NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,373441,00.html

Of course, the whole thing falls apart when it turns out that the kid has the smoking (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Apr03/0,4670,SmokersGenes,00.html) gene...
No, I don't think the kid has the smoking gene...but it would be morbidly hilariously ironic.

Ziss child iz racially zupeerior to all other children. Vee musht eliminate all other children. VEE MUSHT ELIMINATE ALL CHILDREN VITH ZEE CANCER AND ZEIR INFEERIOR PARENTZ!

[/horrible German accent]

No, you keep the parents so you can use them to create genetically superior offspring through IVF and whatnot.

Excuse me:

No, you keep ze parentz...

this is just avoiding having a disease causing gene. eugenics was a backwards attempt to think healthy smart white people bred healthy smart white people.


Seriously labeling anything that involves making sure your not passing on genetic diseases as eugenics is a bit much.


also wouldn't be better to link the full article not the fox news half an article

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article4232383.ece

the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

Sounds like eugenics to me. Might be good eugenics, but it's still eugenics.

Eh, well, I suppose not, since eugenics is really about making the humans better racially rather than medically, if you get my meaning. Still, it's pretty damn close. Understandable, though: I can see why the family would want to do it since they could.

The irony will become apparent when the kid is run over by a truck aged 13.

The irony will become apparent when the kid is run over by a truck aged 13.

...while smoking a cigarette...

Sounds like eugenics to me. Might be good eugenics, but it's still eugenics.

Eh, well, I suppose not, since eugenics is really about making the humans better racially rather than medically, if you get my meaning. Still, it's pretty damn close. Understandable, though: I can see why the family would want to do it since they could.

they are not discouraging breeding. they simply make sure the off spring does not possess the defective genes. both people can be carriers of genetic diease, and using this method they can have as many children as they want and they will be free of the disease.

Sounds like eugenics to me. Might be good eugenics, but it's still eugenics.

Eh, well, I suppose not, since eugenics is really about making the humans better racially rather than medically, if you get my meaning. Still, it's pretty damn close. Understandable, though: I can see why the family would want to do it since they could.

No such thing.

The word itself contains the Greek prefix for "good" (eu-). There are no good or bad eugenics, kinda like there's no good or bad karma. I'd label it unnatural selection...but then the human intellect has developed "naturally", so even that term is questionable.

Regardless, there might be a fine line between selecting damaging genetic conditions out and breeding in desirable traits. The question then might become "who decides". In that case, it should probably be the parents. Far too much grey area for my taste.

Can't say I'd blame a parent for wanting to save her offspring from a 17 in 20 chance of going through breast cancer.

...while smoking a cigarette...

...by a truck transporting tumors!...wait, that's not right...

...by a truck transporting tumors!...wait, that's not right...

No, it isn't. Everybody knows tumors are shipped by train.

No such thing.

The word itself contains the Greek prefix for "good" (eu-). There are no good or bad eugenics, kinda like there's no good or bad karma. I'd label it unnatural selection...but then the human intellect has developed "naturally", so even that term is questionable.

Regardless, there might be a fine line between selecting damaging genetic conditions out and breeding in desirable traits. The question then might become "who decides". In that case, it should probably be the parents. Far too much grey area for my taste.

Can't say I'd blame a parent for wanting to save her offspring from a 17 in 20 chance of going through breast cancer.

cancer might be a bit much. but things like Cystic fibrosis i could see parents that are both carriers performing this method to make sure their child doesn't have a slow and agonizing death.

cancer might be a bit much. but things like Cystic fibrosis i could see parents that are both carriers performing this method to make sure their child doesn't have a slow and agonizing death.

What do you mean? Cancer might not be enough to warrant a eugenic approach? Really? Have you ever seen someone fight cancer? That disease blows goats. CF blows, too, but it's no worse than cancer.

What do you mean? Cancer might not be enough to warrant a eugenic approach? Really? Have you ever seen someone fight cancer? That disease blows goats. CF blows, too, but it's no worse than cancer.

CF limits life to mid 30's max and makes the afflicted infertile.
the infertility means there has never been a genetic benefit to be afflicted. (being a carrier yes).

the cancer genes are not a guarantee of cancer. and there maybe be a trade off benefit I would not like to see disappear from the human gene pool.

and for your info my cousin is currently fighting lung cancer at 21.

this is just avoiding having a disease causing gene. eugenics was a backwards attempt to think healthy smart white people bred healthy smart white people.


Seriously labeling anything that involves making sure your not passing on genetic diseases as eugenics is a bit much.


also wouldn't be better to link the full article not the fox news half an article

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article4232383.ece

Isn't that how it's always been done in the past with our species, and is currently done with almost all others? You mate with the most healthy male/female to assure that the best genes are passed onto your offspring.

Isn't that how it's always been done in the past with our species, and is currently done with almost all others? You mate with the most healthy male/female to assure that the best genes are passed onto your offspring.

the differences is we can actually know whats wrong, instead of just going off appearance.

this is just avoiding having a disease causing gene. eugenics was a backwards attempt to think healthy smart white people bred healthy smart white people.


Seriously labeling anything that involves making sure your not passing on genetic diseases as eugenics is a bit much.


also wouldn't be better to link the full article not the fox news half an article

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article4232383.ece

Hey, whoa, don't foist Eugenics on white people entirely! Many different cultures have had laws in place to keep their bloodlines "pure", and while it maybe they didn't go the further step of trying to breed out undesirable traits specifically, they did want to keep certain things out of their gene pool. Certainly the Nazis are the most visible and had the most developed ideas about how to implement a program, but c'mon, those were the Nazis.

CF limits life to mid 30's max and makes the afflicted infertile.
the infertility means there has never been a genetic benefit to be afflicted. (being a carrier yes).

the cancer genes are not a guarantee of cancer. and there maybe be a trade off benefit I would not like to see disappear from the human gene pool.

and for your info my cousin is currently fighting lung cancer at 21.

Seems a bit contradictory to single out CF, knowing that. I don't think the lower expression rate of a nasty gene is cause to not select against it.

*Is glad Goldenhar Syndrome has no genetic links.

Waits for his minions of people with G.S.* :D

On one hand, I can see why parents would do this, but on the other hand, it just seems un-natural. But hey the parents can do whatever the Hell they want to do.

Sounds like eugenics to me. Might be good eugenics, but it's still eugenics.

Eh, well, I suppose not, since eugenics is really about making the humans better racially rather than medically, if you get my meaning. Still, it's pretty damn close. Understandable, though: I can see why the family would want to do it since they could.

Eugenics is not about making humans better racially, it was simply used by racists in their ideas.

It seems impossible to have a reasoned discussion about eugenics without screams of NAZI!! and constant references to the film Gattaca.

The decision the parents made was the right one, I don't know why any responsible parent would want their child to grow up very likely to get breast cancer.

I also don't see anything wrong with selecting for traits like intelligence, in fact I'll go further say it's a good thing. I think it's great that we are finally able to improve humanity without oppressive measures. If this technology was available through universal health care and accessible to all then we wouldn't need to fear about social stratification.

I also don't see anything wrong with selecting for traits like intelligence, in fact I'll go further say it's a good thing. I think it's great that we are finally able to improve humanity without oppressive measures. If this technology was available through universal health care and accessible to all then we wouldn't need to fear about social stratification.It's a big if though. Chances are that genetic upgrades won't be universally available.

It's a big if though. Chances are that genetic upgrades won't be universally available.

So what?

Education and healthcare aren't universally available. Employment isn't universally available. Hell, food and clean water aren't 'universally available' on a global level.

Society is already stratified along countless such lines. 'This benefit may not be available to everyone' does not mean that 'this benefit should be available to no-one'. The rich will always be able to acquire a better standard of living than the poor - that's why people seek to become wealthy in the first place. Under the current systems, some degree of stratification is unavoidable.

That's not to say that social justice is a non-issue. On the contrary, it is the duty of a society to care and provide for those who, for whatever reason, are not able to provide for themselves. That's why we *should* pursue genetic disease immunities and genetic enhancement just as much as we pursue more effective medicines and more efficient food production methods.

One should only deny genetic enhancement on the grounds of availability if one likewise denies healthcare or education on the grounds of availability.

Eugenics may have a bad name nowadays, but that Annie Lennox sure could sing.

On one hand, I can see why parents would do this, but on the other hand, it just seems un-natural. But hey the parents can do whatever the Hell they want to do.

Don't you think it's rather ironic to attack something for being 'unnatural' via the internet? ;)

I think it's a fantastic idea and I can't see any problem with it. If the same result could be effected by a vaccine then I can't imagine anyone outside of some religious groups and the nutty anti-vaccination crowd complaining, and many people would condemn parents who didn't take the advantage to protect their children. Why is there a problem with it just because it occurs before conception rather than after birth?

So what?So, Gattaca; so, Brave new World, so a lot of things.

Education and healthcare aren't universally available. Employment isn't universally available. Hell, food and clean water aren't 'universally available' on a global level.Who was talking about a global level?
Education, health care, food, water are all universally available in our country. What other countries provide for their citizens is firstly their responsibility. But splitting our society in genetic haves and havenots is not a development that is in any way desirable.

Society is already stratified along countless such lines.And that makes it a good thing?

'This benefit may not be available to everyone' does not mean that 'this benefit should be available to no-one'.But it might mean it should be available on some criterion other than how much one can pay to multiply one's lineage's advantages.

That's not to say that social justice is a non-issue. On the contrary, it is the duty of a society to care and provide for those who, for whatever reason, are not able to provide for themselves.And you don't think that the rich separating themselves into a new human species through genetic modification would somehow lessen their sympathy with the lower classes? We'd be right back to the medieval idea that they're a different kind of people, and this time they'd actually be right.

One should only deny genetic enhancement on the grounds of availability if one likewise denies healthcare or education on the grounds of availability.Which is why they shouldn't be denied to the poor and only be available to the rich. If the availability is limited, it should be provided to need.

Ziss child iz racially zupeerior to all other children. Vee musht eliminate all other children. VEE MUSHT ELIMINATE ALL CHILDREN VITH ZEE CANCER AND ZEIR INFEERIOR PARENTZ!

[/horrible German accent]

I am imagining a really corny looking Professor in an SS uniform, in some strange lab with a prisoner on some kind of electric rack with the professor pulling the lever as electric sparks and smoke goes everywhere and screams being heard.

Maybe with a monkeys in cages making alot of noise.

So, Gattaca; so, Brave new World, so a lot of things.


Those hypothetical situations are just that - hypothetical. The argument that the scenario described in the article will lead to a Brave New World scenario needs a bit more justification than name-dropping a few science fiction stories.


Who was talking about a global level?
Education, health care, food, water are all universally available in our country. What other countries provide for their citizens is firstly their responsibility. But splitting our society in genetic haves and havenots is not a development that is in any way desirable.

And that makes it a good thing?



Education, healthcare, food and water may be universally available in the West, but they are not equally available. The child of an oil magnate *will* receive a better education than the child of a street sweeper, whether education is provided by the government or not.

I am not saying that this is a good thing. I'm saying it's a natural, unfortunate consequence of a capitalist society. Welfare programs should certainly be in place to even things out a bit, but barring a radical restructuring of society, these inequalities will always remain - and they should certainly not be used as an excuse to ban potentially fruitful genetic research.



But it might mean it should be available on some criterion other than how much one can pay to multiply one's lineage's advantages.



As long as there is a market for a good, that good will be traded whether legitimately or otherwise. That doesn't mean we should stop producing goods.



And you don't think that the rich separating themselves into a new human species through genetic modification would somehow lessen their sympathy with the lower classes? We'd be right back to the medieval idea that they're a different kind of people, and this time they'd actually be right.

Which is why they shouldn't be denied to the poor and only be available to the rich. If the availability is limited, it should be provided to need.

I suspect we are partly in agreement here - I'm absolutely in favour of genetic treatments/enhancements being supplied universally by a national health service. If genetic enhancement is to be pursued, everyone should have some kind of access to it.

My point is that elites will always exist in some form - whether political or economic - and that genetic inequality is ultimately no different to economic equality. The rich already have very little sympathy with the 'lower classes', and in many ways the elite are a different kind of people. The wealthy and the famous have powers and freedoms that the rest of us clearly lack. Allowing the rich to protect their offspring from genetic disorders, or increasing their capabilities in some way, will not change this at all.

No, it isn't. Everybody knows tumors are shipped by train.

Unfortunately the truck hit her at a crossing...

No such thing.

The word itself contains the Greek prefix for "good" (eu-). There are no good or bad eugenics, kinda like there's no good or bad karma.

I meant good in a moral sense. Purifying the white race: eh, not so good. Reducing the likelihood for disease: eh, pretty justifiable.

I'd label it unnatural selection...but then the human intellect has developed "naturally", so even that term is questionable.

I'm glad someone else recognizes that.

Regardless, there might be a fine line between selecting damaging genetic conditions out and breeding in desirable traits. The question then might become "who decides". In that case, it should probably be the parents. Far too much grey area for my taste.

Can you foresee a time when choosing not to screen embryos for disease can be considered criminal neglect?

I can see it happening. It's a stretch, but I can see it.

Can't say I'd blame a parent for wanting to save her offspring from a 17 in 20 chance of going through breast cancer.

That's why I think there is some controversy: very few people would argue that eugenics is morally justifiable, but you also can't blame parents for wanting the best for their child.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,373441,00.html

Of course, the whole thing falls apart when it turns out that the kid has the smoking (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Apr03/0,4670,SmokersGenes,00.html) gene...
No, I don't think the kid has the smoking gene...but it would be morbidly hilariously ironic.

Damn it! Fox news are teh suck! >.<

{snip}

That's why I think there is some controversy: very few people would argue that eugenics is morally justifiable, but you also can't blame parents for wanting the best for their child.

How can anyone not see improving humanity as justifiable, morally or otherwise? Since we have proven over-adept at breeding for quantity, I would say that breeding for quality is not only justifiable, but neccesary.

How can anyone not see improving humanity as justifiable, morally or otherwise? Since we have proven over-adept at breeding for quantity, I would say that breeding for quality is not only justifiable, but neccesary.

Because handi capped kids teach us things about patience, and love, and inspire us. Those are the kinds of stories you hear from parents of kids with illnesses "he taught me so much about myself..."

How can anyone not see improving humanity as justifiable, morally or otherwise? Since we have proven over-adept at breeding for quantity, I would say that breeding for quality is not only justifiable, but neccesary.

<snip>

That, and because no one has the right to determine which traits are or are not detrimental to the human race.

Take, for example, deafness. The vast majority of hearing people view deafness medically: it is a handicap - something wrong with the person's ears. However, the Deaf community is very close and has its own culture. They don't see it as a handicap any more than it's a handicap that a given person can't speak, say, Russian. So a deaf person can't speak English: you don't know sign language - does that make you handicapped? So you might view attempts to remove deafness as a completely justified form of eugenics, but the Deaf community views it as nothing less than an attempt to destroy their way of life.

Now, obviously cancer is different. But, I'm sure that someone, somewhere thinks that cancer is a part of their way of life and you have no right to breed it out of them. Actually, Christian Scientists come to mind (at least, I think that's who I'm thinking of): they think most forms of modern medicine is interference with God's work, so eugenics to remove cancer is probably right out.

So. I'm sure you can justify giving families the choice, but you cannot ever justify forcing anyone to accept any given attempt at eugenics.

That is to say: no one can (...should...) say that making the human race better is wrong. The controversy comes whenever you try to define exactly what to remove or add to make it better.

I can see it happening. It's a stretch, but I can see it.

Hell, if Hollywood (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/) can see it eleven years ago...it's not much of a stretch at all.