|
|
Post by Yla on Jul 6, 2011 15:35:18 GMT -5
GM can help a lot, yes, but people are even more likely to flip out when they hear about GM'd humans than eugenics, so for now, it's even less realistic. Dog purebreds are also inbred like hell, which accounts for a lot of these proplems. Most SF stories (at least as far as I know) that deal with GM'ed humans treat it in such a way that there are distinct groups of both Augments, which have massive, (often not completely understood) changes, and baseline humans, which possess no changes to their genome at all. No wonder there's friction between these. A more granular approach however, where small fixes with few consequences are provided publicly, and which after a phase of early adopters a significant part of the population carries, is more realistic imho, and is going to be more easily accepted. *tilts head other direction* Still silly from over here Care to explain why you think it's silly? |
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Jul 6, 2011 16:05:04 GMT -5
Alright, lemme ask you this. How do you think the religious right would react to people "playing god" with genetics? Doesn't matter whether you just made it so they won't be born with some defect or heavily augmented their physical and mental capabilities. In both cases they will react strongly against it, many will claim those children have no souls, and many will want everyone involved, not just the children but the parents, doctors, and anyone who supports them, to die. Some will even act on that want, justifying it with either that they're ultimately saving souls, fighting Satan, or that since they don't have a soul they're not people so no murder took place. Science fiction generally uses more extreme examples just so that people get half a clue on it, not just with genetics but on anything it's commenting on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Jul 6, 2011 16:50:22 GMT -5
They'll lose their shit, no doubt. But they also weren't okay with artificial insemination thirty years ago, and where are we now? They don't matter that much. I'm not claiming everyone will be shiny and happy with genetic engineering, but there are families plagued with genetic diseases who will welcome a cure ensuring that their kids won't have to suffer through it. And if these kids grow up and people see that they aren't conspiring to overthrow the government and install a genocracy, attitudes will change.
Yes, I'm optimistic.
About the murders scenario: If some nuts start killing kids, how do you think public opinion will react?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 6, 2011 17:01:20 GMT -5
*tilts head other direction* Still silly from over here Care to explain why you think it's silly? Not really, actually. |
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Jul 6, 2011 17:06:18 GMT -5
Artificial insemination isn't mucking around with their DNA, though. It also isn't done on a large scale.
Oh, and how did people react to the murder of abortion doctors? Yes, some were outraged against the murderer, but many were very much behind the murder and wished for more to happen. If something like that started happening to a lot of people, you'd quickly get a strong divide between them. Religious and ethnic warfare is not pretty, and it would have a very good chance of happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Jul 6, 2011 17:32:18 GMT -5
Artificial insemination isn't genetic engineering, yes, but people once were outraged over it due to it 'mucking around' with the natural conception process, and aren't anymore now. I was drawing a parallel to show plausibility, that's all.
And who says genetic engineering has to happen on a large scale?
The doctors are another story, yes. I parsed your post as referring to the killing of GM'ed children foremost, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jul 7, 2011 1:21:43 GMT -5
Care to explain why you think it's silly? Not really, actually. I'm curious why you wouldn't. It's nice to hear opinions about this kind of stuff from people who are demonstrably versed in the subject. |
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on Jul 7, 2011 1:35:36 GMT -5
Artificial insemination isn't mucking around with their DNA, though. It also isn't done on a large scale. Oh, and how did people react to the murder of abortion doctors? Yes, some were outraged against the murderer, but many were very much behind the murder and wished for more to happen. If something like that started happening to a lot of people, you'd quickly get a strong divide between them. Religious and ethnic warfare is not pretty, and it would have a very good chance of happening. Worse, this is almost fucking guaranteed -- humans aren't exactly known for accepting diversity... |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 7, 2011 10:50:43 GMT -5
I'm curious why you wouldn't. It's nice to hear opinions about this kind of stuff from people who are demonstrably versed in the subject. Because I don't like him. But I will tell you, I like you. Eugenics is already dubious genetically. It is fucking hard to eliminate bad traits (as determined by the eugenicist) from a population. To make it effective you have to breach ethics and eliminate people with bad traits from the breeding pool at a very high percentage. Which would mean, at best, forcible sterilization. Having a sort of voluntary eugenics where you encourage people with good traits to breed and discourage bad people to breed and it won't do enough to matter. Now, with genetic engineering, it is easier to get around some limitations in conventional eugenics. But, it is a tool that is easily misused (going after trivial and cosmetic rather than, say MLD) Not to mention, currently, it is not viable as gene therapy and the like has a non insignificant chance of leading to cancer at the moment. I could see genetic engineering being done in a manner which is not a human rights breach. It would require, in my view, sound medical reason for every modification as well as it being done universally not just to those who can afford it. I'd shy away from things like route treatment that increases lifespan because that is far more complex than my previous example which is a mere recessive disorder and requires very rigorous testing before it can even approach being accepting to give everybody. But, as human genetic engineering is still in the realm of science fiction at this point I don't think it'smeaningful to talk about with regards to eugenics at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Jul 7, 2011 13:22:28 GMT -5
Because I don't like him.  I agree that on a voluntary basis, it's less effective than forcibly. But I disagree that it's too little effective. We don't have some sort of set goal, to meet a specific criterion of genepool purification. Our goal is just 'Improve'. And every little bit achieves that. As with natural selection, it accumulates over generations. If we help, it happens faster. Well, I didn't bring it up. Yes, with our current knowledge it's too unsafe to be used. I am confident that this will change in a few decades or later. You bring up a fair point about misuse, though. But we are shaping our future generations all over the place, with upbringing, education, nourishment etc. and we screw up there with worrying regularity. Why is it accepted to do so on the nurture side, but the nature side is somehow untouchable? My argument isn't 'We're allowed to screw up there, too'. My argument is that, like everywhere, it's a risk/benefit analysis, and worth a look on how concrete are the benefits, and how we can limit the risks. You think that the risks outweigh the benefits. That's fair. But I think otherwise, and I fail to see how that's 'silly'. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 7, 2011 13:52:24 GMT -5
Yla, it's already nigh impossible for eugenics to do squat even with forcible sterilization, why do you think having a minimal amount of it will do anything? Eugenics is based off of highly simplified views of genetics that ignores how genes work in concert with each other as well as disregards expression of said genes. It is a pseudoscience.
As far as the nature side being untouchable, that is a strawman. It is a strawman as treating things like MLD with GE is something I am not against. But, whole scale changes are very fucking dangerous to the organism because of how complicated genetics and development are. It is too easy to irreversibly damage an entire generation as well as their offspring. Think about what happened with thalidomide, now apply it to everybody born after a certain date. But, if it is not done universally, then you end up with a caste system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Jul 8, 2011 3:22:56 GMT -5
Sorry about the strawman. That bit just came to mind while I was typing the post, and I included it without marking it as 'not directed at you'. But, whole scale changes are very fucking dangerous to the organism because of how complicated genetics and development are. It is too easy to irreversibly damage an entire generation as well as their offspring. Think about what happened with thalidomide, now apply it to everybody born after a certain date. But, if it is not done universally, then you end up with a caste system. What about small scale changes? ... (like treating MLD) Yla, it's already nigh impossible for eugenics to do squat even with forcible sterilization, why do you think having a minimal amount of it will do anything? ... which you call ineffective among other things, if I understand you correctly here. Just to check, are you aware that I'm talking about a long-term process? Eugenics is based off of highly simplified views of genetics that ignores how genes work in concert with each other as well as disregards expression of said genes. It is a pseudoscience. I'm not talking about 1930's Eugenics. You said you were for curing/treating genetic diseases, which in my book is part of Eugenics. How is this compatible with your above quoted claim? |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 8, 2011 8:11:40 GMT -5
Sorry about the strawman. That bit just came to mind while I was typing the post, and I included it without marking it as 'not directed at you'. But, whole scale changes are very fucking dangerous to the organism because of how complicated genetics and development are. It is too easy to irreversibly damage an entire generation as well as their offspring. Think about what happened with thalidomide, now apply it to everybody born after a certain date. But, if it is not done universally, then you end up with a caste system. What about small scale changes? ... (like treating MLD Altering the gene (note, this is gene not genes) for MLD would be far from universal. And since MLD drastically lowers quality of life there is a higher acceptable risk threshold for it. Quite aware. Because you're the only one using that definition of eugenics. Using gene therapy is not eugenics. Eugenics requires control of breeding. the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).
: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed
Eugenics is a genetic and social theory whereby the human race is improved by selective reproduction whereby desireable characteristics are propogated and undesireable traits are eliminated.
The practice of trying to influence human heredity by encouraging the transmission of 'desirable' characteristics and discouraging the transmission of 'undesirable' ones. dictionary.reference.com/browse/eugenicswww.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenicswww.uvm.edu/~cgep/Education/Glossary.htmlwww.genetics.edu.au/glossary/e |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Jul 9, 2011 14:55:36 GMT -5
Ah. Okay. Can we leave it at that while I still think eugenics and/or genetic engineering are a good idea in theory, you think it's a bad idea in practice, because we have insufficient knowledge about genes and therefore the risks are way too high?
The concept mentioned in the OP is going along class lines and not genetics and therefore a bad idea according to both of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jul 9, 2011 14:58:49 GMT -5
The concept mentioned in the OP is going along class lines and not genetics and therefore a bad idea according to both of us. It would be, but if the poor don't like it then they should bootstrap into humans. |
|
