Stupidity is genetic: Apolyton Eugenics

[ciaran]

Big Crunch sez:

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

Genetically disadvantaged people are more likely to be poor, which means they are more likely to procreate.

Sandman sez:

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

Rocket science also has "too many" variables involved. Should we abandon that train of thought as well?

obiwan18 sez:

We have to hinder those people who are better off, and boost those worse off through genetic engineering.

No, we don't HAVE to. In fact this only harms humanity. Resources are wasted to no greater effect than for having people reach mediocrity.

As soon as you boost one person, the norms will shift.

You mention this as if norms do not shift already. Norms shift due to a variety of conditions. Genetic engineering is a process that specifically attacks norms, but it is not necessarily the only process that may affect them. An Einstein who is born affects the norms. Norms are there as guidelines, but they cannot be there as hard and fast rules. Why can't we have supergeniuses? God forbid some obscure norm is broken by having them around curing our diseases.

Secondly, all our work will be undone in the next generation.

So something as rudimentary as glasses designed to counter loss of eyesight is immediately and automatically undone soon as a new generation is born? If methods as sophisticated as geneengineering can so easily be reversed, then it wouldn't be so difficult to study (since it is so perfectly modular). You have no specific evidence to prove (or even help) this statement.

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.

It is expected that perfection requires effort. Do you not believe that it is worth the effort? Whether or not perfection is relevant is a different issue. What I am saying is that if geneengineering gives us more control over random genetic flaws (ie: bring us closer to perfection), does the added vigilance truly make the benefits not worth having? I hardly believe that someone with terminal cancer would agree.

Once we are satisfied with ourselves, we have stopped evolving.

This is assuming that all change can be satisfactorily brought about within your lifetime or mine. These absolute statements are the stuff of science fiction. "And when humanity was rendered to perfection, the great Axthanumous.... etc. etc."

yet we will never really be satisfied.

Can you see that we are already experiencing this conundrum every day of our lives? Alexander was never truly able to explore the Red Sea, and even without geneengineering true satisfaction was always out of his grasp.

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

Who needs eyesight anyway? Only the majority of our sensory brain is dedicated to input from our eyes. Useless organs!

Frogger sez:

I'm a lot less sure about allowing the engineering of increased intelligence or beauty.

Let us be completely honest. I am against this too, but only because _I_ don't want to be obsolete. It's only a selfish reason, right? How will we find dates if superhuman Tom Cruises are wandering around everywhere?

Azazel sez:

It's not like that we're creating genetical defects in healthy people, just because we're curing genetical conditions.

Well, how about this example. YOU consume resources, just as I do. If a condition allows you to consume more resources (or achieve better quality resources) while my condition is unchanged, then I am inherently harmed. It's pessimistic, I know. But I highly value my oxygen, clean water, and food. Improving a set number of people comes at the expense of the people who are unaffected.

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

So if I kept handing you dollar bills, at some random point--say one billion dollars-- you would say... STOP! I am completely satisfied! No more! I am finished!

Japher:

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

So what? The "norm" is an 85 (is it 85?) IQ or higher. Are you going to argue with this norm by somehow saying that less than 85 IQ is somehow beautiful and "just as acceptable?" Come on. People need to be able to think and abstract. Let's not fall completely down this gutter. Many such "norms" are a product of reason.

Who is to know and who is to judge?

Certainly by your post, I would say we are... since we are the only judges.

tinyp3nis sez:

The manipulation allows silly parents to do much more than just give stupid names like "Stefu" to their kids.

Presumably geneengineering also delivers poisonous agents to the blood streams of these parents as soon as they invent a name like "Snafu."

I personally don't even care about the geneengineering aspect (because I can't think of anything I could do to myself to make myself genetically better than I already am). What I want is cloning... so I can clone myself and kill him. I just want to see the look on my face right before I realise that I am going to kill me. I think it would be worth the $80,000 or however much Biocorp rips me off for for a standard issue Generation 1 clone.

ciaran

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by loinburger
:shrugs: I dunno. I'd personally draw the line where "removal of severe defects" changes to "superficial changes with no non-aesthetic value." That's still an awfully fuzzy line, though.

I am all for removal of genetic defects but not for enhancement of any kind.

It's like a round of arms race: the water table goes up by a meter, but nothing really has changed.

[Japher]

Ciaran:

So what? The "norm" is an 85 (is it 85?) IQ or higher. Are you going to argue with this norm by somehow saying that less than 85 IQ is somehow beautiful and "just as acceptable?" Come on. People need to be able to think and abstract. Let's not fall completely down this gutter. Many such "norms" are a product of reason.

I would never argue that anything less than the norm is beautiful nor acceptable. All I was indicating that in a world such as the one we live in that "norm", or what is normal, is something that is indicate by that which the majority of society sees as ussual, or common. Nothing more, nothing less... and if you can't see that, then you miss the meaning behind many jokes.

Also, these "norms" as a product of reason fall to the devices of what the majority view as reason. I for one, don't see people who can wear tight jeans, and by doing so, look good as normal. Yet, what do you think Jen. Loprz would think? Or most of the stuck peices of sheit out there in holywoodland.

Anywho...

I am glad Ciaran is here to make some good points...

Good luck with those.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by ciaran
Let us be completely honest. I am against this too, but only because _I_ don't want to be obsolete. It's only a selfish reason, right? How will we find dates if superhuman Tom Cruises are wandering around everywhere?

First of all, I don't think genetic enhancements will occur within the time frame of our generation. We know zilch about how the whole thing works. Secondly, as I said, when everybody is a Tom Cruise look-alike, nothing has been changed. The water table merely has gone up for all.

[JohnT]

I'm with Loinburger on this one. It is very likely that we couldn't become creatures adapted to space flight without genetic engineering. I don't just think it is "right", I think it is necessary. Who cares if 400 years down the road you have some guy who geneers himself some gills and the ability to withstand the pressures of the Marianas Trench because I don't want my little girl to be retarded? Who are we to tell him how to live, what it means to be "human?"

The essence of humanity is in the soul, Rogan, not in the form.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I am all for removal of genetic defects but not for enhancement of any kind.

Yeah, I cheated and drew my line in such a way that enhancements could fall on either side of it.

[Ned]

Azazel, I think genetic engineering should be an option for parents. However, my daughter turned out just fine. A really nice and good person. And bright and good looking to boot. I wonder if I could have done better if I used science.

Did you ever see the movie Gattica?. This was the subject matter of the movie.

[JohnT]

Did this thread really make it through a whole 110 posts before somebody compared it to a movie? I'm quite proud of y'all for your restraint!!!

[KrazyHorse]

No. Gattaca was mentioned ages ago.

[JohnT]

Dashing my hopes yet again, heh Frogger?

[Az]

yep, he's right, JohnT. We also had books, poetry, etc...

Well, how about this example. YOU consume resources, just as I do. If a condition allows you to consume more resources (or achieve better quality resources) while my condition is unchanged, then I am inherently harmed

OK, wait a sec. I am talking about improving people's strength, and brain power, as well as getting rid of deseases. How will that consume MORE resources? It will consume less, as people will become more healthy, and will actually increase their output.

And since I am proposing it, esp. the harmed gene removal part as standard as anti-tetanus and measels, shots for babies, why should you become inherently harmed? If you're talking about a single generation that will become less productive, the last non-engineered generation, (that would probably include yours truly), I think "sacrificing" your own welfare for the betterment of endless future generations is one of the most moral things to do, ever.

Azazel, I think genetic engineering should be an option for parents. However, my daughter turned out just fine. A really nice and good person. And bright and good looking to boot. I wonder if I could have done better if I used science.

It depends. If your daughter is healthy, and is genetically smart (pure theory only in this point, bordering the realm of science fiction, but we're talking, among everything else, about it being true), Then you have no trouble.

I'll take myself, as an example: I have Gilbert's Syndrome, a condition that creates an excess of a certain protein called Bilirubin, when my body is under stress. This protein causes my body to have a bit of a yellow colour. Hardly visible, really. This is the same protein that is generated excessively when a person get Hepatitis.

Now, this condition does not affect my abilities in any way, other than the slight change of colour. Should it stay or should it go? It depends on how we'll perform the Genetic engineering. If every baby will be hand-tailored, and this change would cause extra resources to make ( and therefor would probably be more expensive ), But there would be a standard procedure to change the genes of embrios, before conception, I wouldn't have my kid have this condition.

[JohnT]

Well, you know God forbid that I should actually read the thread before commenting on the contents. God, you people ask a lot!

[Az]

Gawd, No! It seems my thread is spammed!

[lord of the mark]

loin berger

Im not sure the reason for your response - what i have seen of this thread makes me think that most people are thinking in terms of "lets get rid of the BAD genes" well hemophila may work like that, but very few other things do. Why in evolutionary terms would these genes exist if they were "bad" We know that Sickle cell anemia exists because in carriers the gene provides resistance to malaria. There are some who believe that Tay-SAchs carriers have resistance to Tuberculosis. Should we eliminate the gene for Tay-sachs (I am a carrier, BTW) Well maybe now, in world where we can control TB, yes - in a different world I dont know. Now those are still relatively simple single gene cases. How do we deal with a mental illness where the illness results from the interaction of multiple genes and very complex environmetal factors??? and almost all of those genes probably have beneficial aspects of some kind, which is why they were selected for. And the beneficial aspects are likley to be subtle mental or behavioral advantages, harder to identify than protection against malaria.

Now i suspect the response is - well we know all that, and we wont do gen eng where there could be a problem. Except that from what I see of the way medication and surgery are used that is not the case - but with gen engineering you are deciding for someone else.

I recommned that those thinking about this issue read oliver Sachs "awakenings" for a better understanding of the complexities of an illness that has organic roots but profound mental and behavioral aspects. And that they read Peter Kramer's Listening to Prozac for some thoughts on the nature of mental illness, its treatment, evolutionary thought, etc.

[lord of the mark]

Im not saying gen eng should never be used - but i would argue for EXTREME caution, and I fear it is very likely to get out of hand.