Stupidity is genetic: Apolyton Eugenics

[Az]

(like the infant becoming magically radioactive and creating a Master Race Of Fire-Breathing Robots to eradicate humanity).

If you believe movies and mini-series, it is possible, Like those idiotic series Mutant-X, and X-Men. Yes, he can pass through walls thanks to this very special protein, see.

[Sandman]

I'd be happy to not pass on my short-sighted genes.

The thing is, because having short-sightedness is not a disadvantage because of glasses, contact lenses and laser surgery, the number of short-sighted people in the gene pool will increase. The same is true for other non-disabling genetic problems such as some types of diabetes, asthma and allergies. Eventually, without some genetic 'housekeeping', our species will become totally dependant on machines to keep us alive.

[Az]

The thing is, because having short-sightedness is not a disadvantage because of glasses, contact lenses and laser surgery, the number of short-sighted people in the gene pool will increase. The same is true for other non-disabling genetic problems such as some types of diabetes, asthma and allergies. Eventually, without some genetic 'housekeeping', our species will become totally dependant on machines to keep us alive.

exactly. This is wasting resources. We can even make eyesight better than normal, using genetic engineering.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Azazel

The thing is, because having short-sightedness is not a disadvantage because of glasses, contact lenses and laser surgery, the number of short-sighted people in the gene pool will increase. The same is true for other non-disabling genetic problems such as some types of diabetes, asthma and allergies. Eventually, without some genetic 'housekeeping', our species will become totally dependant on machines to keep us alive.

exactly. This is wasting resources. We can even make eyesight better than normal, using genetic engineering.

The percentage of people with a corrected genetic disadvantage will not increase unless it is selected for.

Even after some levelling of the playing field genetically disadvantaged people are less likely to procreate.

[Az]

My english fails me, Big Crunch. could you please simple up the sentence?

[Sandman]

I don't think you can improve human eyesight that easily. There are too many variables involved.

[Dauphin]

My english fails me, Big Crunch. could you please simple up the sentence?

Only advantages are selected for (i.e increase percentage in the gene pool). Having a genetic disorder corrected does not give you an advantage over people who had good genes to begin with.


The only problem I can see (as a layperson) is that genetic mutations will not be so strongly selected against.

[Ben Kenobi]

dp

my correction deafness - blindness is still quoted.

[Ben Kenobi]

We can even make eyesight better than normal, using genetic engineering.

Azazel:
So are you for genetic enhancement?

This is the problem. There is only one way to create a norm. Read Harrison Bergeron. We have to hinder those people who are better off, and boost those worse off through genetic engineering.

What do we accomplish this way? We have improved some people at the expense of others. We have not increased overall productivity.

As soon as you boost one person, the norms will shift. If everyone gets rid of their bad genes, we will simply find more. We will still have some worse off, and some better off.

Secondly, all our work will be undone in the next generation. We may correct for one gene, but new mutations always crop up. We will have to remain ever vigilant for new mutations in order to keep the human race up to snuff.

Once we are satisfied with ourselves, we have stopped evolving. So we will need to alter in order to keep up with every other animal. This is a sea change. Rather than improving/altering the environment to suit humans, we will change humans to suit the environment.

Once we start, we can't stop for biological and social reasons. No one will want to be left behind, yet we will never really be satisfied. This is the problem with genetic engineering.

I say we limit engineering to some very specific medical conditions; those that kill people at a young age. We have nothing to lose in these cases. Cystic Fibrosis will be one of those.

All others, blindness, manic-depressives, etc. should be left alone.

[Az]

Only advantages are selected for (i.e increase percentage in the gene pool). Having a genetic disorder corrected does not give you an advantage over people who had good genes to begin with.

The only problem I can see (as a layperson) is that genetic mutations will not be so strongly selected against.

Ahh, I get it. very much correct. But still, even a part of the population having this gene is a waste.

Sandman: we can have experiments with animals, and how their genes develop their eye structure, and use it in that way. It is possible, we just need the research.

[Sandman]

I understand what you're saying, Crunch, but lenses (such as those in the eye) are extremely intricate devices and even the slightest defect can have a substantial effect.

[Dauphin]

I was talking generally, diabetes, heart, kidney, cancer problems etc...

There are genetic predispositions to a problem, and there are obviously environmental causes that cannot be accounted for by genetic manipulation.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't see any problem with allowing people to genetically engineer their children to remove medical defects. I'm a lot less sure about allowing the engineering of increased intelligence or beauty.

[Sandman]

Sandman: we can have experiments with animals, and how their genes develop their eye structure, and use it in that way. It is possible, we just need the research.

Eye structure is only part of the problem. The real difficulty is in the brain. In order to get better eyesight, you would have to enlarge the part of the brain associated with it.

[KrazyHorse]

The thread title is misleading. Eugenics is the enforced selective breeding of human populations, a completely different concept than genetic engineering.