Eugenics

[Exarch]

One of my much loved films is Gattaca (1997) starring Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman, and it occurred to me, that some people might actually perceive the society in Gattaca as utopic.
With that in mind, i've decided to open a discussion on the viability of eugenics in the present and foreseeable future.

When i say eugenics, i'm not referring to stupid nazi ideology of a wholly blonde population that isnt evolutionarily beneficial; when i refer to eugenics, i'm referring to applying the means by which one can ensure that their child is 'the very best of him and her'.
Think about it, a population free of down's syndrome, proteus syndrome, myopia and other genetic diseases.
how would it impact on the collective genome of our species? would we find ourselves unable to cope without the natural mutations inherant in nature?
And do you agree with a society like that of Gattaca, whereby efforts are made to ensure that one's child is 'the best of him and her' ie designer babies.
go nuts.
Discuss.

PS pls pls pls back up ur arguments with links and sources. i'm hoping this thread will educate some of us on genetics and ethics.

[rathelios]

What's wrong with eugenics? I'm assuming you mean controlling the gene pool by legal and moral means via genetic manipulation of the germ line cells, for example. Not the way the evil Nazis and certain other geographically proximate countries tried to do in the twentieth century. So in purely abstract non political terms this is why it's bad:

Darwin's finches are the perfect example. (Yes this is an oversimplification for the sake of a clearer narrative.) These birds, which live on the Galapagos Islands, have different sized beaks. There are lots with average sized beaks, and hardly any with smaller and larger beaks. (This distribution is in the shape of a Bell curve and is common throughout all traits in all living creatures everywhere.) The average size is best adapted to food source. Every once in a while the Islands' climate changes vastly. Then the best beak size for getting food is no longer what used to be the average. So the finches with what is now the wrong sized beaks die and those who used to have freakishly long or freakishly short beaks take over and become the new norm. Until the climate changes again, that is.

So if humanity tries to engineer itself to be genetically perfect it may end up killing itself off. An unforeseen disease or huge change in environmental conditions may wipe us out. We have a better chance at survival if we are as genetically diverse as possible. In addition what seems like a negative trait may in fact become a positive one in the future or confer some previously unknown resistance to a particular disease.

[Syron]

Darwin's finches are the perfect example. (Yes this is an oversimplification for the sake of a clearer narrative.) These birds, which live on the Galapagos Islands, have different sized beaks. There are lots with average sized beaks, and hardly any with smaller and larger beaks. (This distribution is in the shape of a Bell curve and is common throughout all traits in all living creatures everywhere.) The average size is best adapted to food source. Every once in a while the Islands' climate changes vastly. Then the best beak size for getting food is no longer what used to be the average. So the finches with what is now the wrong sized beaks die and those who used to have freakishly long or freakishly short beaks take over and become the new norm. Until the climate changes again, that is.

So if humanity tries to engineer itself to be genetically perfect it may end up killing itself off. An unforeseen disease or huge change in environmental conditions may wipe us out. We have a better chance at survival if we are as genetically diverse as possible. In addition what seems like a negative trait may in fact become a positive one in the future or confer some previously unknown resistance to a particular disease.

Indeed. I think Humans are too stupid at the moment to use large scale genetic engineering wisely. Evolution is a complex system involving thousands of factors. We simply don't have the scientific understanding to predict the consequences.

its just that the genetically malformed can sometimes produce treasures for the knowledge of humanity--- namely in the famous stephen hawking, whom is genetically deficient, in that he has lou gerhigs disease I think.

im all for a race of atomic supermen, but we may miss some of our greatest advances hidden in the minds of the malformed.

I find that a particularly poor argument however. That would really only make sense if their genius were related to the fact that they had "x" deformity. It's not, a people that use genetic engineering would not "loose" anything in that sense.


Of course however, varying that argument slightly, we know a number of "genetic diseases" can actually have beneficial effects. Sickle cell anemia against malaria for example, so eliminating some diseases could harm certain populations and also research into other diseases.

[Ummagumma]

The only thing that struck me is that if we were to have an engineered population of 4 minute mile runners and IQ's averaging at 200 is that the working week would still probably be 60+ hours, art would still be subjective and you would still find your wife's brother annoying..
(Conveniently sidesteps the 'Morlock' style underclass that could not afford/did not have access to engineered babies, who in turn did not have access, etc. etc.)

[Chaigidel]

its just that the genetically malformed can sometimes produce treasures for the knowledge of humanity--- namely in the famous stephen hawking, whom is genetically deficient, in that he has lou gerhigs disease I think.

im all for a race of atomic supermen, but we may miss some of our greatest advances hidden in the minds of the malformed.

[Cluny the Scourge]

Humanity is too stupid to use most technologies wisely - we can't let that hold us back. It's better to err on the side of danger than on the side of caution - the one moves mankind forward into the future, while the more weak-minded approach of the conservative who jerks his knee in horror at the thought of change makes him the enemy of mankind. I strongly support the development of gentech for the improvement of the human race - to make us stronger, smarter and more capable. Only a fool would think otherwise.

[Syron]

Humanity is too stupid to use most technologies wisely - we can't let that hold us back.

Few (almost none) technologies have the ability to wipe mankind out however....

I strongly support the development of gentech for the improvement of the human race - to make us stronger, smarter and more capable. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Ok, so can your kids be the test subjects?


I am not against the research, i just think full-scale use is currently unwise.

[rathelios]

Humanity is too stupid to use most technologies wisely - we can't let that hold us back. It's better to err on the side of danger than on the side of caution - the one moves mankind forward into the future, while the more weak-minded approach of the conservative who jerks his knee in horror at the thought of change makes him the enemy of mankind. I strongly support the development of gentech for the improvement of the human race - to make us stronger, smarter and more capable. Only a fool would think otherwise.

The number of genetic manipulation technologies currently being researched that involve irrevocably changing the course of human evolution can be counted on the fingers of one foot. Something I suggest you remove from your mouth before putting fingers to keyboard the next time.
Genetically engineering rice is one thing. Humanity has been messing around with the genes of domesticated crops and animals for tens of thousands of years with selective breeding programs.
Screwing up the genes of future generations of people is a ****** creek of a different order of magnitude.
In general erring on the side of danger does have a number of key drawbacks. The most obvious being the terminal nature of most of the likely outcomes. Take crossing the motorway blindfolded, for example, or gargling with bleach, or bungee jumping without the rope.
Only a mentally deficient imbecile would think otherwise.

[Cluny the Scourge]

Screwing up the genes of future generations of people is a ****** creek of a different order of magnitude.

Technology is improved by trial and error, learning what does and does not work. If there are mistakes then improve techniques and apply it to the "screwed up" future generations.

In general erring on the side of danger does have a number of key drawbacks. The most obvious being the terminal nature of most of the likely outcomes. Take crossing the motorway blindfolded, for example, or gargling with bleach, or bungee jumping without the rope.

The individual dies - groups die - the human race as a whole moves forward.

Only a mentally deficient imbecile would think otherwise.

If he were some sort of divinely-inspired idiot-savant imbecile with a deeper, clearer insight into the truth than is possible for an ordinary mind fettered by sanity and reason - yes.

[Da Skinna]

It's like giving small children the decision to choose abortions for people.

Not wise.

[allthesedamnnamesaretaken]

I think society is already moving in this direction. There are already genetic analyses that can be done to see if you have hereditarily increased risks for breast cancer and other ailments.

I myself have male-pattern color-blindness, and there is potential for my children to inherit the trait or be genetic carriers. If there are genetic analyses to check for genetic diseases and fix them before conception, I would gladly undergo the procedures.

Gattaca, however, is an extreme. I don't see the need for discrimination against people with genetic defects like in the movie, as there didn't seem to be any significant difference in the mental and physical capacities of the genetically engineered and the regulars.

The only instance where I would see some level of discrimination to make sense is if the significance was huge (say 100%+ performance increase), and the operation of machinery and software, etc were designed such that a lower level of performance was unacceptable in terms of efficiency, safety, or productivity.

[Exarch]

an interesting thing about the dating scene in 'gattaca' was that ppl would sometimes pick up a DNA sample (say a strand of hair, an eyelash etc) and have it sequenced to determine any potential genetic defects in any prospective lover.
altho it says something about the culture of 'Gattaca', could that society be us?

[Da Skinna]

Unfortunately, the banal reality of man is that we learn from our mistakes, at least for a while.

The world let the Holocaust happen, it let Rwanda happen, it let Congo happen, it let Britney Spears happen, we don't learn until we learn from our mistakes. While millions of people were brutally killed during these conflicts, except for Britney (we just have a sick enjoyment of watching her spiral downward on TMZ...) it moved, or at least tried, or at least the Holocaust did, moved humanity as a whole forward.

Our history is damned to repeat itself when we learn nothing from it. In an age of small attention spans, in a culture of convenience, and an economic system that rewards those who cut the throats of others, does eugenics sound like a good idea?

My analogy of giving small children the decision to choose abortions for other people holds here. Small children, or us, still have a long ways to go before we understand abortion, or eugenics, or transhumanism or whatever, but give us the decision now and we will invariably believe we made the right decision.