6 ms·

it's not eugenics I swear

mc32 9y ago
What is the real end difference between this and something like genomic editing? I'm not arguing for one or none of the above. Simply curious.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  The coercion part.
  - pklausler 9y ago
    Coercion, or incentives? The criminals can say no.
    - Retra 9y ago
      "Say yes or spend time in jail" is not coercion, in your opinion?
      - pklausler 9y ago
        Coercion is taking a free person and threatening them with something horrible if they don't comply. These criminals were going to go to jail anyway. Not a big distinction, but I don't think that it's coercion.
        ceejayoz 9y ago
        You know you don't just get to make up new definitions for words to win arguments, right? I can't find a single definition of coercion that requires "a free person" to be the one being threatened.
        pklausler 9y ago
        Black's law dictionary is online and worthy of consultation (http://thelawdictionary.org/coercion/ http://thelawdictionary.org/coercion/). I think it's applicable. It's not coercion if you are free to refuse, and these criminals can refuse without worsening their situation.
        ceejayoz 9y ago
        That definition doesn't in any way support your contention that prisoners cannot be coerced.
        Retra 9y ago
        The only way they are "going to jail anyway" is if there is literally no other option for them. By offering them an alternative option, this is no longer the case.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  Specificity of change, scale of impact, and passive-vs-active management. Genesplicing can be highly targeted, whereas this isn't necessarily even targeting the source of the traits. For example, the (theoretical) inability of gay men to breed doesn't decrease the gene prevalence if also passed through their sisters. We could (hypothetically) see something similar here, where propensity for criminality is passed on by relatives and no amount of sterilizing criminals removes it because there's eg, a benefit to mothers having highly aggressive sons/brothers. Genesplicing only impacts the children, while sterilization has a large impact on the sterilized individual's hormones. Finally, genesplicing in/out traits and competing for fitness is bottom-up selection, rather than top-down (as trying to supress traits via mass sterilization would be), and thus more stable/likely to work, better respects personal freedoms, etc.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  Depends on the nature of the genomic editing and the circumstances under which it occurs, doesn't it? For example: "We'll give you time off your sentence if you let us edit out genes in your gametes linked to aggressive and addictive traits." That trade is similarly coercive, and doesn't provide a clear benefit to the future children.
  - DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
    > doesn't provide a clear benefit to the future children. > edit out genes in your gametes linked to aggressive and addictive traits sounds like a pretty clear benefit to me! I'd do that even if I was trying to conceive naturally. Why would I want my children to have a genetic predisposition towards undesirable behaviour?
    - SamReidHughes 9y ago
      Maybe aggression is a desirable trait.
      - mc32 9y ago
        Supposedly Spartans thinned their progeny for that trait. So, I'd guess it's desirable for martial purposes. But given we're on the path to robotic (foot) soldiers --maybe it won't be of much benefit for long.
      - DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
        To be fair, there are different types of aggression - some desirable (i.e. a strategic thinker who isn't afraid of /blitzkrieg/ as a valid strategy in business ventures) and others undesirable (e.g. prone to outbursts physical anger) which can only be described as a liability in polite, organised society.
Chris2048 9y ago
Are condoms "eugenics" too?
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  If not using them every time you have sex means a jail sentence, yes. (Plus, they're not permanent.)
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    So no then. And not in this case either.
    - ceejayoz 9y ago
      Yes, you've successfully identified an important difference between single-use birth control and permanent sterilization.
      - Chris2048 9y ago
        Hormone implants aren't permanent, and vasectomies might not be either. The inmates have a choice to accept, and do not get jail time for refusing.
        ceejayoz 9y ago
        Vasectomies are permanent enough. Quibbling over failure rates and the possibility of expensively restoring fertility doesn't really change the fact that coercing defendants into getting them is problematic. "We'll reduce your jail time if you do X" is functionally the same thing as "We'll increase your jail time if you don't do X".
        Chris2048 9y ago
        > is functionally the same It very, very much isn't

mc32 9y ago

What is the real end difference between this and something like genomic editing? I'm not arguing for one or none of the above. Simply curious.

ceejayoz 9y ago
The coercion part.
- pklausler 9y ago
  Coercion, or incentives? The criminals can say no.
  - Retra 9y ago
    "Say yes or spend time in jail" is not coercion, in your opinion?
    - pklausler 9y ago
      Coercion is taking a free person and threatening them with something horrible if they don't comply. These criminals were going to go to jail anyway. Not a big distinction, but I don't think that it's coercion.
      - ceejayoz 9y ago
        You know you don't just get to make up new definitions for words to win arguments, right? I can't find a single definition of coercion that requires "a free person" to be the one being threatened.
        pklausler 9y ago
        Black's law dictionary is online and worthy of consultation (http://thelawdictionary.org/coercion/ http://thelawdictionary.org/coercion/). I think it's applicable. It's not coercion if you are free to refuse, and these criminals can refuse without worsening their situation.
        ceejayoz 9y ago
        That definition doesn't in any way support your contention that prisoners cannot be coerced.
      - Retra 9y ago
        The only way they are "going to jail anyway" is if there is literally no other option for them. By offering them an alternative option, this is no longer the case.
SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
Specificity of change, scale of impact, and passive-vs-active management. Genesplicing can be highly targeted, whereas this isn't necessarily even targeting the source of the traits. For example, the (theoretical) inability of gay men to breed doesn't decrease the gene prevalence if also passed through their sisters. We could (hypothetically) see something similar here, where propensity for criminality is passed on by relatives and no amount of sterilizing criminals removes it because there's eg, a benefit to mothers having highly aggressive sons/brothers. Genesplicing only impacts the children, while sterilization has a large impact on the sterilized individual's hormones. Finally, genesplicing in/out traits and competing for fitness is bottom-up selection, rather than top-down (as trying to supress traits via mass sterilization would be), and thus more stable/likely to work, better respects personal freedoms, etc.
khedoros1 9y ago
Depends on the nature of the genomic editing and the circumstances under which it occurs, doesn't it? For example: "We'll give you time off your sentence if you let us edit out genes in your gametes linked to aggressive and addictive traits." That trade is similarly coercive, and doesn't provide a clear benefit to the future children.
- DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
  > doesn't provide a clear benefit to the future children. > edit out genes in your gametes linked to aggressive and addictive traits sounds like a pretty clear benefit to me! I'd do that even if I was trying to conceive naturally. Why would I want my children to have a genetic predisposition towards undesirable behaviour?
  - SamReidHughes 9y ago
    Maybe aggression is a desirable trait.
    - mc32 9y ago
      Supposedly Spartans thinned their progeny for that trait. So, I'd guess it's desirable for martial purposes. But given we're on the path to robotic (foot) soldiers --maybe it won't be of much benefit for long.
    - DaiPlusPlus 9y ago
      To be fair, there are different types of aggression - some desirable (i.e. a strategic thinker who isn't afraid of /blitzkrieg/ as a valid strategy in business ventures) and others undesirable (e.g. prone to outbursts physical anger) which can only be described as a liability in polite, organised society.

Chris2048 9y ago

Are condoms "eugenics" too?

ceejayoz 9y ago
If not using them every time you have sex means a jail sentence, yes. (Plus, they're not permanent.)
- Chris2048 9y ago
  So no then. And not in this case either.
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    Yes, you've successfully identified an important difference between single-use birth control and permanent sterilization.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      Hormone implants aren't permanent, and vasectomies might not be either. The inmates have a choice to accept, and do not get jail time for refusing.
      - ceejayoz 9y ago
        Vasectomies are permanent enough. Quibbling over failure rates and the possibility of expensively restoring fertility doesn't really change the fact that coercing defendants into getting them is problematic. "We'll reduce your jail time if you do X" is functionally the same thing as "We'll increase your jail time if you don't do X".
        Chris2048 9y ago
        > is functionally the same It very, very much isn't