Social Control

[carbonmotion]

I'm doing my sociology research paper on genetic engineering... a thought sudden struck me... Anyways, I'm going to pose this hypothetical society to you; please respond whether you'd like it or not.

If your had the choice of living in a society where you children will be mandatorily screened for genetic defects which would lead to some crippling ailment later on in life as well as genes which cause criminal intincts in order to provide a future society that is "perfect" ...would you go along with it?

[Mav451]

my answer is no. People have no choice with what they are born with. This has been discussed in my Science/Technology and Society class. It leads to (yet) another form of discrimination :(

[Skeeball236]

del

[alxths]

I think it'd be arrogant of us to presume that this would indeed create a 'perfect' society.. Also, once you start screening for things like genetic defects and aborting pregnacies accordingly, it's easy to go a little farther and exert a little more control over people that are born, and then a little farther than that, and so on...

So no.

[carbonmotion]

my answer is no. People have no choice with what they are born with. This has been discussed in my Science/Technology and Society class. It leads to (yet) another form of discrimination :(

playing the devil's advocate here: i contend that people already have no choice due to the social programing they recieve from the moment they were born to the moment they die ...at least in this society we can insure that the social programing will interact with the hardware (genetics) in a manner that will provide for a more better society. In the current society, people with bad genes, genes which leads them to violence and criminal behavior become alienate by our social structure and act out on it in unhealthy ways which hurt people. Using this method, we can ensure a safe, peaceful society.

[carbonmotion]

I think it'd be arrogant of us to presume that this would indeed create a 'perfect' society.. Also, once you start screening for things like genetic defects and aborting pregnacies accordingly, it's easy to go a little farther and exert a little more control over people that are born, and then a little farther than that, and so on...

So no.

Ok there's alittle difference between genetic screening of embryos and Nazi style termination of the genetically defective. And i'm not saying a perfect society, but rather a sociey better then the one we have today. A society without biogtry and hatrd, without wife beaters, well "without" is probably too strong of a word -how about "with minimal amounts of"

[alxths]

Well if you weren't talking about aborting the pregnacies, then did you mean? "Well mrs Johnson, we just screened your embryo and found that you're little johnny is going to be a serial killer--just thought you'd like to know. Cheers!" I don't think shifting toward a brave new world type society would happen in one large strides, but in small steps, even smaller that the one between our current society and the one that you're proposing. So a line needs to be drawn and I think it should be at any kind of screening process with unborn people.

Criminality is a behavioural trait and has been shown to be detectable in childhood; and if there is a determining gene detectable in embryos, than would there really be a way to stop it? Aside from just isolating them from society. Bigotry, hatred and wife-beating all come from the person's environment, as i understand it.

As far as genetic illnesses go, we don't know how the existance of them contribute to the psychological state of society on a whole. maybe they're essential for the average person to develop appreciation for their own wellbeing? I think there would have to be a lot of research done in that area before making such drastic social changes...

[MongoTheGeek]

No. There are some people who don't want to know and I don't want to make them.

I also have serious problems with the eugenics. Abortion is wrong. Forced abortions which this would likely lead to doubly wrong.

The whole is less than the sum of its parts. Society as a whole is not worth an individual.

[carbonmotion]

No. There are some people who don't want to know and I don't want to make them.

I also have serious problems with the eugenics. Abortion is wrong. Forced abortions which this would likely lead to doubly wrong.

The whole is less than the sum of its parts. Society as a whole is not worth an individual.

In the first few years the conflict between those selectively engineered and those not will be troublesome. However within two centuries society will be nearly 100% filled with genetically engineered people living in harmoney. Much like globalization, I contend that its means to an end... a better end then the one we are living in right now.

[MongoTheGeek]

In the first few years the conflict between those selectively engineered and those not will be troublesome. However within two centuries society will be nearly 100% filled with genetically engineered people living in harmoney. Much like globalization, I contend that its means to an end... a better end then the one we are living in right now.

I have no problem with genetic engineering and reproductive cloning. I think that it will be a great boon. My issue is with casting off of the "inferior"

[poopyhead]

Well if you weren't talking about aborting the pregnacies, then did you mean? "Well mrs Johnson, we just screened your embryo and found that you're little johnny is going to be a serial killer--just thought you'd like to know. Cheers!" I don't think shifting toward a brave new world type society would happen in one large strides, but in small steps, even smaller that the one between our current society and the one that you're proposing. So a line needs to be drawn and I think it should be at any kind of screening process with unborn people.

Criminality is a behavioural trait and has been shown to be detectable in childhood; and if there is a determining gene detectable in embryos, than would there really be a way to stop it? Aside from just isolating them from society. Bigotry, hatred and wife-beating all come from the person's environment, as i understand it.

As far as genetic illnesses go, we don't know how the existence of them contribute to the psychological state of society on a whole. maybe they're essential for the average person to develop appreciation for their own well-being? I think there would have to be a lot of research done in that area before making such drastic social changes...

I'm all for abandoning people personally
primarily mean people
I think we need to designate a mountain top some place
away from the general population (we don't want anyone saved lest there be another oedipus)
we will designate this place as a location apart where the mean and cruel can be left to feed on their own

I think the
zeig heil!
was the perfect response
just because someone's life can be construed as a drain on society
it in no way means that they lack social worth
one of my aunts favorite memories is working with children with down syndrome, she was fundamentally changed, in a good way, by her work with these children
people are not commodities
they have worth greater than their economic viability

[JesseJames]

I believe that genetic screening for medical or genetic defects should be allowed.
As for engineering super-athletes or geniuses; I don't think so. That should be left to nature.
You have to draw the line somewhere.
I believe most people are born with predispositions but upbringing and environment has a huge influence.
Now, all of you go rent the movie "Gattaca".

[Giaguara]

If your had the choice of living in a society where you children will be mandatorily screened for genetic defects which would lead to some crippling ailment later on in life as well as genes which cause criminal intincts in order to provide a future society that is "perfect" ...would you go along with it?

Just "criminal instintcs"? Hey wait a minute what are genetical "criminal instincts"? Would that apply e.g. >> if my grandpa was in prison > i have higher risk of being criminal? and cousins died because of any criminal related issue >> my risk higher?

Even if it was just plain screening for genetical defects I would have failed that. Just fsckin EVERYBODY at my dads side of family have at least asthma that is genetical .. and some othere @$@% stuff too :mad:

[scem0]

You may be able to root out genetic defense from a population, but the real imperfections in society are malaciousness, immaturity, irresponsibility, etc.

You can't screen for those kind of imperfections too well, so I don't think your plan would create a 'perfect' society - maybe a society free of physical disorders.

scem0

[rainman::|:|]

absolutely not. any society that took this much power in playing god would never be perfect, in my eyes. to me, a perfect society isn't devoid of diversity, even if it occurs outside of the "normal" functions of humans, eg palsy or autism. To me, a perfect society is a place where these people have the same rights as others, first and foremost the rights to happiness and proper medical needs. Their productive input on society is not used to gauge their value as human beings, because they may be prohibited from giving back to society. People should be happy to help each other out, not see differently-abled individuals as burdens on their own lifestyle.

paul

[Dros]

As far as genetic illnesses go, we don't know how the existance of them contribute to the psychological state of society on a whole. maybe they're essential for the average person to develop appreciation for their own wellbeing? I think there would have to be a lot of research done in that area before making such drastic social changes...

I don't know if someone born with a painful genetic disease is happy to provide a counterpoint for the rest of society to gaze upon and say, "Thank goodness that isn't me! Now I feel better about myself." Nor do I think we should encourage such schadenfreude in society as a whole.

Of course it is wishful thinking that society would be perfect if genetic predispositions to violence were identifed and removed. That would just leave more of the rest with our own defects - greed, callousness, self-centeredness. I don't know if they have genetic roots, but I'm sure there would still be plenty of it.

[SlyHunter]

I'm doing my sociology research paper on genetic engineering... a thought sudden struck me... Anyways, I'm going to pose this hypothetical society to you; please respond whether you'd like it or not.

If your had the choice of living in a society where you children will be mandatorily screened for genetic defects which would lead to some crippling ailment later on in life as well as genes which cause criminal intincts in order to provide a future society that is "perfect" ...would you go along with it?
What about genetically inclined to be an Alchoholic?
Genetically inclined to be gay?

[Bedawyn]

Absolutely not. Ideal society? It sounds more like hell to me.

On an individual level, the idea of living in a completely homogenized society, shaped by what the folks in power think is healthy and normal, is appalling. But then, I probably wouldn't have to. Most of what I am has been considered either criminal or a defect by the folks in power at one point in history or another. Someone has to make the criteria to determine what is screened for, and those someones are always going to have their personal biases.

And it wouldn't be good for the society or the species either. There's genetic links for mental illness, and think how many of the greatest artists and geniuses have had mental problems. The genetics that cause sickle cell anemia also make the bearers less susceptible to malaria. The gene and the individual that don't suit the norm are the ones that can adapt better when the environmental circumstances change. As a society, limiting individual diversity will stifle cultural creativity and growth. As a species, limiting the diversity of the gene pool is a recipe for extinction.

And it wouldn't work, either. Such a society isn't possible, because genetics don't work that way. You can't genetically screen for criminal traits, because they aren't caused by genetics. Genetics can cause a predisposition, a tendency, which is then influenced by environmental factors. You can't say, oh, this person has brca1 so she's going to get breast cancer, we'll just delete that gene and she'll be fine, and there won't be any other effects of the deletion. And you certainly can't do it with something as multifactorial as wife beating or murder.

Carbonmotion, I strongly advise that you (and anyone else interested) take a look at Behavioral Genetics, available as a PDF from the AAAS web site (http://www.aaas.org/spp/bgenes/publications.shtml). Its official description:

Behavioral Genetics: An introduction to how genes and environments interact through development to shape differences in mood, personality, and intelligence. This book is an introduction for non-scientists to the science of behavioral genetics and its broader ethical and social implications. Among the topics covered are how scientists explore the influence of genes and environment on behavior and how such research may challenge our understanding of human nature, personal responsibility, and equality.

Chapter One: What Is Behavioral Genetics?
Chapter Two: How Do Genes Work Within Their Environments?
Chapter Three: How Do Environments Impinge Upon Genes?
Chapter Four: How Is Genetic Research On Behavior Conducted?
Chapter Five: How Do Mental Disorders Emerge From The Mix Of Genes And Environments?
Chapter Six: How Is The Ability To Control Impulses Affected By Genes And Environments?
Chapter Seven: How Is Intellect Molded By Genes And Environments?

Edited because she can't figure out why this forum doesn't just accept <tag></tag> like everybody else

[Dippo]

No, that world would be SOOO boring.

Besides, biodiversity is necessary to prevent diseases from wiping us out, and this would eventually eliminate that diversity.

Lastly, there's a lot more to a person than their genes.

[JesseJames]

Absolutely not. Ideal society? It sounds more like hell to me.

On an individual level, the idea of living in a completely homogenized society, shaped by what the folks in power think is healthy and normal, is appalling. But then, I probably wouldn't have to. Most of what I am has been considered either criminal or a defect by the folks in power at one point in history or another. Someone has to make the criteria to determine what is screened for, and those someones are always going to have their personal biases.

And it wouldn't be good for the society or the species either. There's genetic links for mental illness, and think how many of the greatest artists and geniuses have had mental problems. The genetics that cause sickle cell anemia also make the bearers less susceptible to malaria. The gene and the individual that don't suit the norm are the ones that can adapt better when the environmental circumstances change. As a society, limiting individual diversity will stifle cultural creativity and growth. As a species, limiting the diversity of the gene pool is a recipe for extinction.

And it wouldn't work, either. Such a society isn't possible, because genetics don't work that way. You can't genetically screen for criminal traits, because they aren't caused by genetics. Genetics can cause a predisposition, a tendency, which is then influenced by environmental factors. You can't say, oh, this person has brca1 so she's going to get breast cancer, we'll just delete that gene and she'll be fine, and there won't be any other effects of the deletion. And you certainly can't do it with something as multifactorial as wife beating or murder.

Carbonmotion, I strongly advise that you (and anyone else interested) take a look at Behavioral Genetics, available as a PDF from the AAAS web site (http://www.aaas.org/spp/bgenes/publications.shtml). Its official description:

Behavioral Genetics: An introduction to how genes and environments interact through development to shape differences in mood, personality, and intelligence. This book is an introduction for non-scientists to the science of behavioral genetics and its broader ethical and social implications. Among the topics covered are how scientists explore the influence of genes and environment on behavior and how such research may challenge our understanding of human nature, personal responsibility, and equality.

Chapter One: What Is Behavioral Genetics?
Chapter Two: How Do Genes Work Within Their Environments?
Chapter Three: How Do Environments Impinge Upon Genes?
Chapter Four: How Is Genetic Research On Behavior Conducted?
Chapter Five: How Do Mental Disorders Emerge From The Mix Of Genes And Environments?
Chapter Six: How Is The Ability To Control Impulses Affected By Genes And Environments?
Chapter Seven: How Is Intellect Molded By Genes And Environments?

Edited because she can't figure out why this forum doesn't just accept <tag></tag> like everybody else

Yeah, but what if YOU were that tortured genius. Wouldn't you rather be normal?
Genius ain't all it's cracked up to be.

[MoparShaha]

Not to start another topic here, but if we ensured that everyone had enough to eat and had all basic needs met, instead of 3/4 of the world living in poverty, perhaps we would already have a perfect society.

[alxths]

I don't know if someone born with a painful genetic disease is happy to provide a counterpoint for the rest of society to gaze upon and say, "Thank goodness that isn't me! Now I feel better about myself." Nor do I think we should encourage such schadenfreude in society as a whole.

Of course it is wishful thinking that society would be perfect if genetic predispositions to violence were identifed and removed. That would just leave more of the rest with our own defects - greed, callousness, self-centeredness. I don't know if they have genetic roots, but I'm sure there would still be plenty of it.

I don't think any of us could--I don't claim to either. Nevertheless i do think that its a valid point that would have ot be looked into before actually screening people...

Besides, i don't think we've even had any clarification on their alternative yet.. Initially i thought carbonmotion was purposing a society where 'genetically defective' people were aborted, so in that case we could argue that they're still better off alive than dead. But, yeah im not too clear on that..

I agree with you're second paragraph..

[SlyHunter]

Not to start another topic here, but if we ensured that everyone had enough to eat and had all basic needs met, instead of 3/4 of the world living in poverty, perhaps we would already have a perfect society.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for life.

[Dros]

I don't think any of us could--I don't claim to either. Nevertheless i do think that its a valid point that would have ot be looked into before actually screening people...

But, we are already doing fetal screening for genetic abnormalities, and many people are already choosing to abort if abnormalities are found. This isn't a rare event... probably hundreds of thousands of tests are performed each year. And the sub-tests performed are expanding each year as markers for different diseases become known.

So for the original question, the "criminal tendencies" is almost pure science fiction and isn't going to happen anytime soon. The disease part is going on right now. Sex selection is common in some countries as well.

[Dros]

Yeah, but what if YOU were that tortured genius. Wouldn't you rather be normal?
Genius ain't all it's cracked up to be.

Yeah, some art collectors are into "art of the insane" because of the unique styles that come out, but I don't see any of the collectors lining up to become insane themselves.

Few people want a world of everyone being the same. I'm not sure genetic screening will necessarily lead to that. There is a danger of it, I think, but there are dangers to everything, and as I said above, screening is going on right now.

[alxths]

Yeah it occurs, but not absolutely; i mean there are countless people living right now with genetic defects... we'll have to wait many years before we'll know for this for sure.. assuming that a bunch of new abnormalities don't keep popping up..

[SlyHunter]

But, we are already doing fetal screening for genetic abnormalities, and many people are already choosing to abort if abnormalities are found. This isn't a rare event... probably hundreds of thousands of tests are performed each year. And the sub-tests performed are expanding each year as markers for different diseases become known.

So for the original question, the "criminal tendencies" is almost pure science fiction and isn't going to happen anytime soon. The disease part is going on right now. Sex selection is common in some countries as well.
Truthfully I posted this in another thread but it fits here too.

Think 10-20 years from now on tv news report just in.


Scientist have just discovered that due to a minor glitch in programing there was an offset of 1 digit in the DNA analyzer and as such instead of aborting future child molesters they were killing all those with blue eyes. So if you ever wondered about the shortage of blue eyed baby's now you know.

Replace "child molester" with alchoholic, down syndrom, whatever your pet peeve happens to be.

[Neserk]

I have several genetically predisposed conditions (Serious ones) and the potential for another (breast cancer) I would have liked for someone to have fixed them before I was born. The world would be a much better place without these things being in existence for me and people like me...

[wdlove]

I have several genetically predisposed conditions (Serious ones) and the potential for another (breast cancer) I would have liked for someone to have fixed them before I was born. The world would be a much better place without these things being in existence for me and people like me...

I'm sorry to hear that Neserk. Have you been able to get any genetic counseling? I happen to be in study now with a disease that I'm prone. Will get education, counseling, and genetic testing.

[HexMonkey]

As a few people have already said, upbringing plays a huge part in whether someone becomes a criminal. As an example, here's a quote from an interview with Steve Jobs in 1995 (interview available here (http://www.geocities.com/franktau/interviewpart1.html) ):

I know from my own education that if I hadn't encountered two or three individuals that spent extra time with me, I'm sure I would have been in jail. I'm 100% sure that if it hadn't been for Mrs. Hill in fourth grade and a few others, I would have absolutely have ended up in jail.

[Mr. Anderson]

Gatica - great movie, exactly the same issues here. There wouldn't be a 'perfect' world, just a place where things would be different and too much concern over how well you genes would be put together.

A happy medium would be nice, though. Screening and gene therapy for heart conditions, cancers, etc. would be nice - social issues wouldn't benefit as much. Sociopaths might be screened, but push anyone enough and you can get an individual that has characteristics less the agreeable.

D

[Neserk]

I'm sorry to hear that Neserk. Have you been able to get any genetic counseling? I happen to be in study now with a disease that I'm prone. Will get education, counseling, and genetic testing.

I've decided not to pursue using IVF as a means of getting pregnant so as not to pass on my genes. Is that what you mean?

As far as the Breast Cancer goes, odds are in my favor for several reasons. I would like to find out if I have the BRACA1 gene (I believe that is the correct one) because if I *do* carry the gene I'd like to do some preventive measures early enough to prevent the cancer if possible. The good news is that because my mother survived, if I get it I'm also likely to survive.

[carbonmotion]

Gatica - great movie, exactly the same issues here. There wouldn't be a 'perfect' world, just a place where things would be different and too much concern over how well you genes would be put together.

A happy medium would be nice, though. Screening and gene therapy for heart conditions, cancers, etc. would be nice - social issues wouldn't benefit as much. Sociopaths might be screened, but push anyone enough and you can get an individual that has characteristics less the agreeable.

D

Actually I quoted GATTACA in my paper; however, it is a movie ...so the soceity depicted is on the extreme side. I'm not advocating for a society where people are manufactured to some standard that is reminescient of a Nazi Enugenist's wet dream. If you ask most people who were born blind, deaf, or mute whether if given the option that they were given a supercharged body and mind instead of their current somewhat broken ones, *most* would say they'd want to be born normal. Again, im not saying if I'm personally for or against it ...but, to once again play the devil's advocate... while human genetic engineering can be have austere consequences, its potential benefits out weigh the risks. If approched carefully and emprically, it can be a path to a better society then the one we have now. Along with a modified educational system, genetic engineering can create a society full of responsible, mature, people ...who are intelligent and not easily swayed by propaganda like people of the current society. Can You imagine how much more productive humanity will be? Can you imagine how quickly our sciences will develop; how much the arts and literature will develop? A society where doctors rarely make mistakes, or a society with nearly no serial killers, wife beaters, dunkards, or drug abusers... Don't tell me you wouldn't want to live in a world like that.

[rainman::|:|]

A society where doctors rarely make mistakes, or a society with nearly no serial killers, wife beaters, dunkards, or drug abusers... Don't tell me you wouldn't want to live in a world like that.

Yes, that's perfect, a society devoid of undesirables such as:

-Pablo Picasso
-Thomas Jefferson
-Winston Churchill
-Helen Keller
-Stephen Hawking
-Marilyn Monroe

Sounds wonderful.

Humanity is both the bad as well as the good. Reminds me of the Think Different campaign... "The misfits, rebels, troublemakers. the round pegs in square holes." Eugenics is a natural function of a species, to a point. When one cannot reproduce, because of social rejection or physical defect, they are effectively taken from the gene pool. It's held good for billions of years, and I think we have no business meddling in it. Trying to create some sort of perfect human is a goal that's been around for a millenia, and it's always been rejected. Mary Shelly touched on it with Frankenstein. Hitler obviously used eugenics to a degree that we still don't (understand)(want to know about). That sort of power over life itself is so profoundly warping that no human beings can be entrusted with that sort of power. It could last a lifetime, at most, before power was seized by those with agendas, then religion would step in, pretty soon you'd have a society that was completely retarded in terms of genetic viability, and it would show it's ugly face when the first plague struck and struck hard, affecting everyone instead of only some. Nature protects the species by maintaining genetic viability, and once that's lost evolution halts. That's only the practical aspect, aside from the severe social ethics questions raised by the ability to screen births. The gender ratio would shift, males would soon overtake females. Fashion would dictate humanity, blue eyes this crop, green eyes being next season's fad.

I'll admit it, i'm particularly concerned with this concept because of it's implications on homosexuals. Even if it was proven genetic, there are still enough people out there that would turn to abortion or infanticide. This holds true for any genetic condition. It already happens now, when parents find out their children have a disease-- "mercy killings". Me, i don't want to see us find a new form of ethnic cleansing.

paul

[carbonmotion]

Yes, that's perfect, a society devoid of undesirables such as:

-Pablo Picasso
-Thomas Jefferson
-Winston Churchill
-Helen Keller
-Stephen Hawking
-Marilyn Monroe

Sounds wonderful.

Humanity is both the bad as well as the good. Reminds me of the Think Different campaign... "The misfits, rebels, troublemakers. the round pegs in square holes." Eugenics is a natural function of a species, to a point. When one cannot reproduce, because of social rejection or physical defect, they are effectively taken from the gene pool. It's held good for billions of years, and I think we have no business meddling in it. Trying to create some sort of perfect human is a goal that's been around for a millenia, and it's always been rejected. Mary Shelly touched on it with Frankenstein. Hitler obviously used eugenics to a degree that we still don't (understand)(want to know about). That sort of power over life itself is so profoundly warping that no human beings can be entrusted with that sort of power. It could last a lifetime, at most, before power was seized by those with agendas, then religion would step in, pretty soon you'd have a society that was completely retarded in terms of genetic viability, and it would show it's ugly face when the first plague struck and struck hard, affecting everyone instead of only some. Nature protects the species by maintaining genetic viability, and once that's lost evolution halts. That's only the practical aspect, aside from the severe social ethics questions raised by the ability to screen births. The gender ratio would shift, males would soon overtake females. Fashion would dictate humanity, blue eyes this crop, green eyes being next season's fad.

I'll admit it, i'm particularly concerned with this concept because of it's implications on homosexuals. Even if it was proven genetic, there are still enough people out there that would turn to abortion or infanticide. This holds true for any genetic condition. It already happens now, when parents find out their children have a disease-- "mercy killings". Me, i don't want to see us find a new form of ethnic cleansing.

paul

Yes, but because of your fear of loosing your indiviudality, can you truely gain the right to deprive of some poor genetically deficient girl or boy her/his right to live a life devoid of misrey? How many of those crippled would like to live a life of normality? Besides,pro-gen-engineers are not advocating for the extremes, such as selective termnation ...but rather selectively screen embryos for genetic defects such as cycstic fibrosis, cancer, or other such detrimental illness of that sort. As far as homosexuality goes... if it is determined that homosexuality is caused by a genetic defect, then would it be so wrong to correct the errored gene before birth?

[Bedawyn]

Yeah, but what if YOU were that tortured genius. Wouldn't you rather be normal?
Genius ain't all it's cracked up to be.

Nope. I wouldn't. And, yes, I'm speaking as someone with both a history of affective disorders and a tested IQ of genius level. (For whatever "tested IQ" is worth.)

Normal ain't all it's cracked up to be, either. I've met pretty damn few societal outsiders who'd really rather be normal. We may not want to be isolated or the side effects of the normals judging us, but that doesn't mean we actually want to _be_ what they consider normal, we just don't want to be punished for being ourselves. (No few of us would shudder in disgust at the thought of actually _being_ normal.)

I mean, come on, you have to have pretty low (as in nonexistent) self-esteem to want to actually be a different person entirely. And you would be a different person entirely -- this sort of thing affects far too much of your identity to just be picked out and leave the rest unchanged.

And even aside from the question of whether the tortured genius as an individual would want to be different, it would be bad for the society as a whole (and all the other individuals in the society). Bad bad bad. Boring doesn't even cut it... we're talking stagnant, unable to adapt, and evolutionarily doomed.

[rainman::|:|]

Yes, but because of your fear of loosing your indiviudality, can you truely gain the right to deprive of some poor genetically deficient girl or boy her/his right to live a life devoid of misrey? How many of those crippled would like to live a life of normality? Besides,pro-gen-engineers are not advocating for the extremes, such as selective termnation ...but rather selectively screen embryos for genetic defects such as cycstic fibrosis, cancer, or other such detrimental illness of that sort. As far as homosexuality goes... if it is determined that homosexuality is caused by a genetic defect, then would it be so wrong to correct the errored gene before birth?

What's the difference between a genetic defect and genetic diversity? The debate over gay marriage would be replaced with a debate over whether to abort "gay" fetuses. And don't tell me the engineers aren't looking towards abortion, that's the only tool we have right now, and it's already happening-- Once the technology starts to pick up, it'll be completely perverted as I said above. It'll be a long time before we figure out how to manipulate the genes of a fetus, in the meantime we're looking at abortion as our option. And I don't care what kind of disease the individual has, they have the right to be alive more than anything else-- you can't make that ultimate decision for them, because you find them to be defective. That's what it keeps coming down to, a moral and idealistic argument about terminating human lives because they aren't just-like-you. I'll bring up the old pro-life quote, updated a little:

If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis; and the fetus was already mostly-deaf and afflicted with a host of mental disorders, would you recommend that she "screen" the pregnancy? You just "screened" Beethoven right out of existence.

I should add, I am politically pro-choice, so this isn't an anti-abortion rant...

paul

[Bedawyn]

Yes, but because of your fear of loosing your indiviudality, can you truely gain the right to deprive of some poor genetically deficient girl or boy her/his right to live a life devoid of misrey? How many of those crippled would like to live a life of normality? Besides,pro-gen-engineers are not advocating for the extremes, such as selective termnation ...but rather selectively screen embryos for genetic defects such as cycstic fibrosis, cancer, or other such detrimental illness of that sort. As far as homosexuality goes... if it is determined that homosexuality is caused by a genetic defect, then would it be so wrong to correct the errored gene before birth?

The major problem here is that there's NO SUCH THING as a genetic defect. There are genetic mutations, that have certain results. Given Set A of environmental circumstances, those results will be detrimental. Given Set B, they will be beneficial. Someone with a genetic disease has mutations that are detrimental in the particular set of circumstances that we currently operate in. Those circumstances can change. Look at the sickle cell/malaria example. The mutation that makes certain people more susceptible to sickle cell anemia is "obviously" detrimental, right? Unless, of course, they live somewhere where malaria is endemic, in which case that same mutation is beneficial. And for something like homosexuality, that doesn't physiologically affect your survival, talking about "errored genes" is just ... skewed and bizarre. Genetically, it would a difference, not a defect -- there'd be nothing to "correct".

The other problem is that I think you're revising your "ideal society" from the one originally described without quite being clear about it. I don't think many people would object to optional genetic screening and engineering that doesn't involve transgenics and that allows individual parents to select or "fix" purely physical problems, diseases and such, that have clearly defined genetic origins and have been studied well enough that we can know, without a doubt, that the engineering to fix one problem isn't going to introduce another. The problems come when you start talking about mandatory screening and engineering (as would be necessary to ensure your homogenized society), areas such as mental illness that science barely begins to understand, social ills such as crime, and differences that some people think of as defects, such as homosexuality. And as others have said, even if you're not requiring termination, as soon as the screening is possible, termination will start to happen. It's happening now. It doesn't even require genetic engineering -- the widespread infanticide of girls in some parts of the world isn't new. And there are parts of the world (I want to say China, but I'm too lazy to look it up) where they're now paying the price of that selection -- where a society that allowed individual parents to make what they thought was the best choice as individuals, to have sons instead of daughters, is now having huge problems because decades later, the male/female ratio is totally screwed up.

[JesseJames]

To get your history a little straight. The notion that eugenics was something that those evil Nazis cooked up is incorrect. It was actually the U.S. that started it after World War I.
The powers-that-be were alarmed at the quality of recruits that they were getting. Mostly farm boys who were not much more than morons. So they decided to develop a program to gauge intelligence and physicality. It went from there to a burgeoning 'eugenics' program. I'm not knowledgeable about the details but to sum it up, eugenics started here in this country. The Nazis just took the idea and ran with it and turned it into the hot issue that it is today because of their insanity.
This country has a bad habit of doing stuff that comes around to bite us in the rear again and again. :rolleyes:

[rainman::|:|]

i agree with bedawyn 100%.

I'm not talking about correcting minor flaws here, a goal in line with the medical profession as a whole. When they first performed open-heart surgery on a fetus, i was on the edge of my seat, how incredibly wondrous that they can do that. If it was a matter of blocking a certain enzyme during development that would prevent alzheimers later, or prevent liver disease, fantastic. But that's an optimistic ideal at best, and again it depends on our ability to manipulate genetics with confidence that we're only doing a single thing-- something that's further away than our ability to screen embryos. So again, we're left with crude abortions which will invariably alter the natural genetic diversity and ratios that are essential to proper reproduction of the species. You're talking about something that is dangerous, new, and unknown, and the ends do NOT justify the means here. I would sleep a lot better at night knowing we allowed a girl to be born with cerebal palsy, than to know we aborted her and never gave her the chance. Look at helen keller for christssake! Sure to be screened, she lived in what most people imagine as hell. Yet she proved to be a great asset to humanity as a whole, and we are better off for having had her. It's all perspective.

paul

[Dros]

One ironic aspect of China's "one child" policy coupled with the selective abortion of girl fetuses is that the ruling party has practically sealed its fate. The current society has an upcoming generation that has at least a 3:1 ratio of males to females. Those males (that are heterosexual, at least) are going to be in a situation where all those hormones are going to be funneled into political radicalism and revolution. So it is true thta messing with a complex system has unexpected outcomes.

However, if I had screened my baby and it was shown that it would have cystic fibrosis and there didn't seem to be therapies on the horizon, I would have to think long and hard about bringing him/her into the world... a life expectancy in the twenties at the latest with incredible pain while alive. I'm sure it would inspire some people, but at what price. And maybe the next child would be "Beethoven". So I don't buy that argument.

[carbonmotion]

[QUOTE=Dros]One ironic aspect of China's "one child" policy coupled with the selective abortion of girl fetuses is that the ruling party has practically sealed its fate. The current society has an upcoming generation that has at least a 3:1 ratio of males to females. Those males (that are heterosexual, at least) are going to be in a situation where all those hormones are going to be funneled into political radicalism and revolution. So it is true thta messing with a complex system has unexpected outcomes.

However, if I had screened my baby and it was shown that it would have cystic fibrosis and there didn't seem to be therapies on the horizon, I would have to think long and hard about bringing him/her into the world... a life expectancy in the twenties at the latest with incredible pain while alive. I'm sure it would inspire some people, but at what price. And maybe the next child would be "Beethoven".


What if humans can be resistant to all deasies, to be intelliegent, atheletic, yet at the same time sensitive to the humanities. Would that not be a great and productive society? If the many higly intelligent and capable people behaved in cooperation, human progress would be tripled in a fraction of the time. Factionalism, triblism, and other insane and irrational aspects of humanity should be screened out, forever erased. What is nature but a gigantic random number generator which tends to work all too slowly. Its time to guide evolution with our own sentience... to shed those characteriscs which were so helpful when we were cave people, but now utterly useless and infact a detriment to society.

[Neserk]

Yes, that's perfect, a society devoid of undesirables such as:

-Pablo Picasso
-Thomas Jefferson
-Winston Churchill
-Helen Keller
-Stephen Hawking
-Marilyn Monroe

Sounds wonderful.


From my own standpoint it isn't that these people (or I) wouldn't exist it is simply that some of the problems we have wouldn't hinder us in the way they do.


Trying to create some sort of perfect human is a goal that's been around for a millenia, and it's always been rejected.


my goal wouldn't be to create a perfect human but rather to level the playing field. Something that some now do with medications. So what would be the difference between taking a drug or having surgery to attempt to level the playing field and fixing the problem so it doesn't exist?


The gender ratio would shift, males would soon overtake females. Fashion would dictate humanity, blue eyes this crop, green eyes being next season's fad.


That is where you have to have the create boundaries. Currently slightly more males are born than females, in the USA. You would want to keep that. (less males make it to the age of 15 where the ratio becomes 1:1) As far as eye/hair/skin color goes you would continue to allow genetic roulette create that, all though light skinned people are more prone to skin cancer and blue eyed people are more prone to blindness... You could eliminate nearsighted and far sightedness, though. Or you can do what I did and have surgery.


I'll admit it, i'm particularly concerned with this concept because of it's implications on homosexuals. Even if it was proven genetic, there are still enough people out there that would turn to abortion or infanticide. This holds true for any genetic condition. It already happens now, when parents find out their children have a disease-- "mercy killings". Me, i don't want to see us find a new form of ethnic cleansing.

paul

I can see where this could be a problem. The solution is simple. You don't go there. There is no reason for people not to be gay so you leave it be. I really doubt it is something you could "fix" anyhow. I doubt it is strictly genetic even though it appears to be determined at a very young age (possibly birth).

I would personally be in favor of fixing things like nearsightedness, cancer, heart disease, birth defects, and other genetically related problems *not* aborting the fetus.

[rainman::|:|]

From my own standpoint it isn't that these people (or I) wouldn't exist it is simply that some of the problems we have wouldn't hinder us in the way they do.

my goal wouldn't be to create a perfect human but rather to level the playing field. Something that some now do with medications. So what would be the difference between taking a drug or having surgery to attempt to level the playing field and fixing the problem so it doesn't exist?

That is where you have to have the create boundaries. Currently slightly more males are born than females, in the USA. You would want to keep that. (less males make it to the age of 15 where the ratio becomes 1:1) As far as eye/hair/skin color goes you would continue to allow genetic roulette create that, all though light skinned people are more prone to skin cancer and blue eyed people are more prone to blindness... You could eliminate nearsighted and far sightedness, though. Or you can do what I did and have surgery.

I can see where this could be a problem. The solution is simple. You don't go there. There is no reason for people not to be gay so you leave it be. I really doubt it is something you could "fix" anyhow. I doubt it is strictly genetic even though it appears to be determined at a very young age (possibly birth).

I would personally be in favor of fixing things like nearsightedness, cancer, heart disease, birth defects, and other genetically related problems *not* aborting the fetus.

Yes, these are amiable, lofty goals. The idea that medicine is able to show restraint enough to apply this absurdly powerful new tool is a nice one... After medicine perfected medical implants, it killed countless women through unsafe cosmetic surgeries. It still does. Medicine today has powerful abilities to alter the human body, to repair skin that's burnt or to implant teeth if you lose them. And yet, the necessary applications of this are dwarfed by how it's used in plastic surgery, always at risk of the patient. Now you'll be able to produce a child with the narrow face you want, high cheekbones, blonde hair. The medicinal use of the technology will again be dwarfed by the cosmetic-- To me, this sounds like thalidomide, made to order. Sure, produce a line of kids in the current fashion, they'll all be magically resistant to HIV. Wow, imagine the benefit that would bring to society. Eradicating AIDS in a single generation. Unfortunately, tweaking the genetic code like you did, their immune systems crash anyway at age 35, and before you even saw it coming, you've lost entire crops to the common cold.

I hope you're playing devil's advocate with all of this, carbonmotion. Because any follower of science must understand the fallacy involved in taking the reigns of human evolution. It doesn't take a chaotician to say that humans need a *lot* more knowledge and experience (like, hundreds of years) with genetics to make a leap like this, and any ethicist will tell you how quickly capitalism would pervert the science into something purely dangerous.

My summary of objections:
• Danger associated with commercialization of such a technology;
• Threat to sustained genetic viability of entire human race;
• Questions regarding what constitutes a repairable "disorder" and what constitutes necessary genetic diversity;
• Threat of widespread unintended consequences generations down the line;
• Current unavailability to genetic engineer or repair embryos, results in abortion as only path of choice for "undesirables".

Once humans have had the ability to manipulate genes for a few hundred years, without causing damage, and there exists some power uncorruptable in every way to administer the technology, then ask me. Not until.

paul

[Neserk]

My summary of objections:
• Danger associated with commercialization of such a technology;
• Threat to sustained genetic viability of entire human race;
• Questions regarding what constitutes a repairable "disorder" and what constitutes necessary genetic diversity;
• Threat of widespread unintended consequences generations down the line;
• Current unavailability to genetic engineer or repair embryos, results in abortion as only path of choice for "undesirables".



I would agree with all your objections.

[question fear]

I agree with Paul's fears, especially fears of aborting homosexual babies. It's in the gray areas like these that I fear there would be abuse.
There was a movie once, about a gay man whose sister is told her unborn child will be gay, and she contemplates abortion...the major moral dilemma is that his family on the surface loves and accepts their gay brother/son...so why abort a future gay baby?

i've never seen it so i dont know the details, but its always intrigued me, and it seems to set up an excellent juxtaposition of what we believe and what we want to believe.

[carbonmotion]

I agree with Paul's fears, especially fears of aborting homosexual babies. It's in the gray areas like these that I fear there would be abuse.
There was a movie once, about a gay man whose sister is told her unborn child will be gay, and she contemplates abortion...the major moral dilemma is that his family on the surface loves and accepts their gay brother/son...so why abort a future gay baby?

i've never seen it so i dont know the details, but its always intrigued me, and it seems to set up an excellent juxtaposition of what we believe and what we want to believe. Much like the dawn of atomic weapons, the proliferation of human genetic engineering in an inevitablility. Yes the power as the potential for the end of humanity as we know it, but it also has the power to end humanity as we know it; one of bigotry, racism, and and many many horrible deeds.

[amnesiac1984]

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for life.

yeah, but what has that got to do with anything?

[skunk]

yeah, but what has that got to do with anything?
He likes that quote, that's all... ;)

[skunk]

Sounds to me like universal screening ends up with everyone having a barcode tattooed on their foreheads. If this information becomes available generally, the insurance market would have a field day. Many people would be regarded as unemployable on the basis of an estimate.
I'd say that apart from obvious physical problems which are treatable, and which are already often picked up before birth, the diversity of problems people have to deal with in life enriches us.

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for life.

yeah, but what has that got to do with anything?
You don't improve poor countries by throwing money at them like social wellfare for those types of fixes are temporary. You show these countries how to fix themselves by growing their own food, by using what they have like the chinese and starting from the ground floor making things that other countries will buy. Throwing money at those who just sit around and spend that money without doing anything for themselves is a waste of tax payers dollars. So its better to teach them how to fish, how to grow their own food, and how to become a cog in the world economy.

[wwidgirl]

You don't improve poor countries by throwing money at them like social wellfare for those types of fixes are temporary. You show these countries how to fix themselves by growing their own food, by using what they have like the chinese and starting from the ground floor making things that other countries will buy. Throwing money at those who just sit around and spend that money without doing anything for themselves is a waste of tax payers dollars. So its better to teach them how to fish, how to grow their own food, and how to become a cog in the world economy.

What does that have to do with social engineering?

And regarding the person who said this kind of engineering was inevitable much like atomic weapons- THIS IS NOT SO. The "progress" of technology is not inevitable nor is it neutral. Society CHOOSES what it will accept as viable technology, it chooses what technology it will pursue. Personally, I don't believe this is desirable technology for all the reasons listed already.

[SlyHunter]

What does that have to do with social engineering?

And regarding the person who said this kind of engineering was inevitable much like atomic weapons- THIS IS NOT SO. The "progress" of technology is not inevitable nor is it neutral. Society CHOOSES what it will accept as viable technology, it chooses what technology it will pursue. Personally, I don't believe this is desirable technology for all the reasons listed already.
I realize its hard to see sometimes where a comment is made in context due to the stripping of old quotes when you put in a reply. So as to see the whole thought and how it came about in this thread I post the following.


Originally Posted by MoparShaha
Not to start another topic here, but if we ensured that everyone had enough to eat and had all basic needs met, instead of 3/4 of the world living in poverty, perhaps we would already have a perfect society.
Quote:

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for life.

Originally Posted by amnesiac1984
yeah, but what has that got to do with anything?


Originally Posted by SlyHunter
You don't improve poor countries by throwing money at them like social wellfare for those types of fixes are temporary. You show these countries how to fix themselves by growing their own food, by using what they have like the chinese and starting from the ground floor making things that other countries will buy. Throwing money at those who just sit around and spend that money without doing anything for themselves is a waste of tax payers dollars. So its better to teach them how to fish, how to grow their own food, and how to become a cog in the world economy.

It has nothing to do with social engineering but simply a reply to something someone actually said.

[carbonmotion]

What does that have to do with social engineering?

And regarding the person who said this kind of engineering was inevitable much like atomic weapons- THIS IS NOT SO. The "progress" of technology is not inevitable nor is it neutral. Society CHOOSES what it will accept as viable technology, it chooses what technology it will pursue. Personally, I don't believe this is desirable technology for all the reasons listed already. You're wrong, wrong wrong wrong. If society could make a fair choice, it would indicate that society would know how the future outcome of this new technology would be like... Since society simply do not know the results in absolute terms, therefore society really doesn't choose. For example, society didn't choose the invention of chemical, biological, and atomic weapons... they didn't choose to develop space travel... in each senario, these were reactions to current geo-political situations. Cause and effect.

[Bedawyn]

Much like the dawn of atomic weapons, the proliferation of human genetic engineering in an inevitablility. Yes the power as the potential for the end of humanity as we know it, but it also has the power to end humanity as we know it; one of bigotry, racism, and and many many horrible deeds.

No. It does NOT have that power. If that is what you believe genetic engineering is capable of, then your understanding of genetics and genetic engineering is badly badly flawed and you badly need to do more real research into the topic before you go any further with your paper. I suggest you look at the science and not at hype written by people with no understanding of science. I'm going to quote from the introduction to the book I linked to earlier:

Genes are not enough. They have little predictive power at the level of the individual and they do not override the many other influences on behavior. In fact, it's fair to claim the following statement, though it is unproven and probably unprovable: Based on your genes, no one can say what kind of human being you will turn out to be or what you will do in life. If you can only learn one thing about behavioral genetics, that statement should be it.

The book this is quoted from, by the way, isn't an advocacy tool, isn't for people against genetic engineering. It's a publication of possibly the most respected scientific organization in the world, which very much supports genetic engineering in general, written specifically for this purpose -- so nonscientists can have the tools and understanding they need to discuss behavioral genetics issues and know what they are talking about.

What you are proposing is the equivalent of saying "Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could colonize the moon? All we have to do is sail a ship behind the moon as it sets -- when we follow it across the horizon, we'll fall off the edge of the world and land on the moon!" Yeah, it would be great if we could colonize the moon, if we could have a perfect society (though that still begs the question of who defines "perfect") -- but it ain't gonna happen that way. It just ain't.

[amnesiac1984]

You don't improve poor countries by throwing money at them like social wellfare for those types of fixes are temporary. You show these countries how to fix themselves by growing their own food, by using what they have like the chinese and starting from the ground floor making things that other countries will buy. Throwing money at those who just sit around and spend that money without doing anything for themselves is a waste of tax payers dollars. So its better to teach them how to fish, how to grow their own food, and how to become a cog in the world economy.

Understood and agreed, but I think you comment slightly missed the point and the guy was only suggesting that something should be done about world poverty, If you teach everyone to fish then its still a solution.

But I think the real issue here is the way the world works at the moment. Do you not think that 3/4 of the world who are poor are not already trying to fish (to carry on the metaphor).? I mean, part of the reason WHY they are living in abject poverty is because the west has walked all over them ever since the west has had the ability to go there, and not much is different now, in fact its probably a lot worse. We have entire countries economies depending on American factories operating there and paying the workers very small wages. How do you expect them to get richer, there is no alternative employment offering better wages and so they come over here, oh but wait they're still poor. The model of globalisation could work, its just that we've spent the last 100 years writing the trade rules to suit ourselves and not fair. These huge companies exist purely as a middle man between a sweatshop and the consumer, and they take 99.9% of the profits. It doesn't have to be that way, but it is.

[carbonmotion]

No. It does NOT have that power. If that is what you believe genetic engineering is capable of, then your understanding of genetics and genetic engineering is badly badly flawed and you badly need to do more real research into the topic before you go any further with your paper. I suggest you look at the science and not at hype written by people with no understanding of science. I'm going to quote from the introduction to the book I linked to earlier:

Genes are not enough. They have little predictive power at the level of the individual and they do not override the many other influences on behavior. In fact, it's fair to claim the following statement, though it is unproven and probably unprovable: Based on your genes, no one can say what kind of human being you will turn out to be or what you will do in life. If you can only learn one thing about behavioral genetics, that statement should be it.

The book this is quoted from, by the way, isn't an advocacy tool, isn't for people against genetic engineering. It's a publication of possibly the most respected scientific organization in the world, which very much supports genetic engineering in general, written specifically for this purpose -- so nonscientists can have the tools and understanding they need to discuss behavioral genetics issues and know what they are talking about.

What you are proposing is the equivalent of saying "Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could colonize the moon? All we have to do is sail a ship behind the moon as it sets -- when we follow it across the horizon, we'll fall off the edge of the world and land on the moon!" Yeah, it would be great if we could colonize the moon, if we could have a perfect society (though that still begs the question of who defines "perfect") -- but it ain't gonna happen that way. It just ain't.

@_@ yeah , it can't happen... you're right. flying is impossible, space travel is impossible, personal computers are impossible. the fact is, the things that people like you say are impossible, become a reality faster then you can imagine.

[amnesiac1984]

@_@ yeah , it can't happen... you're right. flying is impossible, space travel is impossible, personal computers are impossible. the fact is, the things that people like you say are impossible, become a reality faster then you can imagine.

there is a difference between doubting the potential of a new technology and actually understanding that it isn't going to happen because of the very nature of the technology.

[carbonmotion]

there is a difference between doubting the potential of a new technology and actually understanding that it isn't going to happen because of the very nature of the technology. there are plenty of scientific articles stating the contrary of what youre saying.

[Bedawyn]

there are plenty of scientific articles stating the contrary of what youre saying.

Please provide the citations for these, if not the links.

It's not about, as said above, the potential for new technology or predicting what science will know in the future. It's about what we know now. We know now that the Earth isn't flat. We know now that behavioral traits are too multifactorial for a genetic engineering approach to be able to wipe out "negative" traits that aren't controlled strictly by genes, even assuming the genes influencing those traits had no effects on other "beneficial" traits.

[amnesiac1984]

there are plenty of scientific articles stating the contrary of what youre saying.

I understand completely your point, my point is that I don't think it applies in this case. We already know that genes that affect your behaviour only affect the behaviour if the conditions are right in the persons environment. This is basic school biology, I learned this when I was 14. obviously I can't rule out the fact that someone might come along and prove that it is the case and completely rewrite all we know about genetic vs. environmental factors that make up a person.

Personally I believe that any genes we have linked to our behaviour will control a set few characteristics that may have some sway in shaping us but I do not believe there is a "criminal gene". You simply can't judge genetics on societies morals, If indeed there is a link found between a particular Gene and criminals, how do we know that this gene isn't a really positive character trait that, due to the persons unfortunate upbringing, and the same gene that turned one person to crime may well be the secret of someone else's overwhelming success.

People don't commit crimes because they want to break the law, there is a whole number of reasons why they might commit a crime. Thats why crime, as a social disease, has no specific cure because it is a common sympton among a plethora of different problems.

[skunk]

There is a difference between inventing a computer and deciding the criteria for a perfect society. We can all agree on the definition of a computer, but who is to say if a society is perfect?

[Neserk]

I wondered when they would move this thread over here...

[amnesiac1984]

I wondered when they would move this thread over here...
eeek, sorry, I'm probably partly to blame.