Eugenics

[Berzerker]

With the advent of gene splicing and the broadening eugenics horizon its funny and sad looking back at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, the capital of the eugenics movement. Who could help but laugh when Jesse Owens defeated the fastest white people in the world in several races, but while the Nazi racist might be angry the eugenicist would see Owens as confirmation of the science. He was the product of centuries of a eugenics policy, the selective breeding produced by slavery. Sadly the Nazis were fascists too and murdered 'undesirables' and controlled breeding much like slave owners did a century before and Jesse failed to dismantle their idea of a master race.

The Nazis in their infinite wisdom saw genetic diversity as 'pollution' diluting their 'pure blood' when diversity is a strength. Villagers figured that out long ago when faced with the problems of inbreeding. But what happens when parents gain control over their offspring's DNA or people get married based on their DNA matches? I can think of all sorts of reasons for people to edit out the 'undesirable' genes and introduce desirable traits. But wont we, in our infinite wisdom, reduce diversity?​

[Broken_Erika]

What could possibly go wrong?

[Berzerker]

​

[Berzerker]

Otoh the world could end up as one race of brownish people with a thorough admixture of DNA lines and that in itself might also reduce genetic diversity. These genetic subgroups in more or less isolated pockets maintain a diversity we could lose with eugenics. What if in our pursuit to 'vaccinate' children from cancer via gene manipulation we delete a few genes that are required for other aspects of existence? Course the world would be less racist if everyone looked alike. Much of our violence is tied to sectarian tribalism so the breakdown of those borders should lead to more peace.

[Broken_Erika]

​

[Berzerker]

lol the king of over acting is skippering

[Berzerker]

I've read the greatest genetic diversity in the world is in Africa and yet a Nazi racist would probably classify most of the continent as 1 race. I would think Africans would have the least diversity given their proximity, but time appears to drive diversity too. Maybe thats a feature of when groups left Africa to populate the world. The more recent your tribes' migration into less populated parts of the world the less time and new blood to diversify the tribe. Okay, that makes sense. The group that migrated to Patagonia thousands of years ago maintained their 'purity', losing that reduces diversity. Kinda strange how the racists might be right for the wrong reason, I guess it depends on your goal. Should the distinct populations we see today survive into the future or will humanity blend into one race?

Not that it would last, one's skin color depends on where they and their ancestors lived. Closer to the poles means lighter skin and darker skin near the equator. I imagine that would be the case throughout the universe wherever humanoid life evolves with people ranging from dark to light skin all based on their planet's orientation to their sun. Further away and even the equator wouldn't get enough light to develop dark skin, too close and no humanoid life evolves.

[N35t0r]

Oh, look, Nazis are as dumb as Berz. And berz is also racist as ****.

[Berzerker]

everybody's a racist in a woke world, you're just not woke enough to realize it

arms 4 Azov

[EPW]

He was the product of centuries of a eugenics policy, the selective breeding produced by slavery.

The south did not have a "eugenics policy".(eugenics wasn't even coined till 1883) Buying or even "breeding" slaves based on their physical prowess, age, and general health isn't the same thing as selecting for specific traits to promote in the population because there are too many other factors involved: disease, nutrition, upbringing etc, and also because being healthy, strong, and young are traits that pretty much anybody can have. Slaveholders certainly tried to coerce reproduction, either by forcing two slaves to dwell together or just rape the women themselves. Maybe there were a few who tried their hand at selective breeding but it's unlikely that they were successful.

[BeBMan]

Eurythmics

​

[Geronimo]

Allowing pre conception precise single nucleotide resolution changes as with base editing or prime editing should be allowed for germ line changes to treat or prevent a pathological condition when the result is definitely well represented in the general population of at least some populations and the functionality of the involved genes and their changes is well characterized. Any threats to human genomic diversity will either escape notice or could be reversed by the same technology that introduced the treatment.

​​​​​
​​​

[PLATO]

Allowing pre conception precise single nucleotide resolution changes as with base editing or prime editing should be allowed for germ line changes to treat or prevent a pathological condition when the result is definitely well represented in the general population of at least some populations and the functionality of the involved genes and their changes is well characterized. Any threats to human genomic diversity will either escape notice or could be reversed by the same technology that introduced the treatment.

​​​​​
​​​

Nice to know that tomorrow's super-soldiers can have normal kids.

[Berzerker]

The south did not have a "eugenics policy".(eugenics wasn't even coined till 1883) Buying or even "breeding" slaves based on their physical prowess, age, and general health isn't the same thing as selecting for specific traits to promote in the population because there are too many other factors involved: disease, nutrition, upbringing etc, and also because being healthy, strong, and young are traits that pretty much anybody can have. Slaveholders certainly tried to coerce reproduction, either by forcing two slaves to dwell together or just rape the women themselves. Maybe there were a few who tried their hand at selective breeding but it's unlikely that they were successful.

Slavery is eugenics, the healthy had value and the unhealthy were discarded. Now of course eugenics runs deeper than just slavery, life is a eugenics policy. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Evolution made the eye and its very selective about what traits are desirable. Imagine what genetic manipulation will do to the human genome, if everyone carries enough of a gene - maybe genes introduced or spliced together - that makes them vulnerable to a virus we could wipe ourselves out. But the pros of genetic manipulation are too numerous, given the opportunity would-be parents will not pass up on a cure to their future child's genetic susceptibilities.

[EPW]

Not genetic

[Berzerker]

Allowing pre conception precise single nucleotide resolution changes as with base editing or prime editing should be allowed for germ line changes to treat or prevent a pathological condition when the result is definitely well represented in the general population of at least some populations and the functionality of the involved genes and their changes is well characterized. Any threats to human genomic diversity will either escape notice or could be reversed by the same technology that introduced the treatment.

​​​​​
​​​

Sounds like the problem we just had with covid and gain of function research, we created a bug and turned the world into a guinea pig and a billion or more got jabbed. Now they're telling us the jabbed are more vulnerable to covid than the unjabbed. I dont trust these people with this science.

[Geronimo]

Sounds like the problem we just had with covid and gain of function research, we created a bug and turned the world into a guinea pig and a billion or more got jabbed. Now they're telling us the jabbed are more vulnerable to covid than the unjabbed. I dont trust these people with this science.

No. If errors in gain of function research brought us Covid the danger would surely have been seen with a good FMEA analysis, especially in hindsight.

Where the potential failure mode in the hypothetical treatments I considered in my post?

The important key to recognize is that we don't allow novel conditions to be created. Instead we stick to allowing conversion of known pathological genetic conditions to known naturally occuring and well represented healthy genetic conditions and do so only when the correct outcome can be verified immediately post treatment.

Do you even know what gain of function research is and what makes it so potentially dangerous?

Do you even know what the (analogy, 😂) idiom "turned into a guinea pig" means and what situations the idiom applies to?

I'm in no hurry to allow novel conditions to be introduced via germline changes.

I'm baffled as to where there would be any parallels at all to the hypothetical therapies I endorsed, and hypothetical accidental creation of covid 19 through gain of function research.

[Berzerker]

the bug(s) they changed was given a cleavage site not found naturally that made it spread more easily among people, we created the novel condition

[Berzerker]

In the context of covid gof means making a bug gain additional functions, like spreadability, severity, etc. Once we have that bug we can research how to defeat it. One escaped the lab before we had the cure and millions died. Oh well... I'd say guinea pig is applicable, they played around with an unnatural virus fabricated in a lab that infected the world and then rushed thru a "vaccine" with god only knows what effects in the future - had to be rushed, time is $$$ when creating a panic. Bill Gates bought vax stock and dumped it when the panic he helped create was fading.

[-Jrabbit]

You say this stuff like it's proven, peer-reviewed, and accepted.
In reality, this is all just a fever-dream fantasy.

[Berzerker]

Why is Rabbit so slow to the finish line? Because he fell asleep listening to Anthony "I am the science" Fauci