Stupidity is genetic: Apolyton Eugenics

[Az]

provocative thread titles are legitimate, Frogger.

though, some people have called Watson's comments as Pro-eugenics. follow the link.

[tinyp3nis]

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

Are blond people selected for? I mean aren't blonds be supposed to extinct, and I don't think they are "selected for" in anyway unless I don't understand what you are saying...

[Japher]

Wow! Someone else actually brought this up, although it isn't race related.

[Dauphin]

Are blond people selected for? I mean aren't blonds be supposed to extinct

I'm blonde, and not extinct. I don't think blonde people are selected for or against.

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

Make it a poll. Which Poly poster should be forceably bred with another to make our Poly superrace.

[tinyp3nis]

I'm blonde, and not extinct.

Do go on...

[Az]

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.

Actually, if the person is born with it, I think that the brain will structure itself properly.

Azazel:
So are you for genetic enhancement?

yes.

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 you mean by better off? socially? economically? "Genetically"?

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

ahh, I guess you meant "Genetically". well, Why should we hinder some people? why should we use "at the expense"? I don't follow you. It's not like that we're creating genetical defects in healthy people, just because we're curing genetical conditions.

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.

a) "will simply find more" ? there is a limited number of genes in the human genome. If we fix human sicknesses, and it would be possible to enhance humans, if we enhance everyone, how would someone be better off? And yes, we'll still differ in many things. different faces, different skin colours, different eyecolours, different hair.

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.

Not ALL of our work will be undone. the genes that will be passed will still be by FAR mostly free of deseases. but yes, we'll keep genetic testing for the re-occurance of the mutations. in any case the sheer increase in productivity and in happiness of a single generation of people is staggering.

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.

If the conditions don't change there is no reason to physiologically evolve, as evolution is adaptation to change, and there would be no pressure on us to physiologically evolve, since we, to put it simply, rule. And we are the biggest threat to ourselves.

This is a sea change.

Rather than improving/altering the environment to suit humans, we will change humans to suit the environment.

How will removing deseases, making us more intelligent, more attractive to HUMAN eyes will make us less human?

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.

BAM. If we've got rid of the sicknesses, we're immensly intelligent, and are attractive, why should we want to keep changing?

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, deafness, manic-depressives, etc. should be left alone.

deafness? being deaf is certainly nothing fatal, and lots of people cope with it very well. But tell me this? would you want your child to be deaf? Would your child want to be deaf?

[tinyp3nis]

Oh come on I was just trying to say the percentage of blondes is declining. --> Strong traits overpower weak ones, however strong is not allways the better. So weak sighted people could possible increase. I hope I'm not pulling this out of my ass, long time since I did those basic biology stuff in school.

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.

Actually, if the person is born with it, I think that the brain will structure itself properly.

Yes, the eye problem can be in the brain or lense or... I think

[Japher]

"norm" is a standard set by society, and it is this idea that decides what is and what isn't a "defect".

If genetic engineering were to take place, the alterations would undoubtedly be up to the parents and to society, the parents who of course would be influenced by society in their choices.


Choices of Society:
I am most certain that ailments that require major adjustments within a society would most likely be weaned out. These ailments being associated qith "handicaps", "mental illnesses", "diseases" that would require a greater amount of medical attention then would the average unaltered person. This, however, would change with time as the average person would begin to require less and less medical attention. Either destroying health care as we know it, or improving it. Either ways is good.

Parental Choices:
I think they would focus more on looks and skills. These would generally be influenced by their individual societies. Statments like; I want a doctor, I want an athlete, I want a Engineer, would continue to arrise. These would increase the general per capita skill levels and intelligence base on average, and would be a good thing IMO.

As for physical traits, I don't see any reason, one way or the other, why someone would care, as the other things are way more important to most expecting parents. Yet, for those who do care why not give them the option? If you want an athlete wouldn't you want them taller and stronger? Unless you want a horse jockey.

Either way I think the goods out way the bads and eliminates the odds. God may not play dice with the universe, but we can. Maybe genetic engineering is a human evolutionary step. Maybe in the end it will be our demise, or maybe it will be the key to survival. Who is to know and who is to judge?

[Az]

Ah, well, then we should treat the brain problem, if it's genetical. (sometimes, it's a degenerative developmental desease.)

[Sandman]

Actually, if the person is born with it, I think that the brain will structure itself properly.

The brain is flexible, but not so flexible that it can cope with something that no human brain has ever grasped before.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
You still haven't defined what you regard as a 'defect'. Just what do you include in 'all that jazz'? For example, would you have removed picasso's 'defects'?

I have given three specific examples: myopia, asthma, and bipolar disorder. I honestly don't know what other genes I would want to engineer out of my kids, since I don't know what other genetic disorders I may have (I won't know whether or not I have a predisposition to cancer or heart disease for some time yet, for example). You've given a broad condemnation of genetic engineering, one whose scope easily encompasses my desire that my children not have myopia, asthma, or bipolar disorder -- how about you justify that broad condemnation for the three examples I have provided, rather than insist that I unnecessarily increase the scope of my own beliefs on the matter? How is it evil for me to wish that my children not be saddled with the same disadvantages as I am?

Originally posted by Obiwan
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.

This presupposes that "worse off" and "better off" are boolean values, when in fact there is a continuum of "worseness" and "betterness." If you make the pie larger without changing the percentage that everybody receives, then everybody is better off, even though some are still better or worse off than others. If you remove all genetic defects that will kill somebody before the age of ten but fail to remove all of the genetic defects that will kill somebody before the age of twenty, then some people are still "better off" and "worse off" than others, but the severity of the divide has been significantly decreased.

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.

So be it. All of the work of educators is undone in the next generation, but the fact that newborns are inevitably born ignorant is no excuse for everybody to embrace ignorance.

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.

This is the problem with all progress.

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

I can't speak for blindness (my vision is correctable), but I wouldn't wish manic-depression on my worst enemy. I see no conceivable benefit to my being subjected to periods of suicidal depression.

[Japher]

deafness? being deaf is certainly nothing fatal, and lots of people cope with it very well. But tell me this? would you want your child to be deaf? Would your child want to be deaf?

I think a better address to this is that they still have to "cope" with it. No one should have to "cope" with physical handicaps.

I do agree with this:

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.

Only that I would like to say that we start with these limitations. Abnormalities can be good and bad, of course, yet most that lead to genius are a product of the spirit and society, and not necessarily of physical or mental conditions that could not be averted. The "why me" syndrom hasn't produced really anything but inspiration to others who have the same conditions.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Oh come on I was just trying to say the percentage of blondes is declining.

As I said before, prevalence of a gene will only decline if it is selected against.

--> Strong traits overpower weak ones,

Dominants will win over regressives but if you have a population that starts out in equilibrium distribution of those genes then percentages will not change without selection for or against the trait.

[tinyp3nis]

Damn that neighbour Joe, his boy will grow up to be 8 foot giant basketball player. I wonder how much will 10 foot boy cost?
The manipulation allows silly parents to do much more than just give stupid names like "Stefu" to their kids.

[Az]

Originally posted by Japher
"norm" is a standard set by society, and it is this idea that decides what is and what isn't a "defect".

And I thought that everything that puts the child at a disadvantage due to itself (and not prejudice) is a defect.

If genetic engineering were to take place, the alterations would undoubtedly be up to the parents and to society, the parents who of course would be influenced by society in their choices.

Parents can't do whatever they want, though, only enhancements. If the parents are crazy and want to cripple their child, it's illegal.

Choices of Society:
I am most certain that ailments that require major adjustments within a society would most likely be weaned out. These ailments being associated qith "handicaps", "mental illnesses", "diseases" that would require a greater amount of medical attention then would the average unaltered person. This, however, would change with time as the average person would begin to require less and less medical attention. Either destroying health care as we know it, or improving it. Either ways is good.

All of the genetic deseases will be gone, but there are lots of other issues, as well as accidents, and further medical research into areas such as longevity.

Parental Choices:
I think they would focus more on looks and skills. These would generally be influenced by their individual societies. Statments like; I want a doctor, I want an athlete, I want a Engineer, would continue to arrise. These would increase the general per capita skill levels and intelligence base on average, and would be a good thing IMO.

actually, one can enhance all traits. Its' not an "or either" decision.

As for physical traits, I don't see any reason, one way or the other, why someone would care, as the other things are way more important to most expecting parents. Yet, for those who do care why not give them the option? If you want an athlete wouldn't you want them taller and stronger? Unless you want a horse jockey.

most parents want their kids to lead a happy life, regardless to what they want to become . I just think that we should ease the life on all kids.

Either way I think the goods out way the bads and eliminates the odds. God may not play dice with the universe, but we can.

we're not playing dice. It's all well planned

Maybe genetic engineering is a human evolutionary step. Maybe in the end it will be our demise, or maybe it will be the key to survival. Who is to know and who is to judge?

Why should it lead to our demise? All we need to do is to enhance our own identity as humans due to our immense achievements, not base our mutual identity on our weaknesses, like we do now.