Genetic Engineering / Eugenics

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Assuming we do not force people into doing something, should society promote voluntary eugenics policies? Not killing people of course, but, if a child could be born without a disability, or with a higher IQ, should this be encouraged?

In fact, one could argue that there is a moral obligation to genetical alter our future generations. After all, the improvement of the gene pool could save humanity from some inconvienent and sometimes even painful realities.

To me, this seems like a obvious choice - yes. However, something makes me hesitate. If children with problems (or disadvantages) are seeing other families provide their children with stronger muscles, faster legs, et cetera, will non-improved (for lack of a better word) individuals feel intrinsically inferior? Will this result in distinctions between individuals that results in a perpetuation of a capitalist society?

My last comment was streching quite far, but I want to provoke discussion. Even as I write this, I am uncertain as to whether or not the idea that certain individuals will feel inferior in a pro-eugenics society is true - do I have logical basis to suggest such a thing?

[MysticArcher]

It's an interesting question

I think the breakthroughs that will allow surefire, easy gene alteration (namely targeted addition of genes and 100% effective gene delivery vectors) to people before their born will also allow gene alteration post-birth

so I actual think it could be a non-issue, people who wish to tak advantage of gene alteration could simply get their genes altered

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm not sure about alterinhg one's genetic material after birth - remember that you have billions of cells in your body, and I don't see them being changed quickly at all.

But yes, it should be possible to correct any problems in the womb such as Down's Syndrome. It doesn't really have anything to do with pseudoscientific nazi-esque eugenics programs.

[Janus]

I wouldn't mind correcting problems before birth as I'm sure that future technology would allow for this.


Assuming we do not force people into doing something, should society promote voluntary eugenics policies? Not killing people of course, but, if a child could be born without a disability, or with a higher IQ, should this be encouraged?
These types of people have a higher chance of finding a mate so there is a grater chance that their genes will be proliferated.

[Avtomatov]

I dont think the chance of a retard having children is less then an intelligent person. If anything a retard doesnt know how to use birth control. And a person who is just stupid probably doesnt either, and they are probably having sex earlier then intelligent people.

[Janus]

I dont think the chance of a retard having children is less then an intelligent person.
I'm saying that they have less of a chance to find a mate.


If anything a retard doesnt know how to use birth control.
If they are that slow then they are probably not living a normal life but rather in an institution or other.


And a person who is just stupid probably doesnt either, and they are probably having sex earlier then intelligent people.
Not really, their emotional maturity is a bit slower.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Generalissimo+Jul 20 2006, 11:23 AM--> (Generalissimo @ Jul 20 2006, 11:23 AM) I dont think the chance of a retard having children is less then an intelligent person. If anything a retard doesnt know how to use birth control. And a person who is just stupid probably doesnt either, and they are probably having sex earlier then intelligent people. [/b]
"Retard"

You're an asshole.


noXion
I'm not sure about alterinhg one's genetic material after birth - remember that you have billions of cells in your body, and I don't see them being changed quickly at all.

Somatic therapy is the genetic manipulation of somatic post birth cells and has been around just as long a germline therapy.

Remember, somatic therapy targets specific groups of somatic cells and considering how rapid cells propagate, I doubt the time frame would be all that dramatic.

[Avtomatov]

How am i an asshole? Just because i dont want to change the words i use every decade when they become offensive so i can be politically correct. Retard actually meens something, i wasnt using it as an insult.

And also i didnt meen the retard doesnt know how to put a condom on, i meant he is so stupid he wont put it on because he doesnt think of the risks.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 10:45 PM
How am i an asshole? Just because i dont want to change the words i use every decade when they become offensive so i can be politically correct. Retard actually meens something, i wasnt using it as an insult.

And also i didnt meen the retard doesnt know how to put a condom on, i meant he is so stupid he wont put it on because he doesnt think of the risks.
Your post was extremely ignorant (I use the word hear to refer to a lack of knowledge). Many people without mental retardation cannot function on their own - aside from sexual assault, they aren't a worry for reproduction. Furthermore, those who can sustain themselves have difficulty maintaing relationships (as their linguistic abilities typically are low) and the prospects for intercourse are limited. Furthermore, mentally retarded individuals do not gang together with their ilk and mate to degenerate society. Some of them happen to form relationships because they have similiar intellectual levels, but, if they can survive on their own, a poor sexual education choice is more likely due to common stupidity rather than anything involving their condition.

Statistically, you may be correct that they have a higher chance of forgetting about protection or thinking they can get away with out it. After all, people with less intelligence are prone to less intelligence decisions. However, it is completely unjustified to generalize a population in such a way. Those people suffer enough.

You may say that my rephrasing of your views is "what you meant," but the use of language is important. It makes the difference between someone getting offended and someone agreeing with you.

[Avtomatov]

I wasnt only talking about retards, i was talking about people with low iq's in general.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 12:58 AM
I wasnt only talking about retards, i was talking about people with low iq's in general.
Again, you would be generalizing. The amount of children produced by low IQ individuals in comparison to high IQ individuals is higher. However, that does not mean they all act in such a way.

Furthermore, you claimed that less intelligent people have sex earlier. That is hard to say especially considering that more intellectual individuals reject religion and, consequently, have little reason to avoid sexual activity (assuming it is done safely).

[RebelOutcast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 10:45 PM
How am i an asshole? Just because i dont want to change the words i use every decade when they become offensive so i can be politically correct. Retard actually meens something, i wasnt using it as an insult.

And also i didnt meen the retard doesnt know how to put a condom on, i meant he is so stupid he wont put it on because he doesnt think of the risks.
So you wouldn't let them use condoms, you'd force them to be sterilised?
One question, would you still penalise "undesirables" for having children?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 10:58 AM
I wasnt only talking about retards, i was talking about people with low iq's in general.
What would you define as a 'low IQ'?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It also brings up the nature vs nurture argument. Had Bush been brought up in a home that encouraged learning and cherished knowledge, would he be quite as dense as he is now?

Personally, I'm leaning towards nurture in most cases. There a small minority of people who will be stupid throughout their lives, but you can usually spot them from a mile off. Most people are smart enough to hide their lack of education and critical thinking skills, unless they get into an argument.

[Dark Exodus]

I'm not sure about alterinhg one's genetic material after birth - remember that you have billions of cells in your body, and I don't see them being changed quickly at all.

It's quite possible, I believe the method uses the body to naturally manufacture the gene after it's introduced.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 03:45 PM
How am i an asshole? Just because i dont want to change the words i use every decade when they become offensive so i can be politically correct. Retard actually meens something, i wasnt using it as an insult.

And also i didnt meen the retard doesnt know how to put a condom on, i meant he is so stupid he wont put it on because he doesnt think of the risks.
Silly little twit; the word "retard" has never been anything other than an insult from some jerkoff like yourself.

[Dark Exodus]

"Mental retardation (also called mental handicap and the UK Mental Health Act (1983) defines mental impairment and severe mental impairment) is a term for a pattern of persistently slow learning of basic motor and language skills ("milestones") during childhood, and a significantly below-normal global intellectual capacity as an adult. One common criterion for diagnosis of mental retardation is a tested intelligence quotient (IQ) below 70."

[MysticArcher]

Back on topic...


I'm not sure about alterinhg one's genetic material after birth - remember that you have billions of cells in your body, and I don't see them being changed quickly at all.

I had assumed mass gene engineering prior to birth would be predicated on the discovery of near 100% efficient delivery vectors that don't provoke immune response

Otherwise I don't know how easily convinced people would be to do it - since a vector without near 100% efficiency will mean engineering pre-birth is a gamble.

With a low cell count and each cell being progenitor of a variety of tissues a low chance of delivery of the gene you want will yield very random results as it would be possible the vector doesn't insert the gene at all or only to tissues that wouldn't benefit from it (anti-Alzheimers genes in your toes and not your brain won't help you)

And if the vector doesn't provoke an immune response you can just keep applying it until all the cells take in the gene

[ZeroPain]

In fact, one could argue that there is a moral obligation to genetical alter our future generations. After all, the improvement of the gene pool could save humanity from some inconvienent and sometimes even painful realities.

As time progresses the human gene pool will become more unstable no mater what we do....

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:49 AM


In fact, one could argue that there is a moral obligation to genetical alter our future generations. After all, the improvement of the gene pool could save humanity from some inconvienent and sometimes even painful realities.

As time progresses the human gene pool will become more unstable no mater what we do....
Nonsense. If it's broke, we can fix it.

[ZeroPain]

Nonsense. If it's broke, we can fix it.


Well at the moment it would do more harm then good.
(We can not engineer an organism to pass the traits on)
(It would only mask traits that would eleminate some individuals)

And in the long run it would be counter evolutionary.

[Avtomatov]

You think that the way society is set up that it enables to evolution?

I say lets stop the traits from being passed on. Lets speed up evolution.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 11:39 PM
You think that the way society is set up that it enables to evolution?

I say lets stop the traits from being passed on. Lets speed up evolution.
Do you think it's really a good idea for humans to change nature's path of evolution?

What if we "screw" something up?

I say we let nature take it's path, there's no sense in "speeding up evolution" anyways.

[Avtomatov]

How can we interfer with "natures path of evolution", we are nature. Why do you seperate humans with the rest of nature. Eugenics is just as unnatural as anything else we do. Business, Culture, it all interfers with who passes on their genes and who doesnt. So its not unnatural. Everything you do is just as unnatural.

So what you are saying is that we should just interfer with "natures course for evolution" regardless if it is good for our evolution or not. So this is like saying there is no point to environmentalism, we should just interfer regardless of wether it is good for the environment or not.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Besides, the "path of nature" could lead us down some very unpleasant roads. Like extinction.