Stupidity is genetic: Apolyton Eugenics

[Uncle Sparky]

Shoundn't we consider splicing human & say dolphin genes together so that we can take advantage of the oceans?

What about human/polar bear hybrids to populate the Arctic/Antarctic?

Or human/marmoset race. By reducing our size, we could keep breeding & depleating resourses, but they would last a lot longer.

[mactbone]

Ahhh, but by splicing genes you are making creatures that aren't human in the biological sense. As such, that's not what the question was about.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
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?

It is wrong to genetically enhance people, because only the rich can be enhanced, thus rendering the already most disadvantaged group even more disadvantaged. Furthermore, even if we have mapped out the entire human geonome, we will not know how to enhance people. AFAIK, a lot of human attributes dependent as much on the environment as on genetics.

[PLATO]

UR: I think your correct here. But what about Darwin and the advance of species? Does it have to be natural selection or should we participate in our own evolvement?

[Az]

Coercion does not depend on the state of the acted, but on the actor alone. You don't need to sense, or to know you have been coerced.

to coerce:

1 : to restrain or dominate by force

Hence, one can coerce a child through force, just as one can coerce an embryo through force.

As I've said, the only thing wrong about coercing something, is the fact they feel bad about it. A zygote can't feel bad about it.

What's the difference? The two are one side of the same coin. C'mon, say what this therapy can be used for. You've already eliminated some forms of blindness.

You really want me to list all of them? There are scores of genetic deseases. Please don't force me to make you a complete list. just search for it in google.

What about thalassema? This technique of research only works for those diseases without multiple affected genes. Thalassema is one where genomes are less helpful than ordinary family studies.

The problem is still genetic, and thus can be corrected.

You see, when we compare two genomes, the so-called healthy person will differ from the 'carrier' along many bases. How would one tell which bases correspond to the disease?

You take thousands of people, carriers and control group, check, analize, etc. That's the way the genome itself was mapped.

You would need to have a good idea of the effected people through epidemiological studies already avaible without genetic techniques.

How would that provide a cure?

What? Disabled people discriminate against society?

no, they're given preffered treatment by the society. I should've said "on the contrary".

Not true. In a blind society there would be no roles where sight would make any difference. If anything, they'd be at a disadvantage because everything would be written in brail, and they would not be able to relate to others as easily.

This is not correct. There are lots of ways in which people with sight will have an enormous edge over blind people. This is why sight has survived throughout the eons, and advanced to our levels, which are quite high. And if people with sight can learn to read Brail without much difficulty. They could just see the dots, for example, and learn to read them the same way we read regular alphabet.

I thought I made this pretty clear already - there is no room for disabled people in it. (Which is why society must support them)

What do you mean by "there is no room?" Disabled people simply cannot compete with ordinary people. Not in this society, not in any other. This is the only reason they are being helped.

Uncle Sparky: MacTbone pretty much answered it.

UR:

It is wrong to genetically enhance people, because only the rich can be enhanced, thus rendering the already most disadvantaged group even more disadvantaged.

is it wrong treat for HIV only people that can afford it ? yes.
Is it wrong to treat people for HIV ? no.

It is not the treatment that is unfair, it is the way resources are distributed.

AFAIK, a lot of human attributes dependent as much on the environment as on genetics.

I am speaking about those that depend on genetics the most. "Stupidity is genetic" is something that Watson said, that hasn't been proven yet. I am talking about what will happen if it is proven correct.

Furthermore, even if we have mapped out the entire human geonome, we will not know how to enhance people

This is the current stage, but genetic engineering is advancing at quantum leaps.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
is it wrong treat for HIV only people that can afford it ? yes.
Is it wrong to treat people for HIV ? no.

It is not the treatment that is unfair, it is the way resources are distributed.

The treatment is unfair if it aggravates the inherent unfairness instead of being neutral.

Also, notice making more intelligent is not really a treatment for a defect, it is an enhancement much like cosmetic surgery.

(Yes I realise that some defects can be treated by cosmetic surgery, but I am not talking about those.)

[Az]

The treatment is unfair if it aggravates the inherent unfairness instead of being neutral.

It's just the same with any other treatment. if there are poor people that are sick, and rich people that can afford to be cured, this aggrivates the unfairness as well, since sick people are less productive, no matter what they do.

Also, notice making more intelligent is not really a treatment for a defect, it is an enhancement much like cosmetic surgery.

is cosmetic surgery wrong?


This said, I believe these treatments should be covered by health insurance.

[Ben Kenobi]

Azazel:
Sorry for the delay.

You really want me to list all of them? There are scores of genetic deseases. Please don't force me to make you a complete list.

Just make a distinction between genetic diseases/conditions and genetic enhancement, like I have already stated.

I thought you were in favour of genetic enhancement?

As I've said, the only thing wrong about coercing something, is the fact they feel bad about it. A zygote can't feel bad about it.

So if you coerce someone mentally handicapped, who cannot understand what you are doing, this is right?

The problem is still genetic, and thus can be corrected.

But not by the method you've cited.

How would that provide a cure?

Prevent two carriers from marrying each other.
No genetic engineering required.

[Az]

Just make a distinction between genetic diseases/conditions and genetic enhancement, like I have already stated.

I thought you were in favour of genetic enhancement?

I am. probably I haven't understood you correctly. nevermind.

So if you coerce someone mentally handicapped, who cannot understand what you are doing, this is right?

If he doesn't feel bad about it, and you're not being cruel to him, which will harm you, no there is nothing wrong about it.

But not by the method you've cited.

I've cited no methods. there is a way to establish what are the genes that cause the desease, and therefore there is a way to change them.

Prevent two carriers from marrying each other.
No genetic engineering required.

It's good to know that you can stop two people in love from marrying but have no problem with a painless, benefiting procesdure.

Why not genetically engineer the baby to be healthy, and so that neither he or his/her children will have to worry about such a thing, or even worse, suffer from a desease, that will make thier lives more difficult?

[Ben Kenobi]

Azazel:

and you're not being cruel to him, which will harm you, no there is nothing wrong about it.

So the key is not the ability of the coerced to percieve, but the intent of the coercer.

It's good to know that you can stop two people in love from marrying but have no problem with a painless, benefiting procedure.

What about Tay-Sachs? What's the Jewish policy regarding marriage between carriers?

I've cited no methods. there is a way to establish what are the genes that cause the desease, and therefore there is a way to change them.

Obiwan: as I've said REPEATEDLY, and this is also a reply to your '', these procedures are done at the zygote level, before even an embr[y]o is developed.

[Az]

So the key is not the ability of the coerced to percieve, but the intent of the coercer

Not quite. The results of the action are the ones to judge the ethical value of the action. If someone is coerced, and doesn't know about it, and never will, there is nothing wrong with that. However if the coercer's behavior changes, making him a less beneficial memeber of society, the action is wrong.

What about Tay-Sachs? What's the Jewish policy regarding marriage between carriers?

I don't know about the 'Jewish' policy, I know how it is done in Israel ( which often doesn't correspond with the jewish policy). People are tested before having a baby, and if they're carriers (obviously only a single genetic appearance, not two, the one who carry two, have the syndrome and die in their childhood ) are made aware of the risk. they're allowed to have the baby, and will have an abortion if the baby has a double appearance.

Wouldn't it be better if all of this was prevented?

well, if you count it as describing a method, yes. But there was no method described, just a point in time, when the procedure is made.

And in that case to the previous question:

But not by the method you've cited.

Is incorrect. why wouldn't it? all we'd have to do is to engineer a certain number of genes instead of a single one.

[Uncle Sparky]

MacTBone - Good point. After all, we do share 50% of our genes with bananas and about 97% with lab rats. All we need to do is activate dormant strands of DNA to have the same effect as gene splicing. Imagine - a functional appendix !!!

Of course we can also modify future generations of humans to thrive on smog and depleted uranium.

[Az]

no we cannot.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
It's just the same with any other treatment. if there are poor people that are sick, and rich people that can afford to be cured, this aggrivates the unfairness as well, since sick people are less productive, no matter what they do.

That's the thing, it's not like any other treatment. Suppose there is this gadget you can by with $10m, and it gaurantees you make you $100m. What that means is the rich gets richer because money allows them to access exclusive resources (such as enhanced intelligence), and these resources make them richer still.

This is not the same as getting a cure for an illness, which should be covered by social medical schemes in a well developed country.

Originally posted by Azazel
is cosmetic surgery wrong?

Depends on what do you mean by "wrong." If it allows the have's to get even more, it seems ethically questionable.

[Switch]

personally, I only support genetic engineering in order for the prevention of infections and the like. However, it could never be perfectly possible, as testing could involve a loss in human life.