6 ms·
Prenatal testing is one of the few solutions to this "post-darwinian" world (not in the usual sense of the word) with its modern medicine that will result in ma
by chmod775 6y ago
Prenatal testing is one of the few solutions to this "post-darwinian" world (not in the usual sense of the word) with its modern medicine that will result in mankind accumulating more and more genetic defects.
Though slightly more ethical from my point of view would be gene-editing to remove those defects, instead of just terminating the fetus.
Edit: Also I'm not talking about down syndrome specifically. There's a long list of genetic defects that modern medicine can correct for and thus removes evolutionary pressure (bad eyesight, allergies, etc.)
- nivenkos 6y ago> will result in mankind accumulating more and more genetic defects Why? Unless the Down Syndrome patients themselves have children, then there wouldn't be an evolutionary impact.
- chmod775 6y agoAre you planning to make laws that will make it illegal for people with genetic defects to procreate? Seriously?
- lazyasciiart 6y agoThat seems like a big jump from what they actually said.
- inglor_cz 6y agoYou are probably not aware of the fact that majority of Down sufferers cannot procreate. There is only a few recorded instances of Down sufferers having children. That said, you can have mosaic aneuploidy (just some cells are affected), in that case, your life is likely to be more typical.
- raunakdag 6y agoWhy wouldn’t the Down Syndrome patients themselves have children?
- hengri 6y agoBecause most people with Down Syndrome are sterile
- puzzlingcaptcha 6y agoThey generally do not, either due to defects of germ cell formation or just little sexual activity. "As of 2006, three instances of males with Down syndrome fathering children and 26 cases of females having children have been reported." https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(06)03067-6/fulltext https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(06)03067-6/full...
- zbyte64 6y agoIt's much, much, less likely. Half of women with down syndrome are infertile. If they do get pregnant they usually end with a miscarriage and there is a 50% chance the syndrome won't be passed down. Homosapiens are a result of chromosomal fusion, so I would approach the claim of "accruing defects" with great skepticism. Nature is still selecting as evidence by inflicting a high miscarriage & infertility rate. https://www.ndss.org/resources/sexuality/ https://www.ndss.org/resources/sexuality/ https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/children-s-health-issues/chromosome-and-gene-abnormalities/down-syndrome-trisomy-21 https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/children-s-health-issues/c...
- bregma 6y agoI believe most would choose not to take that step because they are well and truly cognisant of the level of responsibility and care required to raise a child with the same, or more extensive, needs as they themselves had. No one would know better than they would, and I have yet to meet a person with Downs that was stupid despite any manifest intellectual deficit. That said, it is definitely immoral to forcibly prevent another human from having a child. Any debate on morality must focus on the decision the individual themselves must make.
- __s 6y agoGenetic disorders don't always express themselves, but can run in the family
- puzzlingcaptcha 6y agoSure but there is a difference between a single gene disorder with a given inheritence pattern, and a trisomy which is a numerical chromosomal aberration.
- Tobani 6y agoI don't they are referring to DS patients. Just that Darwinian evolutionary processes only selects for traits that make an impact prior to reproductive age. If a trait isn't expressed until after you have kids (MS, Huntington's etc.) it becomes easier to pass it on. Also as more diseases become survivable due to treatments / science then it would be easier to pass those traits on as well.
- bdamm 6y agoDarwin isn't going anywhere, but the rate of change sure has picked up.
- raunakdag 6y agoThose damn seatbelts never should’ve been invented.
- ravi-delia 6y agoEh, realistically human evolution has been driven by almost all sexual selection for most as long as we've been around.
- ajfjrbfbf 6y agoThere always after-birth abortion, although that's probably a lot less ethical.
- duxup 6y agoIt's hard to imagine any kinda of gene editing doesn't inevitably lead to Gattaca type situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP1cCjBkWZU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP1cCjBkWZU The doctor's "best of you" argument ... it's hard for that not to be appealing.
- Fumtumi 6y agoI would be glad. It doesn't make me special or a more valuable individual that i have sleeping issues and nerve issues.
- duxup 6y agoI'm not sure you would have been 'selected' then.
- Fumtumi 6y agoIt wouldn't matter to me as i would not exist. So what?
- duxup 6y agoYou wouldn't 'be glad'.
- schwartzworld 6y agoSure, but the other guy would be.
- duxup 6y agoYou should check out the movie. I think there's actually some legit questions about if we tailor folks to be X efficient or manage their potential and who they were made to be... that might have a profound impact on happiness and how we see ourselves, what freedoms we are allowed and etc.
- tokai 6y ago>will result in mankind accumulating more and more genetic defects. Is there any evidence that this is actually the case?
- Gibbon1 6y agoI read article that says most genetic defects get selected out in utero. Just managing to develop properly is the major test of fitness. Opinion having read some eugenics books. The authors completely conflate developmental disorders with generic ones. And they also way over state the true amount of genetic diversity.
- foenix 6y ago"modern medicine that will result in mankind accumulating more and more genetic defects." Citation needed... A lot of autosomal recessive genetic disease is a result of humans reproducing within their in-group, making the likelihood of two carriers of the same variant having offspring with that expressed variant. BRCA1 / BRCA2 in the Ashkenazi Jewish population are a common example. Nothing about medical genetic testing will directly cause more genetic defects.
- chmod775 6y agoI believe you misread or misunderstood my comment.
- foenix 6y agoUpon second reading it appears I have misunderstood your comment. My bad!
- lazyasciiart 6y agoI believe the comment is saying that medical genetic testing and selective abortion is necessary because modern medicine protects people with e.g BRCA1 or cystic fibrosis.
- Symmetry 6y agoThe problem is that every generation has new de novo mutations. Mostly they don't do anything, very rarely they're positive, but some are bad. It used to be that only half of children survived to adulthood which produced enough selective pressure to remove new deleterious mutations, but that thankfully doesn't happen anymore. This isn't a problem in the short term but if we don't introduce something like pre-natal selection we'll eventually wind up back in a situation where half of children don't survive to adulthood despite modern medicine.
- rootsudo 6y agoI disagree, not knowing and then terminating because of knowing can save so much suffering for the parent and child. Just because before there was no way to check/filter, did not guarantee that child would have a chance to reproduce. The removal or inclusion of genetic defects usually stops if you can't reproduce and ends the family line with that descendent full stop.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- gibspaulding 6y agoI'm surprised to see how controversial this comment has been. It's seems intuitive to me that as we are able to solve genetic defects with modern medicine, we'd begin seeing more and more of them. I imagine even bad teeth, or poor eyesight would have greatly reduced one's likelihood of surviving and reproducing in our not so distant evolutionary past, let alone something like Type 1 Diabetes, or a chronic heart condition. That of course is just speculation though. Does anyone know of any studies indicating one way or the other? My quick search wasn't able to turn anything up.