4 ms·

That's kinda the feeling I got from reading the post. Eugenics is a part of science deemed immoral and forever shunned because associated with the nazis, but m

That's kinda the feeling I got from reading the post. Eugenics is a part of science deemed immoral and forever shunned because associated with the nazis, but maybe it would be good if we had made enough progress to avoid babies that come near death 4 times a day every day and require their two parents to be dedicated to their care 24/7.

consp 4y ago
I've had this argument before: If you argue eugenics then you should really look into your family history and be 100% sure no-one has any "defects" anywhere. Most people who argue it have either needed some form of intervention somewhere in their lives to fix a "defect" and in other cases one of their predecessors and would they be unwanted in the eugenics-fanatics eyes. (Reflection usually works quite well with when someone is reasoning for eugenics)
- iLoveOncall 4y ago
  Well that's a pretty week argument. Yeah sure if we killed every baby to be that had a defect I probably wouldn't exist. But I wouldn't care, because I wouldn't exist. Note I'm not saying to kill those unborn children, I'm saying that if this medical field had not been completely put to a stop following WW2, we wouldn't have to kill unborn children but we could do in utero interventions to prevent those conditions from developing. "Kill the babies" is the current state of eugenics because it has been at a full stop for more than half of a century. That's my point.
- agileAlligator 4y ago
  Eugenics doesn't necessarily mean kill the baby. It meant that in the past only because science wasn't advanced enough. Techniques to modify the human genome exist; we could potentially "fix" the bad genes without killing the child.
borski 4y ago
How many diabetic scientists and engineers have there been that have changed the world for the better?
- iLoveOncall 4y ago
  Probably not as many as diabetic terrible people? I'm not saying to kill those unborn children, I'm saying that if this medical field had not been completely put to a stop following WW2, we wouldn't have to kill unborn children but we could do in utero interventions to prevent those conditions from developing.
  - valarauko 4y ago
    How, though? It's not like we've had the ability to diagnose the majority of these diseases in utero until fairly recently, nor have we the means to intervene, even now. CRISPR as a tool has existed for just over a decade, and we're still very far from the ability to reliably modify fetuses, even in lab animals, and it's been only possible for, what, 5 years now? Lab research did not stop after WW2, and even then we've barely gotten to this point. The ability to sequence the whole genome and find mutations for the major disorders is still a far off goal. The majority of disorders are now known to be polygenic, affected by hundreds of different gene variants, with each population group seemly affected by different groups of genes. Nor have we settled on a definitive group of gene variants that can reliably be identified to be deterministic of any widely distributed disorder, outside a small handful like CF and DMD.
- agileAlligator 4y ago
  I am not saying we should let diabetic babies die at birth. I am simply reflecting upon the fact that their genes would have been removed from circulation in the past; this is no longer the case. If we disallow nature from taking its course, it will have consequences on "genetic quality". Following that train of thought and assuming we don't want to kill genetically malformed babies, an alternate route must be chosen. Better in-utero screening, CRISPR to fix the deformed genes, etc.
  - panda-giddiness 4y ago
    You realize that type 1 diabetes only manifests after birth, right? My wife was in her 20s when she was diagnosed; in-utero screening would've been useless.

consp 4y ago

I've had this argument before: If you argue eugenics then you should really look into your family history and be 100% sure no-one has any "defects" anywhere. Most people who argue it have either needed some form of intervention somewhere in their lives to fix a "defect" and in other cases one of their predecessors and would they be unwanted in the eugenics-fanatics eyes. (Reflection usually works quite well with when someone is reasoning for eugenics)

iLoveOncall 4y ago
Well that's a pretty week argument. Yeah sure if we killed every baby to be that had a defect I probably wouldn't exist. But I wouldn't care, because I wouldn't exist. Note I'm not saying to kill those unborn children, I'm saying that if this medical field had not been completely put to a stop following WW2, we wouldn't have to kill unborn children but we could do in utero interventions to prevent those conditions from developing. "Kill the babies" is the current state of eugenics because it has been at a full stop for more than half of a century. That's my point.
agileAlligator 4y ago
Eugenics doesn't necessarily mean kill the baby. It meant that in the past only because science wasn't advanced enough. Techniques to modify the human genome exist; we could potentially "fix" the bad genes without killing the child.

borski 4y ago

How many diabetic scientists and engineers have there been that have changed the world for the better?

iLoveOncall 4y ago
Probably not as many as diabetic terrible people? I'm not saying to kill those unborn children, I'm saying that if this medical field had not been completely put to a stop following WW2, we wouldn't have to kill unborn children but we could do in utero interventions to prevent those conditions from developing.
- valarauko 4y ago
  How, though? It's not like we've had the ability to diagnose the majority of these diseases in utero until fairly recently, nor have we the means to intervene, even now. CRISPR as a tool has existed for just over a decade, and we're still very far from the ability to reliably modify fetuses, even in lab animals, and it's been only possible for, what, 5 years now? Lab research did not stop after WW2, and even then we've barely gotten to this point. The ability to sequence the whole genome and find mutations for the major disorders is still a far off goal. The majority of disorders are now known to be polygenic, affected by hundreds of different gene variants, with each population group seemly affected by different groups of genes. Nor have we settled on a definitive group of gene variants that can reliably be identified to be deterministic of any widely distributed disorder, outside a small handful like CF and DMD.
agileAlligator 4y ago
I am not saying we should let diabetic babies die at birth. I am simply reflecting upon the fact that their genes would have been removed from circulation in the past; this is no longer the case. If we disallow nature from taking its course, it will have consequences on "genetic quality". Following that train of thought and assuming we don't want to kill genetically malformed babies, an alternate route must be chosen. Better in-utero screening, CRISPR to fix the deformed genes, etc.
- panda-giddiness 4y ago
  You realize that type 1 diabetes only manifests after birth, right? My wife was in her 20s when she was diagnosed; in-utero screening would've been useless.