Stupidity is genetic: Apolyton Eugenics

[Az]

NOOOOOOOO! Now, I won't be able to beat him in the argument that way.

[Japher]

Now, I won't be able to beat him in the argument that way.

Argument? Ha! The only worthwhile comeback for him would be "Yeah, well you jeans have the hard candy shell."

And to think I am usually creamed for being "racist". Is it rubbing off?

*On topic*

I always think it is weird that people continue to contribute creativity and mental inginuity with manic-depression. I have friend like this, and he is a) crazy as all heck b) a genius and c) musically inclined. I still don't believe it, though their are hundreds of cases to prove otherwise, and hundreds to back me up. The one thing I can't except, however, is that depression is genetic. That these "chemical imbalances" are due to genetic disorders. There is no proof.

I will admit that these diseases are treated of biopharmaceuticals which suggest a biological disorder. Yet, such conditions can exist independent of genes and could be a result of sociological conditions. In very much the same way the a cut my leave a scar, or poison ivy causes one to itch, certain maladies in someone who has poor self-estime can lead to mental illness.

Just my opinon.

[KrazyHorse]

To be fair to Rogan, I just want to point out (since he can't do it for himself right now) that his "crack" about Jews was almost certainly not meant to insult Azazel's heritage.

But it was a bit raw.

[loinburger]

Ah well, you might not be able to post, but I'm assuming that you're still able to view...

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
These can all be treated either with surgery or drugs - there is no need to fiddle about with the gene pool.

1. Why are surgery/drugs better than genetic engineering?
2. No, they can not all be treated with surgery or drugs. The myopia in some members of my family is so severe that it has been linked to glaucoma and a susceptibility to the detachment of their retinas. Asthma can usually be treated so that it is no longer life-threatening, but many asthmatics are not able to lead "normal" lives even with the help of medications. Finally, IIRC only about 50% of all manic-depressives are successfully treated with medication. I should know, seeing as how I'm one of those whose condition is unaffected by medication.
3. I fail to see the connection between your opinion that I am evil (or at the very least, your opinion that that I desire to do evil things) and the fact that these three conditions can sometimes be treated without the use of genetic engineering. Am I always evil for expressing a desire to employ a viable alternative to your own approach to solving a problem, or am I only evil in this one particular instance? You'll need to do a better job of explaining the link between "genetic engineering" and "evil" -- saying "There is an alternative to genetic engineering" just doesn't cut it.

And do you think you could fix these with genetic engineering without altering something else?

Why are genetic engineering side-effects unacceptable, while apparently the side-effects of surgery and medication are acceptable?

You haven't answered my other question

As I'd said, I have expressed a very specific belief, and you have expressed a very broad belief. I don't know why you insist that I broaden the scope of my belief just because you have done so. Nevertheless, I'll attempt to humor you.

would you have genetically removed the defects of Hieronymous Bosch? Would you have fixed Beethoven's deafness? What about Newton's schizophrenia? Would Byron have produced anything if he had not been manic-depressive?

1. I am not familiar with Hieronymous Bosch.
2. Yes, I was under the impression that Beethoven was not particularly keen on going deaf.
3. Yes, although I was under the impression that Newton's schizophrenia was likely related to his overexposure to mercury, and may not have had any genetic cause.
4. I don't know for certain whether he'd have produced anything or not, but I would be willing to bet that he'd have lived past the age of 36 if he hadn't been forced to self-medicate.

The problem is that you are attempting to define what other people should be like.

And you're not?

It's all well and good to insist that the world needs tortured geniuses when it's somebody else who's being tortured.

Have a look at this and tell me if you think bipolar disorder can be genetically removed without losing anythng else:

I'm familiar with the links between bipolar disorder and creativity, although I'm uncertain why you seem to believe that genetic engineering would cause somebody to lose their creativity while medication would not. I have known people who have been successfully treated by medication, and they have not exhibited any apparent reduction in creativity -- I see no reason why an equivalent genetic solution would produce a different effect.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Japher
The one thing I can't except, however, is that depression is genetic. That these "chemical imbalances" are due to genetic disorders. There is no proof.

Talk to Doc Strangelove about that one. In a previous thread he cited a study that proved that depression can have genetic causes -- identical twins who were separated at birth (i.e. who were under different sociological influences) had a far higher correllation (80%) than did fraternal twins who were separated at birth (40%).

[Sandman]

It's not such a great change, just a larger amount of visual input.
Besides, if we could grasp Calculus, and the structure of the atom, or Love, Hate, Envy, etc., I think this should be a little problem.

The eyes are already more sensitive than the brain. A lot of information is wasted.

Calculus etc is learned, not 'grown into' like you suggest would be possible for enhanced eyesight. It's a totally different mechanism. We are born being able to see just fine (mostly), but there's not exactly a lot of visual stimulation in the womb.

Even if the brain is as pliable as you suggest, there is still the possibility of unwanted mental side-effects from an enlarged visual centre, such as epilepsy, hallucinations, autism or schizophrenia.

And let's not forget the optic nerve. With increased visual signals, it will need to be bigger, which in turn will involve redesigning the skull and parts of the brain. I won't deny, however, that it may be possible to somehow make it more efficient.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Azazel:
I'm trying to show similarities between genetic therapy and genetic enhancement.

In improving the population, the norm of society rises, assuming normal = average of all people.

One can define a norm in other ways, but then you get into the discussion of how broad the norm should be.

a) "will simply find more" ?

More 'flawed' genes. This is an assumption of my definition of the norm. No matter how much we improve, we will have some who are less off, and some who are worse.

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

What does BAM stand for?

Define beauty, define intelligence.

Our definitions depend on the society we are in. Certain types of intelligence will be favoured over others.

Some people will not be happy, although, some will. Those who favour changing their body will be somewhat more predisposed to continue improving their bodies.

Can we ever be beautiful enough, or intelligent enough?

But tell me this? would you want your child to be deaf? Would your child want to be deaf?

2) I'll let my child decide. I don't know what she will or will not want.

1) Does my opinion matter? I would want to protect my child, but if she is to be deaf, I'll leave it at that.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Loinburger:

Agreed.

I don't know what to make of Huntington's disease v. Cystic Fibrosis.

Schizophrenia, what about autism? We don't know what might be lost.

Progress? Doesn't mean we can't work out ethical limits for the technology ahead of time.

I think that by limiting genetic engineering to these cases, we will avoid the more frivolous abuses of the technology.

Why do I keep thinking of plastic surgery, originally intended for burn victims, but now everyone gets nips and tucks?

Has our standard of beauty changed?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by loinburger
Ah well, you might not be able to post, but I'm assuming that you're still able to view...



1. Why are surgery/drugs better than genetic engineering?

I assume bygenetic engineering, we are referrng to what traits are passed on, as opposed to gene therapy, using genes to impact a given condition but not effecting heritability.

The problem is that genetic engineering is permanent. If we determine later on that say bipolar disorder is beneficial, generations of having had people on lithium doesnt prevent us from allowing it again. Whereas genetic engineering, assuming its available to and used by everyone, can cause the permanent loss of this genetic diversity. I would be especially concerned with mental disorders which are usually spectrum disorders, which, while harmful when fully expressed may be caused by the same genes which account for beneficial traits. You seem to be assuming a model of one gene to one disorder - i doubt this applies even to many physical conditions, much less to mental and behavioral problems. What if by eliminatin Bipolar genes we also reduce the incidence of "moody", creative people who are not diagnosably BP??(note that we know have BP1 and BP2, and soemthing called hyperthymia which is like BP but not quite) What if by eliminating autism genes we eliminated nerdy, brilliant but socially inept people, who dont have autism??? Etc, etc. Im no scientist, but from what i know Genes are complex, and work in complex ways. Deliberately tampering with the gene pool to eliminate undesriable traits is likely to have much less easily reversible consequences(for the species, not the individual) than medication.

[KrazyHorse]

Why would genetic engineering prevent us from going back and reengineering bipolar disorder into the population (assuming you save genetic samples from the past)?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by loinburger
I have known people who have been successfully treated by medication, and they have not exhibited any apparent reduction in creativity -- I see no reason why an equivalent genetic solution would produce a different effect.

Some people on Lithium become severly impaired. To which there is a very simple solution - stop the lithium and try something else. Again, youseem to assume a very simple model of what these disorders are and how they function - when we know little, but what we do know indicates they are more complex. Unipolar Depression to the extent it is organically based, seems to be a result of problems with thefunctioing of several different neural messngers. These messnagers apparently have several different functions, which interact in comple ways. Each anti=depressant med impacts on different groupings of neural messengers in differnent ways - which is why one AD will work in one patient but different one in another, and different people will experience different side effects, and so on. In the hands of a skilled doctor, a patient can find the right med for them. Now lets assume that each different neurotransmitter is impacted by a different set of genes - changing one gene, like one giving a given med, will have multiple effects, and the effects will vary depending on the rest of the the genes, not to mention the environment. But with genetic engineering you cant experiment the way a doctor prescribing drugs can, becasue the changes are permanent. If it was a simple model where there was a "depression gene" the way there is a hemophilia gene, this would nt be a problem.

[Zero]

Eugenics sound real nice to me as well azazel... Its not as evil as one may think. Only harm I could think of is that you would be denying an individual right(?) to reproduce in order to enforce eugenics. Anyway even after assuming all that is a-ok, I still object to eugenics because of one reason.

Remember the racial superiority thread? Where I mentioned that a person with down syndrome is often considered "inferior" to a normal person because he is genetically handicapped. But there may be a instance where that specific gene could prevent acquiring a certain disease, or mutation affect that genetic "flaw" into becoming something else.... Evolution is an unpredictable thing. Reducing variety is always a bad thing. Even when you think it is "inferior" or a "flaw"..... in a changing enviornment, you can never keep those defintion the same.

[Zero]

Originally posted by loinburger
I'd be all for being given the option to genetically engineer the defects out of my kids, and for others to be given the same option. Why should my kids have to be saddled with myopia and allergies and bipolar disorder and all that jazz? **** those tricks. The benefits that my kids might gain by being blind, asthmatic, and crazy are far outweighed by the harm done to them by said disorders.

I feel ya dude, its only natural to desire only the best for your children. And there's not even any flaw to your arguement short term wise. However in a long term sense, everyone will want to do so for their child thus reducing genetic pool of humans --> more close to genetically related ---> more vulnerable to disaster when certain genetic "package" fails.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Progress? Doesn't mean we can't work out ethical limits for the technology ahead of time.

Agreed, no harm in debating this-or-that possible modification ahead of time, and in fact I'd consider it to be a necessity. It's unjustified blanket condemnations like "Selective breeding/genetic engineering is evil no matter whether you are breeding out big noses, low grades, or crap moderator skills" with which I take issue.

Why do I keep thinking of plastic surgery, originally intended for burn victims, but now everyone gets nips and tucks?

I worry about the same thing WRT genetic engineering, but as with (what I would consider to be) unnecessary use of plastic surgery there's the question of "who is being harmed?" People have been needlessly modifying their appearances for millennia -- the fact that in the future people might needlessly modify themselves using genetic engineering isn't that great of a concern to me. Who are they to define human beauty, but at the same time, who am I do do likewise?

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Again, youseem to assume a very simple model of what these disorders are and how they function...

Originally posted by Calc II
Reducing variety is always a bad thing.

Granted, but unless genetic engineering is enforced then there will always be those who opt out of the process (or who opt their children out of the process). The quantity of certain bad genes will certainly be reduced, but it would be surprising if they were ever eliminated.

[mactbone]

Anybody read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.?

Here's a link - http://penguinppc.org/~hollis/personal/bergeron.shtml

Personally that's how I feel the objections are going. Ignore the best attributes people have and make sure that everything is "natural".

Calc does have a point with his "diversity" but I have to question whether this would be a problem - woudn't it just be natural selection telling us that we were stupid to get rid of a certain gene? Oh well, I'd just go with the flow. I doubt I would mess with certain genes though because I would infer that some of those are superior because they came from me (intelligence, pouffy hair)