21'st Century Eugenics

[Amphictyonis]

"If you really are stupid, I would call that a disease.... So I'd like to get rid of that.... Those parents who enhance their children, then their children are going to be the ones who dominate the world.... People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."

-Nobel laureate James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA-

This guy also helped establish the human genome project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project

Master race of bourgeoisie? The thought of it errks me to the bone.

[NewSocialist]

Let's say that Mr. Watson's hypothesis is correct (though I don't think it is) and assume human intelligence is at least partly genetically determined. He's claiming that one day parents will be able to choose not only their children's level of intelligence, but also their physical appearance. In a socialist society, such technology would not be monopolized by the bougeoisie (since they wouldn't exist) and, theorhetically, everyone could be born highly intelligent. I don't see why this would be a bad thing. No one would be killed in the process, it wouldn't be used by the bourgeois as a weapon of class warfare, or anything of the sort. If anything, if their gene theory is correct (though it probably isn't), the genetic engineering techology would be liberating for the human race.

[Tablo]

I think it is a wonderful idea. We can eliminate genetic diseases, increase brain capacity, improve social functions, and millions of other things. I have no qualms with it. Transhumanism is the future. I like humans and I like being one, but to reject such positive change is a mistake. It would be like we discovered fire and decided we wouldn't use it because we could get burned.

[manic expression]

James Watson says stupid things. Sure, he helped discover DNA, but he and his partner were shamelessly piggy-backing on the crucial advances made by far better scientists (Rosalind Franklin, to name one of a few). For crying out loud, this is the same guy who thinks darker skin color means a higher sex drive. He's still living in the 1950's because his stroke of luck back then is the only reason anyone knows his name.

[Amphictyonis]

James Watson says stupid things. Sure, he helped discover DNA, but he and his partner were shamelessly piggy-backing on the crucial advances made by far better scientists (Rosalind Franklin, to name one of a few). For crying out loud, this is the same guy who thinks darker skin color means a higher sex drive. He's still living in the 1950's because his stroke of luck back then is the only reason anyone knows his name.

There's still a problem with rich people genetically modifying their children.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The world could do with less stupidity and ugliness.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The world could do with less stupidity and ugliness.

I'd rather be with smart ugly people than dumb hot people...long term wise. If we're talking about sex, hell I'll take the latter. :thumbup1:

[Tablo]

The issue with the changing of looks though is that everyone has their own standard of beauty and I don't think it is the best idea to start setting a genetic standard..

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The issue with the changing of looks though is that everyone has their own standard of beauty and I don't think it is the best idea to start setting a genetic standard..

If everyone has their own standard of beauty, how is genetics going to change that?

[Milk Sheikh]

What if the bourgeois only makes certain people superior and the rest of the 'lower castes' must therefore slog for them (something like Brave new world)? Or, like Khan and his army in Star Trek?

[Widerstand]

The issue with the changing of looks though is that everyone has their own standard of beauty and I don't think it is the best idea to start setting a genetic standard..

While you are right in that I don't think parents should be allowed to "design" their children, I'm every bit for people being allowed to "design" themselves.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

While you are right in that I don't think parents should be allowed to "design" their children...

Why not? As long as there are certain standards (for example, you're not allowed to give your children traits like a lower pain threshold or any other deliberate handicap), I don't see what's wrong with that. Most parents want nothing but the best for their children; intelligence, beauty, sociability. Some parents may place an emphasis on certain characteristics, but I think there is enough diversity of opinion (intellectual vs physical pursuits, for example) to ensure a healthy variation.

[Widerstand]

Why not? As long as there are certain standards (for example, you're not allowed to give your children traits like a lower pain threshold or any other deliberate handicap), I don't see what's wrong with that. Most parents want nothing but the best for their children; intelligence, beauty, sociability. Some parents may place an emphasis on certain characteristics, but I think there is enough diversity of opinion (intellectual vs physical pursuits, for example) to ensure a healthy variation.

Would you also be fine with the elimination of non-neurotypical people? Also, most parents subscribe to beauty standards just the same as everyone else. I think a lot of phenotypes would effectively cease to exist, and it's not hard to imagine social discrimination against those failing to meet these standards - just look at the distribution of child names, there are few popular ones and a lot that aren't, I can imagine the same happening to other traits, for example lots of blonde people and a few with other colored hair. Of course similar could happen if people design themselves, but I think it's less likely.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Would you also be fine with the elimination of non-neurotypical people?

There'd be nothing stopping people from having non-neurotypical children; being different isn't a handicap.


Also, most parents subscribe to beauty standards just the same as everyone else. I think a lot of phenotypes would effectively cease to exist, and it's not hard to imagine social discrimination against those failing to meet these standards - just look at the distribution of child names, there are few popular ones and a lot that aren't, I can imagine the same happening to other traits, for example lots of blonde people and a few with other colored hair. Of course similar could happen if people design themselves, but I think it's less likely.

I don't think names is as good an example as you seem to think. Sure there are lots of Johns and Davids, but there are still plenty of Bartholomews and Olivers about.

And I'm not certain that beauty standards are so uniform worldwide either. Sure the leggy blonde may be promoted in the mainstream Western media, but there are still such things as local tastes and subcultures.

[ZeroNowhere]

Most parents want nothing but the best for their children; intelligence, beauty, sociability.I'm not sure that wanting a child to be highly sociable is necessarily wanting 'the best' for them?

[Amphictyonis]

I'm not talking about genetic engineering in a future egalitarian society where EVERYONE would have equal access to the technology I'm talking about germline genetic engineering right here in the United States under capitalism. This should be opposed.

[piet11111]

Genetic engineering can only take you so far the real advancements happen when we transcend biological limits.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm not talking about genetic engineering in a future egalitarian society where EVERYONE would have equal access to the technology I'm talking about germline genetic engineering right here in the United States under capitalism. This should be opposed.

No. Suppression of technology never works; all it does is drive it underground or elsewhere. It's a much better idea to get germline engineering subsidised so it is within the grasp of more people than it otherwise would be. Opposing it would simply put the technology into the hands of the people willing to break the law to use it.

[NGNM85]

Genetic engineering is a powerful tool with wide-reaching implications. Anything with such powerful repercussions obligates us to exercise responsibility, the greater the repercussions, the greater the responsibility. However, to say some science or technology is simply forbidden, to simply declare it an an 'ought' is irrational, this is a religious way of thinking. For example, how is the human race benefitted by Huntington's Chorea? Or Tay-Sachs? Or Cystic Fibrosis? Some human beings afflicted with terrible genetic diseases, like stephen Hawking. However, I find it difficult to accept that Steven Hawking would not be just as good a physicist (If not a better one.) if he were not afflicted with this terrible illness. What about alcoholism? What about our fat insulin receptors that hold on to every calorie because of outdated evolutionary software that was designed for primitive hunter-gatherers? We must also recognize hubris in this idea that humans are so perfect already, I think even a cursory study of biology or history would show that is a dubious asessment, at best.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Aren't we completely disregarding the very definition of the term "beauty"? I mean, there are people who see beauty beyond simple looks, so why should we just turn everyone physically "beautiful"? It doesn't make sense why anyone would want to physically alter ones looks just because others may not like it. Are we then not just bowing down to the norms of our conformed society?

[Amphictyonis]

No. Suppression of technology never works; all it does is drive it underground or elsewhere. It's a much better idea to get germline engineering subsidised so it is within the grasp of more people than it otherwise would be. Opposing it would simply put the technology into the hands of the people willing to break the law to use it.

I'll see your disagreement and raise you one :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'll see your disagreement and raise you one :)

OK, but I explained why I disagreed. Could you at least return the favour?

[Ocean Seal]

"If you really are stupid, I would call that a disease.... So I'd like to get rid of that.... Those parents who enhance their children, then their children are going to be the ones who dominate the world.... People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."

-Nobel laureate James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA-

This guy also helped establish the human genome project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project

Master race of bourgeoisie? The thought of it errks me to the bone.
Don't forget that this man is also a raving racist. I have a greater disgust for him than for anyone else, because he is a scientist and yet he still keeps on throwing stupid sexist, racist, and capitalist bullshit around. This man is an absolute fuckwad who lets his personal beliefs get in the way of actual science.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2677098.ece

If stupidity is a disease then he certainly has a very bad case of it.