If you use cultural designations for bad genes - then yes, I think we might eliminate useful biological diversity.

But if we correctly use medical designations for bad genes - then no - I think that eliminating these bad genes would aid our evolution.

Yes, I agree, in case we are able to predict the consequences on the long term, which we can't right now.

If think a useful heuristic when making a distinction between what is a bad (medical) gene and what is a cultural designation for a bad gene is : we should ask if we think that any person should be given this gene (and the associated disease) involuntarily.

The distinction between cultural and medical designation is theoretical. In practice, it would be a combination. Hence, dangerous.

Every distinction is theoretical, true - but we have a responsibility to honor the rights of those we create - those who we must assume wish to be created free from known genetic diseases and unreasonable predisposition towards disease. We can't ignore the rights of the lives we create in order to avoid worrying about some sort of future adaptation we might be missing. Darwinian processes of selection are already outdated - we can learn to design individuals from the ground up instead of waiting for random genetic mutations to give us something nice.

We can predict the outcome with known bad genes - they always lead to disease - a disease no one would take on voluntarily.

We can develope an international ethical regulatory body to determine what is a medical disease and what is a good or bad cultural trait.

But in order to do this rationally/logically, we'll first need to define the prime ethical directive which provides the basis for the rationale we use to make distinctions.

----

We already screen for many known bad genes - the medical community has already done a good job of distinguishing a long list of genetic diseases- would you argue with any of the diseases on the list? Know of a single person who would like to have one of the diseases on that list?

http://en.wikipedia....netic_disorders

Does anyone in the world have reason to argue with the classification of genetic diseases at present?

Edited by abolitionist, 25 January 2008 - 12:13 PM.

[abolitionist]

If we are worried about our long-term evolution (that eliminating known bad genes or unreasonable predisposition for disease would lessen our future adaptability);

Why not create individuals with a clean slate (no known bad genes or unreasonable predisposition)

and then ask these individuals when "informed adults" if they would like to take on one of these diseases or predispositions for the purpose of scientific study aimed
at developing mutations that lead to new desirable traits.

Would you volunteer your life for this? Or would you prefer to focus on increasing your lifelong individual happiness?

THOSE WE CREATE DO NOT HAVE A VOICE TO OBJECT - WE MUST PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS DURING PROCREATION FROM SELFISH INDIVIDUAL DARWINIANS WHO PROCREATE INSTINCTUALLY

Edited by abolitionist, 25 January 2008 - 12:20 PM.

[AaronCW]

If society must bear the brunt of the cost of an individual's healthcare treatment (directly or indirectly) then shouldn't society also dictate a means to minimize those costs?

This is a good point, and something to keep in mind when evaluating the debate about socialized health care. If health care is socialized then you can expect the government to start taking considerably more interest in your personal choices and in your over-all health and they will utilize whatever technologies are available in order to cut costs. The line that currently stands between private and public information about your health, and eventually your genetic make-up, will be severely compromised.

Note: Please do not reply to this post, I regret posting it here and do not wish to promote this offensive thread.

Edited by AaronCW, 07 February 2008 - 04:19 AM.

[maestro949]

If society must bear the brunt of the cost of an individual's healthcare treatment (directly or indirectly) then shouldn't society also dictate a means to minimize those costs?

This is a good point, and something to keep in mind when evaluating the debate about socialized health care. If health care is socialized then you can expect the government to start taking considerably more interest in your personal choices and in your over-all health and they will utilize whatever technologies are available in order to cut costs. The line that currently stands between private and public information about your health, and eventually your genetic make-up, will be severely compromised.

Note: Please do not reply to this post, I regret posting it here and do not wish to promote this offensive thread.

This is one of the key dilemmas that a moral species faces. Socialized healthcare though is not the issue but rather it is the notion of fairness. For example, the US healthcare system is not socialized so people simply choose to pool money via insurance companies rather than via the government (in Massachusetts you are required to pool your money with an insurance company). When the data is available, insurance companies will simply lobby powerbrokers for the same genetic information and health data that a socialized government would request of you to turn over. So pick your poison: bureaucrats or profiteers. Or, choose neither which means you pay for all healthcare out of your own pocket to ensure that nobody knows what sequence of ATGC's you carry. The everyone pays their own way model means an unlevel playing field where only the wealthy have access to advanced medical technology, which is also unacceptable / immoral. With or without socialized medicine, advancing technology is driving us to a playing field that is essentially a vertical line, i.e. extreme stratification. With enough money, individuals will soon be able to significantly enhance themselves and add decades to their lives. The tech will trickle down but there will always be cutting edge enhancement technology that is unaffordable to most. This unfairness dilemma will exist until we reach an inflexion point where incremental improvements in biology and cognition are insignificant.

[abolitionist]

If society must bear the brunt of the cost of an individual's healthcare treatment (directly or indirectly) then shouldn't society also dictate a means to minimize those costs?

This is a good point, and something to keep in mind when evaluating the debate about socialized health care. If health care is socialized then you can expect the government to start taking considerably more interest in your personal choices and in your over-all health and they will utilize whatever technologies are available in order to cut costs. The line that currently stands between private and public information about your health, and eventually your genetic make-up, will be severely compromised.

Note: Please do not reply to this post, I regret posting it here and do not wish to promote this offensive thread.

This is one of the key dilemmas that a moral species faces. Socialized healthcare though is not the issue but rather it is the notion of fairness. For example, the US healthcare system is not socialized so people simply choose to pool money via insurance companies rather than via the government (in Massachusetts you are required to pool your money with an insurance company). When the data is available, insurance companies will simply lobby powerbrokers for the same genetic information and health data that a socialized government would request of you to turn over. So pick your poison: bureaucrats or profiteers. Or, choose neither which means you pay for all healthcare out of your own pocket to ensure that nobody knows what sequence of ATGC's you carry. The everyone pays their own way model means an unlevel playing field where only the wealthy have access to advanced medical technology, which is also unacceptable / immoral. With or without socialized medicine, advancing technology is driving us to a playing field that is essentially a vertical line, i.e. extreme stratification. With enough money, individuals will soon be able to significantly enhance themselves and add decades to their lives. The tech will trickle down but there will always be cutting edge enhancement technology that is unaffordable to most. This unfairness dilemma will exist until we reach an inflexion point where incremental improvements in biology and cognition are insignificant.

Not to be a post-nazi but that's a separate issue - or are we debating the ethics of liberty + nationalistic economic competitiveness vs. the ethics of procreational rights for those we create?

[abolitionist]

If society must bear the brunt of the cost of an individual's healthcare treatment (directly or indirectly) then shouldn't society also dictate a means to minimize those costs?

This is a good point, and something to keep in mind when evaluating the debate about socialized health care. If health care is socialized then you can expect the government to start taking considerably more interest in your personal choices and in your over-all health and they will utilize whatever technologies are available in order to cut costs. The line that currently stands between private and public information about your health, and eventually your genetic make-up, will be severely compromised.

Note: Please do not reply to this post, I regret posting it here and do not wish to promote this offensive thread.

Offensive? you should back that up with a rationale - what could possible be offensive about a post to debate this issue?

Edited by abolitionist, 08 February 2008 - 04:32 PM.

[AaronCW]

If society must bear the brunt of the cost of an individual's healthcare treatment (directly or indirectly) then shouldn't society also dictate a means to minimize those costs?

This is a good point, and something to keep in mind when evaluating the debate about socialized health care. If health care is socialized then you can expect the government to start taking considerably more interest in your personal choices and in your over-all health and they will utilize whatever technologies are available in order to cut costs. The line that currently stands between private and public information about your health, and eventually your genetic make-up, will be severely compromised.

Note: Please do not reply to this post, I regret posting it here and do not wish to promote this offensive thread.

Offensive? you should back that up with a rationale - what could possible be offensive about a post to debate this issue?

There is a significant difference between the title of thread and the poll (mandatory screening vs. forceful intervention to prevent the continuation of undesirable genetic traits), however I would be opposed to either. I think that the poll is more revealing of your personal interests.

You are an advocate of eugenics, and seem to be an advocate of the forceful implementation of whatever methods you would consider appropriate. In my opinion one holocaust should be enough to teach the average person what the soul of eugenics looks like. If you or anyone else is unaware of the direct link between American eugenics of the late 19th/early 20th century and the Third Reich then you should read 'War on the Weak' by Edwin Black.

To answer your question, I consider it offensive to offer as the subject of debate something which I consider to be inexcusably offensive, and see no justification for it. For example, would you consider it to be appropriate, or in any way constructive, if I were to start a poll asking people if we should revive the practice of slavery for people of African origin? The premise in either case is the same; that the individual does possess ownership of their own life. Force is what I find offensive, so if you are not an advocate of using any measure of force (negative or positive, to put it in eugenics terms) as a means to achieve your ideal than please make this clear.

Edited by AaronCW, 09 February 2008 - 10:19 PM.

[dr_chaos]

You are an advocate of eugenics, and seem to be an advocate of the forceful implementation of whatever methods you would consider appropriate. In my opinion one holocaust should be enough to teach the average person what the soul of eugenics looks like.

There is a huge (voluntary) eugenics program to stop thalassemia going on in Cyprus since the 1970ies. I haven't been there my self, but I doubt they have built KZ's on their island.

[AaronCW]

I am not aware of what the current trends are in eugenic circles are, largely because I am not interested and would prefer to ignore them. However, I will say that I am not opposed to the basic idea of reducing detrimental genes and possibly improving the overall genetic make-up of the population if it is done exclusively on the basis of individual choice. I consider GATTACA to be a decent example of this; parents that have access to screening technology (which they have the means to afford) making a private decision about whether to select for or against specific traits, without any governmental regulations or guidelines involved. I would not support any governmental directives regarding what traits should be selected for or against, or any other eugenics-related state programs.

[dr_chaos]

An important question that comes up for me in all discussions about eugenics is, how a society can allow abortion but not eugenics. I don't understand, why a woman, who has the right to decide about her body herself and who therefore is allowed to end a pregnancy without any kind of further justification , is not allowed to end a pregnancy for reasons related to eugenics.

[abolitionist]

If society must bear the brunt of the cost of an individual's healthcare treatment (directly or indirectly) then shouldn't society also dictate a means to minimize those costs?

This is a good point, and something to keep in mind when evaluating the debate about socialized health care. If health care is socialized then you can expect the government to start taking considerably more interest in your personal choices and in your over-all health and they will utilize whatever technologies are available in order to cut costs. The line that currently stands between private and public information about your health, and eventually your genetic make-up, will be severely compromised.

Note: Please do not reply to this post, I regret posting it here and do not wish to promote this offensive thread.

Offensive? you should back that up with a rationale - what could possible be offensive about a post to debate this issue?

1. There is a significant difference between the title of thread and the poll (mandatory screening vs. forceful intervention to prevent the continuation of undesirable genetic traits), however I would be opposed to either. I think that the poll is more revealing of your personal interests.

2. You are an advocate of eugenics, and seem to be an advocate of the forceful implementation of whatever methods you would consider appropriate. In my opinion one holocaust should be enough to teach the average person what the soul of eugenics looks like. If you or anyone else is unaware of the direct link between American eugenics of the late 19th/early 20th century and the Third Reich then you should read 'War on the Weak' by Edwin Black.

3. To answer your question, I consider it offensive to offer as the subject of debate something which I consider to be inexcusably offensive, and see no justification for it. For example, would you consider it to be appropriate, or in any way constructive, if I were to start a poll asking people if we should revive the practice of slavery for people of African origin? The premise in either case is the same; that the individual does possess ownership of their own life. Force is what I find offensive, so if you are not an advocate of using any measure of force (negative or positive, to put it in eugenics terms) as a means to achieve your ideal than please make this clear.

1.) mandatory implies that it's enforced. Personal interests? (I do think that we should have mandatory screening for known bad genes as well as marriage licenses) - but again, why is this bad?

2.) eugenics? yes I am - why is this bad? and yes i think laws must be enforced or else Darwinians will not follow them. the "soul of eugenics"? - you are making gross assumptions. you're thinking is full of irrational associations.

3.) get used to debate about that which you don't like - it's part of a democracy.

"if I were to start a poll asking people if we should revive the practice of slavery for people of African origin? The premise in either case is the same; that the individual does possess ownership of their own life"

you should prove using a rationale how they are the same, slavery is a destruction of individual rights, mandatory screening is a protection of rights for those who are enslaved (those who we create) - I'm advocating for their rights.

if you don't like force - you better not break any laws - most laws are enforced.

Edited by abolitionist, 10 February 2008 - 12:24 PM.

[abolitionist]

I am not aware of what the current trends are in eugenic circles are, largely because I am not interested and would prefer to ignore them. However, I will say that I am not opposed to the basic idea of reducing detrimental genes and possibly improving the overall genetic make-up of the population if it is done exclusively on the basis of individual choice. I consider GATTACA to be a decent example of this; parents that have access to screening technology (which they have the means to afford) making a private decision about whether to select for or against specific traits, without any governmental regulations or guidelines involved. I would not support any governmental directives regarding what traits should be selected for or against, or any other eugenics-related state programs.

You think parents should decide? or those who have to live with the genes?

(I think individuals should be able to choose their own genes with informed consent by creating them first without diseases and strong disease pre-dispositions - and then giving them the option to take on disease later when they can make an informed decision and take responsibility for their choice)

we must assume that children wish to be created free from known disease

think about it - would you want to take on a genetic disease? should anyone be forced to have one against their will at birth?

Don't let the mistakes of the past made in the name of Eugenics distract from the potential to protect human rights using genetic screening before conception

Edited by abolitionist, 10 February 2008 - 12:29 PM.

[abolitionist]

An important question that comes up for me in all discussions about eugenics is, how a society can allow abortion but not eugenics. I don't understand, why a woman, who has the right to decide about her body herself and who therefore is allowed to end a pregnancy without any kind of further justification , is not allowed to end a pregnancy for reasons related to eugenics.

because we don't value the lives of those we create until they become so programmed that they'll do what we want them to do

babies are just fodder for our addictions - we don't think to create them in ways that make them happiest - nor do we create a world for them where they will have the utmost lifelong individual happiness

we use new live to feed our failure to take responsibility for our own problems - just like we pass on global warming, pollution, and toxic culture - we pass on genes so that new humans will take care of us when we age, fight our wars, keep our economy going, etc...

instead of quality of procreation - we seek the quantity that keeps our society going