Stupidity is genetic: Apolyton Eugenics

[Az]

Can a blind person function within society?
Can a blind person enjoy their life?

I am trying to answer both questions and defend my statement that we should not genetically engineer against blindness.

Suppose the symptoms were cataracts? By all means, you can fix the cataracts.

Ok, so are you saying that the only criteria to whether we should cure a desease is whether the patient can enjoy their life, and function within society? Besides, even those two requirements are not answered, since a patient cannot fully enjoy their life, and usually cannot function fully within society.

People adapt. He's adapted to his life. To change means to adapt out of the life that he has built for himself. That can be hard for some.

Isn't that easy for you to say, with full eyesight? Don't you think he suffered a lot because he was blind? But NOOO, you think it is ok for those people to suffer from a lack of eyesight since birth.

You are telling him that his life is less valuable than yours, that is why you feel blindness should be 'corrected'.

I am not telling him anything. His life is just as valuable, and lifeguards/firemen/medics should try equally to save our lifes. What I am telling, not to him, but to you, is that the vast majority of blind people would be happier if they saw. If someone wants not to see, go ahead, stare at the sun for a couple of minutes, and there you go.

Yes, I feel blindness should be corrected, because it's a bad thing. You say it's not a bad thing? would you want to have your child blind?

Where do we stop fixing vision? If everyone becomes 20/20 some will want to improve their vision beyond, to gain an advantage over other people.

OH NOOOO THEN EVERYONE WILL HAVE GREAT EYESIGHT!!!!!!

[Inverse Icarus]

i'm jumping into this thread late, and i'm telling you i skipped like 5 pages here.

i had a debate about something like this in a biology class, we called it "designer babies", where parents could not only weed out illnesses, but also pick the color of eyes, hair, etc.

personally, i see nothing wrong with it. i'm not into the spitituality of life in any way.

the only problem is that this is undoing what nature has done.

example: eventually, there will arise a "design" that is "perfect" as far as most people are concerned. when that design becomes widespread, genetic diversity will diminish. the people who survivded the black death most likely have genes to thank for it, and if we decide on a set of genes to propagate in our species, we may be opening ourselves up for species-wide-genocide.

[Ben Kenobi]

a:

and usually cannot function fully within society.

b:

His life is just as valuable, and lifeguards / firemen / medics should try equally to save our lifes.

If b is true, why do we care about a? What does it matter if someone is 'fully functional?'

[Az]

because during his life he's less happy?

PLUS, these are resources wasted.

[Zero]

Originally posted by UberKruX
i'm jumping into this thread late, and i'm telling you i skipped like 5 pages here.

i had a debate about something like this in a biology class, we called it "designer babies", where parents could not only weed out illnesses, but also pick the color of eyes, hair, etc.

personally, i see nothing wrong with it. i'm not into the spitituality of life in any way.

the only problem is that this is undoing what nature has done.

example: eventually, there will arise a "design" that is "perfect" as far as most people are concerned. when that design becomes widespread, genetic diversity will diminish. the people who survivded the black death most likely have genes to thank for it, and if we decide on a set of genes to propagate in our species, we may be opening ourselves up for species-wide-genocide.

what the... I could have sworn i saw a thread like this few days ago, and i could have sworn i said exactly the same stuff uber mentioned.

[Ben Kenobi]

because during his life he's less happy?

PLUS, these are resources wasted.

Who says he is less happy? You? I'd rather listen to the disabled people themselves.

So Milton is a waste of resources? One could argue, as I have that his blindness makes his work more distinctive. You cannot seperate Paradise Lost from the method of composition.

Blind people can become very happy and productive members of society. 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'

[tinyp3nis]

Who says he is less happy? You? I'd rather listen to the disabled people themselves.

If you start to think about the consept of happy you will see some funny results. What makes happy?
He said he wanted to see. What more do you need?? I want to see 100% too. He puts his nose near the monitor? I have to put my face within 20-30 cm of the monitor (17") in 800x600, like now when reading and writing more like the 20cm (30cm=1foot). Now you have 2 people who want's to see. Hell, to be honest, If I had to choose between losing rest of my vision or my complete hearing I dunno which one I would lose. Being totally blind would be like hell, no more TV, no more games, no more anything fun.
And I am happy too now, but sure I'd like to see. The body you get kind of grows on you ( ), but it would be nice if it was better from the start. I'd be pretty ****ing mad if I know someone had denied me of this ability, and for the reason of it not being "broke". It is broke.

Do I know that I would be happier now if I could see like the rest? I have no idea whatsoever. It doesn't matter to the discussion. Btw didn't that Caligastia have bad eyes too?

I have a feeling of de javu, did I explain this in a another thread sometime???

[Ben Kenobi]

tinyp3nis:

I don't know what his life is like, so all I can do is ask him what he thinks.

He's worried what he sees won't meet his imagination. Does that make any sense to you?

How have you found things? What stuff really helps for you, and what gets in your way?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Not everyone's standards of beauty are the same.

I agree, I was just using Tom Cruise for the sake of simplicity.

[Zero]

speaking of tom cruise... i just watched minority report.

It was a fairly good movie. Lots of cool special effects... Thought the story was a bit cheesy and plot twist was overly done but its not bad. Action scenes were very spielbergish, which can be entertaining. The best thing about the movie is the shotgun.

[Ramo]

As long is the operation is guaranteed to be safe for the child (unlike cloning currently), I see nothing morally wrong with performing such genetic manipulations. I personally wouldn't genetically manipulate any of my children if I had the ability, other than fixing major health problems, etc. I don't think parents should take away their kids' uniqueness through genetic engineering, but this is a more "religious" (for the lack of a better word) objection, than a rational one.

[Az]

Ramo: obviously, we're talking about safe, tested, and Extremely widely spread procedures.

Obiwan: So far, it seems to me that I've won the debate. Could you please say to me why is it wrong to genetically fix deseases, and enhance people? Or do you agree with me?

[Ben Kenobi]

Could you please say to me why is it wrong to genetically fix deseases, and enhance people? Or do you agree with me?

I've given numerous reasons...

My position is that some genetic modification is fine, when used to correct diseases otherwise fatal that cannot be corrected through other means. That's why I asked about Huntington's disease, which when inherited will kill you at 40.

The point being that people who are blind/deaf/etc. can live happy and productive lives. Why do we need genetic engineering to correct these defects?

This critique falls within your quality of life ethic.

However, I work within a sanctity of life ethic, quite distinct from yours. People have intrinsic worth and value apart from their current functionality. To 'correct' people is to gage their worth on what they can do, not on who they are.

That any clearer Azazel?

You say we can improve productivity, but at what cost?
I'm not sure 'voluntary' genetic engineering will remain so when society believes that it is cheaper to fix someone than to accomodate them.

[Az]

The point being that people who are blind/deaf/etc. can live happy and productive lives. Why do we need genetic engineering to correct these defects?

a) because those people themselves want them to be corrected.
b) It is unfair to all other people, since they must financially and otherwise support them, while there is a solution to that problem. and yes, it's a problem. if it is not a problem, than why are they entitled to be supported financially?

However, I work within a sanctity of life ethic, quite distinct from yours. People have intrinsic worth and value apart from their current functionality.

I agree fully.

To 'correct' people is to gage their worth on what they can do, not on who they are.

If people have a value that is apart of their functionality, then how is changing their functionality correcting THEM? besides, since THEY don't exist yet as a sentient entity when they are corrected, what difference does that make?

You say we can improve productivity, but at what cost?
I'm not sure 'voluntary' genetic engineering will remain so when society believes that it is cheaper to fix someone than to accomodate them.

"volountary" doesn't come at the picture at all, because most of the genetic developemental deseases are irreversible after birth. i.e. you could be able to fix a certain deficiency with Retroviral engineering, but you can't fix an underdeveloped limb, etc.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Azazel

a) because those people themselves want them to be corrected.
b) It is unfair to all other people, since they must financially and otherwise support them, while there is a solution to that problem. and yes, it's a problem. if it is not a problem, than why are they entitled to be supported financially?

It's a problem to the society, not to the person.


If they lived in a society where everyone was blind, they would not need special support. Think of it as compensation from society for being so rigid and unwelcoming to people outside the norm.