NationStates Jolt Archive

eugenics is the forcing of people who have heriditary diseases or defects e.g aids and genetic diseases i think that it is a stupid concept as it is a step closer to the 'master race' concept, and Hitler was an extreme form of eugenics. If you were a dictator would you bring in eugenics? what about inforcement? a couple of options - castration, imprisonment, death. think about it and post your opinion!

eugenics is the forcing of people who have heriditary diseases or defects e.g aids and genetic diseases

forcing them to do what? a little dance?

im guessing you meant killing them, or not allowing them to reproduce

well, i can see why some might think its a good idea, but i dont agree with it

eugenics is the forcing of people who have heriditary diseases or defects e.g aids and genetic diseases i think that it is a stupid concept as it is a step closer to the 'master race' concept, and Hitler was an extreme form of eugenics. If you were a dictator would you bring in eugenics? what about inforcement? a couple of options - castration, imprisonment, death. think about it and post your opinion!

For some reason, this post makes me sad. Fragment ideas... etc. I think that's it.

Umm, eugenics is state enforced breeding. They probably wouldn't let me fuck sharon, as she has mitro-valve whatsit, which is not to mention the fact that it's fuckin despotic.

Dispite a huge fan of the genocide of sum groups (scallies) in theory/imagination, the idea of Eugenics is monstrous, why shud sum 1 die for how they are born?

Once genetic science advances to the point where you can, for a small sum, get a designer baby with all the "bad" genes winkled out, you will have several choices:

1. Opt to have a natural child. Of course, in the world's eyes, this child will be considered genetically inferior, which despite any laws against discrimination, will suffer discrimination.
2. Shell out for the designer child. There will be a lot of pressure for this, especially in developed nations where people have fewer children.

We're already past the "mapping of the human genome" and it is predicted that in a couple of years, you'll be able to get your genetic code read for a few hundred dollars.

The designer baby thing is bound to happen in our lifetimes. Get ready.

forcing them to do what? a little dance?

LOL! Yes he forgot to say what it was forcing them to do. Hard to answer a question when the subject is unknown.

This is from Meriam-Webster:

One entry found for eugenics.

Main Entry: eu•gen•ics
Pronunciation: yu-'je-niks
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed.

Well no process is evil on its own. Historically speaking people voluntarily engage in Eugenics. When couples meet and agree to be married, they have chosen a mate that meets certain criteria.

I suppose you mean are State run Eugenics programs bad? You cited the Nazi program as an example.

Any involuntary breed control, through parental licensing, sterilization, etc certainly is a loss of freedom and choice. I suppose if the world were becoming over crowded and food running low, you could justify a government program that limited breeding. China has one.

Still no government I know of is currently telling you which genes you need to have in order to have children.

I like the idea of Eugenics, but unless it's voluntary it can't be enforced without unacceptable violations of human rights.

eugenics is the forcing of people who have heriditary diseases or defects e.g aids and genetic diseases i think that it is a stupid concept as it is a step closer to the 'master race' concept, and Hitler was an extreme form of eugenics. If you were a dictator would you bring in eugenics? what about inforcement? a couple of options - castration, imprisonment, death. think about it and post your opinion!
eugenics was pretty common up until the holocaust then it disappeared..just like all the immigrants with the last name hitler...

You might call the designer baby - "free market eugenics".

Actualy it's controled breeding.
Controled breeding does not necessarily imply killing the diseased.. or anyone as a matter of fact. Genetics and abortion could be perfect examples of eugenics.

As for the "a perfect race" discussion.
There is nothing wrong with the ideal of creating a perfect race.
however the ideal is often associated by Hitler's methods of achieving this ideal. How to achieve a perfect race is another point. What is a perfect race? what would be an ethical way to achieve this?

Survival of the fittest is a natural phenomenon,
so if one would be able to answer the above questions there actualy wouldn't be anything unnatural about it.

Once genetic science advances to the point where you can, for a small sum, get a designer baby with all the "bad" genes winkled out, you will have several choices:

1. Opt to have a natural child. Of course, in the world's eyes, this child will be considered genetically inferior, which despite any laws against discrimination, will suffer discrimination.
2. Shell out for the designer child. There will be a lot of pressure for this, especially in developed nations where people have fewer children.

We're already past the "mapping of the human genome" and it is predicted that in a couple of years, you'll be able to get your genetic code read for a few hundred dollars.

The designer baby thing is bound to happen in our lifetimes. Get ready.

What makes you think that just because it *may* be possible, it *will* be done?

Once genetic science advances to the point where you can, for a small sum, get a designer baby with all the "bad" genes winkled out, you will have several choices:

1. Opt to have a natural child. Of course, in the world's eyes, this child will be considered genetically inferior, which despite any laws against discrimination, will suffer discrimination.
2. Shell out for the designer child. There will be a lot of pressure for this, especially in developed nations where people have fewer children.

We're already past the "mapping of the human genome" and it is predicted that in a couple of years, you'll be able to get your genetic code read for a few hundred dollars.

The designer baby thing is bound to happen in our lifetimes. Get ready.
Hey. that sounds like Gattaca.
That was a good movie.
[/threadjack]

Right, there is no way to safely define perfect gene sets. Genes come in sets that we don’t fully comprehend. For a wild example, male pattern baldness may also be genetically tied with immunity to a strange disease. So in a future time, a plague sweeps the world and individuals with the early balding genes survive.

You will only be punished by God & the Universe for playing too much with genes. I certainly hope that we can eliminate disease, poor eyesight, etc. I also hope we don’t try to make everyone look beautiful and attempt to artificially make babies smarter.

Anyway Eugenics is just the pre-genetics method for intentionally producing healthier children. It’s not evil or bad in any way. Still humans are generally not wise enough to make decision for the masses. If we accidentally edit out genes future generations needs, we can be damning everyone. Fun.

Hey. that sounds like Gattaca.
That was a good movie.
[/threadjack].
Heh, I saw that post and immediately thought of that, and Brave New World and Gundam SEED

I love GE dystopias :) [/continue threadjack]

Hey. that sounds like Gattaca.
That was a good movie.
[/threadjack]
excellent movie

eugenics is the forcing of people who have heriditary diseases or defects e.g aids and genetic diseases i think that it is a stupid concept as it is a step closer to the 'master race' concept, and Hitler was an extreme form of eugenics. If you were a dictator would you bring in eugenics? what about inforcement? a couple of options - castration, imprisonment, death. think about it and post your opinion!

Eugenics will soon no longer be necessary. With a few more developments in the field of selective genetics, people will soon be able to "optimize" their offspring, not only eliminating all genetic predispositions to a wide range of defects and problems, but enabling parents to pre-designate optimum intelligence levels, personality, even looks.

"Oh brave new world which has such people in it!" - George Orwell

Eugenics will soon no longer be necessary. With a few more developments in the field of selective genetics, people will soon be able to "optimize" their offspring, not only eliminating all genetic predispositions to a wide range of defects and problems, but enabling parents to pre-designate optimum intelligence levels, personality, even looks.

"Oh brave new world which has such people in it!" - George Orwell
Ever read any of those books or watch those TV shows about various GE dystopias? They have made me seriously reconsider my stance on genetic engineering.

Eugenics will soon no longer be necessary. With a few more developments in the field of selective genetics, people will soon be able to "optimize" their offspring, not only eliminating all genetic predispositions to a wide range of defects and problems, but enabling parents to pre-designate optimum intelligence levels, personality, even looks.

"Oh brave new world which has such people in it!" - George Orwell

Even if this were actually even close to being on the horizon (which it is not), what makes you think it would actually happen?

I think both GE and eugenics are bad ideas for various reasons.

I think both GE and eugenics are bad ideas for various reasons.

So we should give up on trying to cure diseases like cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, and SCIDS? We should just continue to treat a few of the symptoms and tell them "Sorry, we aren't going to give you a normal life. Some people don't like the term genetic engineering."

So we should give up on trying to cure diseases like cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, and SCIDS? We should just continue to treat a few of the symptoms and tell them "Sorry, we aren't going to give you a normal life. Some people don't like the term genetic engineering."
Should I give up on trying to create a race of atomic supermen that will conquer the world?

Should I give up on trying to create a race of atomic supermen that will conquer the world?

...which has nothing to do with trying to cure disease.

Ever read any of those books or watch those TV shows about various GE dystopias? They have made me seriously reconsider my stance on genetic engineering.

Yes, and even they don't portray "worst case scenarios." Scientists and lay-people alike tend to forget ( or didn't know in the first place ) that the entire ecosphere on Earth is one huge web, with genetic material being exchanged among and between species constantly. Releasing a new genetic code, or even just recombined DNA into the ecosphere is harzardous in the extreme and could easily give rise to entirely new, and sometimes deadly, species ... thousands of them.

EDIT: We are now playing with an entirely new kind of "fire," one which could make our worries about the H-bomb seem petty by comparison.

I believe in a more passive form of eugenics. For instance, I am against the Heimlich Maneuver. If you've ignored your mom's advice and talked with your mouth full and are choking, then you need to leave the gene pool. The heimlich maneuver is a medical technique created specifically for the purpose of saving people from their own stupidity. :(

I believe in a more passive form of eugenics. For instance, I am against the Heimlich Maneuver. If you've ignored your mom's advice and talked with your mouth full and are choking, then you need to leave the gene pool. The heimlich maneuver is a medical technique created specifically for the purpose of saving people from their own stupidity. :(

Ever hear of "The Darwin Awards?" Heh! ( http://www.darwinawards.com/ )

BTW ... w/b, haven't seen you in awhile.

Ever hear of "The Darwin Awards?" Heh!

BTW ... w/b, haven't seen you in awhile.

Thanks. :) I've popped in for 20 or 30 minutes now and then, but I seem to only have gobs of freetime around midweek now.

Yes, and even they don't portray "worst case scenarios." Scientists and lay-people alike tend to forget ( or didn't know in the first place ) that the entire ecosphere on Earth is one huge web, with genetic material being exchanged among and between species constantly. Releasing a new genetic code, or even just recombined DNA into the ecosphere is harzardous in the extreme and could easily give rise to entirely new, and sometimes deadly, species ... thousands of them.

EDIT: We are now playing with an entirely new kind of "fire," one which could make our worries about the H-bomb seem petty by comparison.

I agree that creating new strains of say, corn, which will invariably mix with the regular corn, can be very dangerous.

However, I don't seen anything at all wrong with attempting to find a way to replace a defective gene in a patient with a debilitating disease with the proper genetic code.

It's not really the research into GE that worries me so much, but how that research would be implemented . . .

It's not really the research into GE that worries me so much, but how that research would be implemented . . .

Well, let's see:

In the instances I am referring to, we are most likely looking at either inhalers or injections provided to those with the disease.

Well, let's see:

In the instances I am referring to, we are most likely looking at either inhalers or injections provided to those with the disease.
Now that, I am not worried about in the least . . . however if humanity reaches the point where GE is used for unneccesary enhancement of things like strength and intelligence, I'm gonna be worried - Gattaca, Brave New World, or Gundam SEED anybody?

Now that, I am not worried about in the least . . . however when humanity reaches the point where GE is used for unneccesary enhancement of things like strength and intelligence, I'm gonna be worried - Gattaca, Brave New World, or Gundam SEED anybody?

Why do you guys keep saying "when"??

What makes you think that scientists are inherently less worried about such problems than lay people?

I agree that creating new strains of say, corn, which will invariably mix with the regular corn, can be very dangerous.

However, I don't seen anything at all wrong with attempting to find a way to replace a defective gene in a patient with a debilitating disease with the proper genetic code.

Me either, as long as there are adequate safeguards.

Why do you guys keep saying "when"??

What makes you think that scientists are inherently less worried about such problems than lay people?
Ok, fine *concedes to an 'if'*

Me either, as long as there are adequate safeguards.

=)

Well, if it makes you feel better, my genetically engineered rat cells say "BIOHAZARD" on them and have to be disposed of as such. =)

Edit: This is even though they have been tested numerous times to make sure that they don't give off vectors.

eugenics is the forcing of people who have heriditary diseases or defects e.g aids and genetic diseases i think that it is a stupid concept as it is a step closer to the 'master race' concept, and Hitler was an extreme form of eugenics.
Ignoring the cacography and filling in the blanks, I just have to say that you apparently are unaware that HIV is a virus, not a genetic disease or defect.

Dispite a huge fan of the genocide of sum groups (scallies) in theory/imagination, the idea of Eugenics is monstrous, why shud sum 1 die for how they are born?
One word: Sterilisation.

I like the idea of Eugenics, but unless it's voluntary it can't be enforced without unacceptable violations of human rights.
That is my viewpoint, though I also feel that humans can never act as Nature does, and that we do not know the consequences of out actions.

As for the "a perfect race" discussion.
There is nothing wrong with the ideal of creating a perfect race.
Well, yes, there is. Humans are incapable of production of a "perfect race". No organism can be perfect, especially not when it's determined by us limited humans.

Eugenics will soon no longer be necessary. With a few more developments in the field of selective genetics, people will soon be able to "optimize" their offspring, not only eliminating all genetic predispositions to a wide range of defects and problems, but enabling parents to pre-designate optimum intelligence levels, personality, even looks.
One: that would still be eugenics. Two: stop fucking scaring me. :(

So we should give up on trying to cure diseases like cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, and SCIDS? We should just continue to treat a few of the symptoms and tell them "Sorry, we aren't going to give you a normal life. Some people don't like the term genetic engineering."
I don't like the terms biotechnology or genetic modification either. It's really funny that you should bring up sickle-cell anaemia. I was going to do so myself. The thing is, sickle-cell anaemia is a perfect example of one reason I am averse to genetic engineering. Heterogenous sickle-cell anaemia happens to be advantageous in fighting against malaria. We would never know that if it weren't for natural selection. We don't know what the hell we're doing, and we can not objectively determine what is desirable or undesirable. We may think that something is a defect, but it turns out to be an advantage.

I believe in a more passive form of eugenics. For instance, I am against the Heimlich Maneuver. If you've ignored your mom's advice and talked with your mouth full and are choking, then you need to leave the gene pool. The heimlich maneuver is a medical technique created specifically for the purpose of saving people from their own stupidity. :(
You are, of course, aware that the Heimlich manoeuvre is designed for more than just saving people from choking on their own stupidity. There are other ways that the oesophagus can be blocked, and you will still die even if it isn't the chokee's fault at all.

I agree that creating new strains of say, corn, which will invariably mix with the regular corn, can be very dangerous.
Genetic engineering at all is very dangerous, for the same reason that chemical pesticides are dangerous. It is just like Silent Spring and using chemical pesticides without knowing what we're doing. It is a direct analogy, and I think we need to pay more heed to that. Ecologically speaking, as well, genetically modified produce can have unforseen side effects. Especially the ones that are engineered to produce their own pesticides.

However, I don't seen anything at all wrong with attempting to find a way to replace a defective gene in a patient with a debilitating disease with the proper genetic code.
Again, we can not decide what a defective gene is or not. We are just not capable from our subjective standpoint. Though I probably wouldn't be so much against it if it weren't for the fact that we will move from severe genetic defects to things like appearance and intelligence. The latter is terrifying beyond belief for me, and I hope with all my heart that I am not alive to see that abomination. Because science can not be stopped by the scruples of people such as me, and I am glad of that. There is no way to stop it, and I myself would probably do research on genetic engineering given the chance if I didn't have other more moral things.

"Oh brave new world which has such people in it!" - George Orwell

William Shakespere, the Tempest. Not Orwell.

What makes you think that scientists are inherently less worried about such problems than lay people?
Because if they're good scientists, at being a pure scientist, they do research independently, regardless of other factors. That is the best way to be as a scientist. However, and I regret that I think this because it is repulsive to me, there are also other things that must be taken into account...

Me either, as long as there are adequate safeguards.
And what could those possibly be?

William Shakespere, the Tempest. Not Orwell.
Also in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, however. None of Orwell's works, though.

I don't like the terms biotechnology or genetic modification either. It's really funny that you should bring up sickle-cell anaemia. I was going to do so myself. The thing is, sickle-cell anaemia is a perfect example of one reason I am averse to genetic engineering. Heterogenous sickle-cell anaemia happens to be advantageous in fighting against malaria. We would never know that if it weren't for natural selection. We don't know what the hell we're doing, and we can not objectively determine what is desirable or undesirable. We may think that something is a defect, but it turns out to be an advantage.

You misunderstood me completely. I was not saying that we should get rid of heterozygosity of the sickle-cell trait. I was stating that, in patients currently suffering from sickle-cell anemia - a debilitating disease, we could correct the defect by ensuring that some of the cells correctly express hemoglobin - much like in those heterozygous for sickle-cell.

Again, we can not decide what a defective gene is or not.

Really? So if it is causing you to die, it isn't defective?

I suppose we should just stand by and watch a person with a broken leg too. After all, the break might result in something good one day, we certainly shouldn't set the break.

Though I probably wouldn't be so much against it if it weren't for the fact that we will move from severe genetic defects to things like appearance and intelligence. The latter is terrifying beyond belief for me, and I hope with all my heart that I am not alive to see that abomination. Because science can not be stopped by the scruples of people such as me, and I am glad of that. There is no way to stop it, and I myself would probably do research on genetic engineering given the chance if I didn't have other more moral things.

I am really worried that so many people seem to think that scientists don't have scruples. I have yet to meet a scientist who wants to create a Frankenstein or create only pretty people or even make "ready-to-order" babies. You people have been scared by fictions that scare scientists just as much as they do you.

Because if they're good scientists, at being a pure scientist, they do research independently, regardless of other factors. That is the best way to be as a scientist. However, and I regret that I think this because it is repulsive to me, there are also other things that must be taken into account...

This is the silliest thing I have ever heard. You really think that science requires you to do something "just because you can." You are wrong.

Edit: In fact, the best science is goal-oriented and any good scientist does consider the results of her research. Suppose we are determing how to delineate funds. Do we give it to scientist who wants to study the mechanism behind a debilitating disease in an attempt to find a cure, or the scientist who hypothesizes that there are fluffy pink invisible elephants that cause earthquakes?

You are, of course, aware that the Heimlich manoeuvre is designed for more than just saving people from choking on their own stupidity. There are other ways that the oesophagus can be blocked, and you will still die even if it isn't the chokee's fault at all.

Yes. More importantly(in my eyes), infants choke all the time. I'm certainly not going to look at my little goofball as he's turning blue and say, 'Sorry, kiddo. You should've listened to me.'

Even if it's their fault, I don't think people deserve to die due to a single moment of stupidity. I think a distinctive pattern of stupidity should have to be discernible.

You misunderstood me completely. I was not saying that we should get rid of heterozygosity of the sickle-cell trait. I was stating that, in patients currently suffering from sickle-cell anemia - a debilitating disease, we could correct the defect by ensuring that some of the cells correctly express hemoglobin - much like in those heterozygous for sickle-cell.
Yes, but the thing is that we can not know what is actually disadvantageous. There are things that we simply don't know and can't know. It is because of our ignorance that I am against it.

Really? So if it is causing you to die, it isn't defective?
It might not be. Circumstances change constantly, especially concerning things like resitance to disease and parasites. What is killing you one day might save your life another. Take ADD for example. It is considered a disorder. The word is in its name, attention deficit disorder. However, there are actually creative and cognitive benefits to this disorder. It is theorised that those with ADD are descended from the hunting classes, and those without from the agriculturist classes. My personal extension is that since farmers et al. do better than the hunters, they prospered more. However, in todays society, ADD can again be an advantage, though not in the commonly accepted sense. We just do not have the wisodm and knowledge to know what helps or hurts, or all of the consequences of our actions.

I suppose we should just stand by and watch a person with a broken leg too. After all, the break might result in something good one day, we certainly shouldn't set the break.
This isn't Lamarckism. This is neo-Darwinism, and setting a broken leg does not alter the genetic make-up of a person or his or her prodigy.

I am really worried that so many people seem to think that scientists don't have scruples. I have yet to meet a scientist who wants to create a Frankenstein or create only pretty people or even make "ready-to-order" babies. You people have been scared by fictions that scare scientists just as much as they do you.
Many do. I don't see why people think that either. However, there are indeed scientists without scruples, and some that view things in a different light. What others consider bad he or she considers good.

This is the silliest thing I have ever heard. You really think that science requires you to do something "just because you can." You are wrong.
Pure science requires ignoring all other factors. Perhaps not good science, per se, as I said earlier. But it is certainly true that science in its purest form should be for the sake of science.

eugenics is the forcing of people who have heriditary diseases or defects e.g aids and genetic diseases i think that it is a stupid concept as it is a step closer to the 'master race' concept, and Hitler was an extreme form of eugenics. If you were a dictator would you bring in eugenics? what about inforcement? a couple of options - castration, imprisonment, death. think about it and post your opinion!hmm... If I was Dictator I think I would create a law that made it illegal for people with certain disbalities like 'down syndrome' to reproduce and would have to be sterilised so they cant reproduce. I hope this doesnt sound cruel becuase I believe in giving them every bit of care they deserve and the state should support people with 'down syndrome' in every way they can.
Every citizens at the age of 16 should undergo a test to see if they harbour any kind of defects that is likely to produce an offspring with any kind of severe disablity like a baby born with severe defects or 'down syndrome'. Then the citizen would have to be sterilised and therefore cant reproduce.
But scientists are making more cures and preventions all the time so diseases like 'down syndrome' will eventually be wiped out.

Yes, but the thing is that we can not know what is actually disadvantageous. There are things that we simply don't know and can't know. It is because of our ignorance that I am against it.

If mucous in your lungs is making it impossible for you to breathe, that is disadvantageous. If you are in constant pain and could have a stroke at any moment, that is disadvantageous. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

It might not be. Circumstances change constantly, especially concerning things like resitance to disease and parasites. What is killing you one day might save your life another.

You are taking this existentialism a little too far. There are many things that are not going to save your life, particularly if they are in the process of killing you.

By this logic, we should let someone drown. Sure, it's killing them, but it might help them in a minute!

This isn't Lamarckism. This is neo-Darwinism, and setting a broken leg does not alter the genetic make-up of a person or his or her prodigy.

The types of cures that are being put forth are either for people who would not have any progeny otherwise (ie. SCIDS patients) or would not have any effect on gonadal cells anyways (ie. cystic fibrosis patients).

Pure science requires ignoring all other factors. Perhaps not good science, per se, as I said earlier. But it is certainly true that science in its purest form should be for the sake of science.

Pure science encompasses *all* factors.

Oh go watch Gattaca and make up your own mind.

Me ... I'm against it ... 100% against it. I'm so against it that if eugenics and I were in the same room at the same time, we'd cancel each other out in a maelstrom of quantum unreality and the very fabric of space would tear assunder and release the minions of C'thulu upon an unsuspecting and unprepared world.

Why do you guys keep saying "when"??

What makes you think that scientists are inherently less worried about such problems than lay people?

I would argue that perhaps it's because we have historical evidence of scientists being wrapped up in research for research's sake - and later someone else misused that knowledge [or the knowledge could have catastrophic results if misused], the obvious example being splitting the atom. There was a time when the US was providing nuclear material to developing nations so everybody could set up their own nuclear power plants. Now there are teams running around trying to retrieve all that material so terrorists can't get their hands on it.

It's not that most scientists aren't worried about the implications of some of their research, it's just that there is always some other jackass who may be willing to go to far.

I would argue that perhaps it's because we have historical evidence of scientists being wrapped up in research for research's sake - and later someone else misused that knowledge [or the knowledge could have catastrophic results if misused], the obvious example being splitting the atom. There was a time when the US was providing nuclear material to developing nations so everybody could set up their own nuclear power plants. Now there are teams running around trying to retrieve all that material so terrorists can't get their hands on it.

It's not that most scientists aren't worried about the implications of some of their research, it's just that there is always some other jackass who may be willing to go to far.

In order to progress, we take risks that a few people will be idiots. Unless you want to crawl back into the caves and stop using fire because a few people decided to use it for arson, I suggest you work on making sure that those with power don't let misuses happen, especially when we know what they might be.

I am highly against it and I think it sucks. :mad:

Oh, and as for the actual topic, I don't actually have a problem with eugenics (scary as that sounds from a leftie like me). But I long ago decided that there are some people who really shouldn't have children or raise children.

For example, having seen many, many people screwed up because of their abusive home lives, or fetal alcohol syndrome, and so on, I tend to believe that if an adult makes the kind of decisions that will stack the deck against their children, then they shouldn't have kids. Like families where every child has fetal alcohol syndrome, or every kid is physically and mentally deformed because mom sniffed glue throughout the pregnancy. Mom and dad may have the right to destroy their own lives, but personally, I don't think they have the right to have a child and systematically destroy that child's life too. Better to sterilize those parents. Reversibly, if you prefer. Then if they become responsible adults, they still have the opportunity to have a child.

In my opinion, having children isn't a right, it's a responsibility. If you can't do a decent job of it, you shouldn't be doing it at all.

Of course, administrating such a program would be open to all sorts of corruption and misuse. A racist government could wipe out a minority using such a system. It's also one way to develop that 'super race' that many are worried about.

But hey, I just come up with the ideas. Someone else can work out the details.

(I'm going to be un-nominated for nicest female in NS now, aren't I?)

In order to progress, we take risks that a few people will be idiots. Unless you want to crawl back into the caves and stop using fire because a few people decided to use it for arson, I suggest you work on making sure that those with power don't let misuses happen, especially when we know what they might be.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I'm not saying I agree with that point of view, I was just trying to explain the grounding of such a perspective. It's not entirely wrong either - it's concerns about misuse that help to drive safety regulations and ethical reviews in both the scientific and political worlds.

I agree that stopping the search for knowledge would be very shortsighted.

If mucous in your lungs is making it impossible for you to breathe, that is disadvantageous. If you are in constant pain and could have a stroke at any moment, that is disadvantageous. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.
These are also my views...I'm just terrified of us taking genetic engineering too far, which I'll wager we will. The potential consequences are unthinkable. Intelligently modifying the very threads of life from an anthropocentric viewpoint is the most dangerous thing I can imagine after annihilation of the planet.

There are many things that are not going to save your life, particularly if they are in the process of killing you.
Yes, I know, but the instance of sickle-cell anaemia preventing malaria makes me think otherwise. Granted, I don't think this is a common occurance, but it still does happen that what at first seems to be hurtful turns out to be beneficial in another way.

By this logic, we should let someone drown. Sure, it's killing them, but it might help them in a minute!
Yes, yes...I see...

The types of cures that are being put forth are either for people who would not have any progeny otherwise (ie. SCIDS patients) or would not have any effect on gonadal cells anyways (ie. cystic fibrosis patients).
I admit that I don't know as much about genetic engineering in humans as I do from the environmental standpoint, but if we make it so that we only use biotechnology without affecting germ cells or anything like that, then I wouldn't be averse to that. Like the thing I read a while back where they engineered a virus that affected the bone marrow for people with some genetic disorder, which allowed them to live normal lives for a while. It's when we start getting into things like taking a zygote and modifying its genetic code when I start to freak.

Pure science encompasses *all* factors.
Sometimes. Geology does not encompass psychology.

Overall, my view is that I don't trust humans with natural selection. I only trust Nature. Medicine, for example, is harmful for the gene pool. We are devolving because of sanitation. It will become that the average human will be inherently immunodeficient, and only special vaccines can lead to living past childhood. We have changed Darwinism, and I am so glad I'm going into entomology. Then I can just ignore a lot of all that other stuff...I don't like thinking what we're doing...