5 ms·

Deriving social policy from popgen results is absolutely insane. Even putting aside the weak correlations, uncertain results and total ignorance of gene/environ

Deriving social policy from popgen results is absolutely insane. Even putting aside the weak correlations, uncertain results and total ignorance of gene/environment interactions (it's not additive, it doesn't make sense to say a trait is x% genetic, especially a behavioral one), it would require having access to the genome of every single person you want to manage. It tantamounts to advocating a totalitarian hierarchical caste system. And no, obviously laymen are not more likely to understand the implication, as evidenced by the "eugenics is good, actually" crowd in this thread.

allovernow 7y ago
Why does this discussion always immediately jump to the absolute worst case scenarios? This should not be such a black/white, us/them topic. We are not advocating for eugenics, or caste systems, and the other protections that we have for human rights in society won't immediately disappear. >it would require having access to the genome of every single person you want to manage Only in this dystopian hellscape you're imagining. This isn't about micromanaging individuals. Its about better understanding the origins of behavior in society. Here's one immediate potential application: how can you be sure that quotas in hiring aren't unrealistic and counterproductive if you refuse to research the effect size of genetics in human interests? My overall point is that we don't know the answer to these questions and there is an emergent social pressure which presumes a worst case application of such research and does not allow for it to be conducted. This leads to assumptions pervasive in social, medical, and academic practices which we don't know to be true. What if effectiveness of psychological interventions hinges on genetics? Should such research be forbidden because of totalitarian fantasies?
fakegalitarian 7y ago
Iceland has almost completely eliminated Down's Syndrome using genetic screening, and that's wonderful. Their population will be happier and healthier because of it. You're erecting a strawman by suggesting a policy would be implemented based on weak correlations.
- marchenko 7y ago
  Iceland has reduced the incidence of Down's syndrome by screening and terminating Down's pregnancies, not by medically resolving the underlying chromosomal nondisjunction. The role that social pressure plays in this process in unclear: the founder of DeCODE genetics has speculated that "heavy-handed genetic counseling" may be influencing decisions. This is precisely the scenario that anti-eugenicists warn about, especially for more complex genetic disorders with a spectrum of potential phenotypes and possible pleiotropic effects. And for the community of non-terminated disorder carriers, who may receive less social support - and less research into medical treatments for their disorder - as a result. Genetic screening has many great potential benefits, but the Iceland Down's example is not their best showcase.

allovernow 7y ago

Why does this discussion always immediately jump to the absolute worst case scenarios? This should not be such a black/white, us/them topic. We are not advocating for eugenics, or caste systems, and the other protections that we have for human rights in society won't immediately disappear. >it would require having access to the genome of every single person you want to manage Only in this dystopian hellscape you're imagining. This isn't about micromanaging individuals. Its about better understanding the origins of behavior in society. Here's one immediate potential application: how can you be sure that quotas in hiring aren't unrealistic and counterproductive if you refuse to research the effect size of genetics in human interests? My overall point is that we don't know the answer to these questions and there is an emergent social pressure which presumes a worst case application of such research and does not allow for it to be conducted. This leads to assumptions pervasive in social, medical, and academic practices which we don't know to be true. What if effectiveness of psychological interventions hinges on genetics? Should such research be forbidden because of totalitarian fantasies?

fakegalitarian 7y ago

Iceland has almost completely eliminated Down's Syndrome using genetic screening, and that's wonderful. Their population will be happier and healthier because of it. You're erecting a strawman by suggesting a policy would be implemented based on weak correlations.

marchenko 7y ago
Iceland has reduced the incidence of Down's syndrome by screening and terminating Down's pregnancies, not by medically resolving the underlying chromosomal nondisjunction. The role that social pressure plays in this process in unclear: the founder of DeCODE genetics has speculated that "heavy-handed genetic counseling" may be influencing decisions. This is precisely the scenario that anti-eugenicists warn about, especially for more complex genetic disorders with a spectrum of potential phenotypes and possible pleiotropic effects. And for the community of non-terminated disorder carriers, who may receive less social support - and less research into medical treatments for their disorder - as a result. Genetic screening has many great potential benefits, but the Iceland Down's example is not their best showcase.