5 ms·

>Some eugenics supporters are afraid we are heading towards a society where everybody has to undergo a dozen lifelong treatments due to medicine effectively und

>Some eugenics supporters are afraid we are heading towards a society where everybody has to undergo a dozen lifelong treatments due to medicine effectively undermining the process of natural selection. So if you get cancer and there is a cure for it, you won't forego treatment to help natural selection work? What type of twisted logic is that?

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
I just hate downvotes without explanation. It's like, yeah you have a valid point here, but I don't like it, so here we go. Pathetic. Downvotes seemed to me to be designed to cut off rude remarks, not to silence valid points that someone may not be able or willing to handle.
- jeltz 13y ago
  I interpreted your comment as a rude remark dismissing a long explanation from jkn for why this article could easily be used as an argument for eugenics. EDIT: BTW, down voted your comment above for being offtopic. So is this one so I wont blame anyone if they downvote.
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    As long as you explain, I'm fine. Thanks!
jeltz 13y ago
Cancer is a very poor example when talking about eugenics since 1) most forms of cancer are non-hereditary and 2) cancer also rarely requires lifelong treatment, instead you either get cured or die (it can resurface though even when you think you are cured). And for eugenics to work you do not need to die, just not get any kids, which is why Sweden used to have people sterilized. One of the strongest arguments against eugenics is that when it has been applied in practiced it has brought out some of the worst sides in humans.
jkn 13y ago
The eugenic view I was referring to is not saying People should not be treated because it would spoil the gene pool but rather We certainly want to treat diseases, but this will spoil the gene pool unless we prevent the spread of bad genes Solutions to prevent the spread of bad genes range from quite evil (forced sterilization has been used extensively before WWII but I have never heard of something as bad as denying treatment) to slightly controversial, e.g. screening of embryos [1]. By the way, I have just stumbled on the Wikipedia page on dysgenics [2], which is more specifically what this argument is about. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preimplantation_genetic_diagnos... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  Thank you for your time and effort to explain this. Well, honestly, this smells national socialism from a mile. Which genes are bad? Is it really that genes are bad? What about their mutations? I have (not really suffer) ehlers-danlos type 2. Which is genetic disorder. Some people with it - like me - are lucky and have it really benign. It doesn't really affect my life in any way. It doesn't affect lifespan in my case. Then there are some others - with exact same gene mutations - who suffer constant pain to the point they would like to die (literally). Not to mention constant medical emergencies. Now, I have almost no problems because of eds. And one benefit - apparently I have lower risk of colon cancer. (there is more bile in the system which is laxative which helps preventing colon cancer, plus the colon is built differently, in my case causing "stuff" to move quicker). So, how would you know my gene mutation is good or bad? And how do you know that if you change it, something else won't be totally messed up instead? There is always the problem of unintended consequences. Not to mention that once you would open this pandora box, you'd also need to deal with prospect parents demanding "gene therapy" for their future kid because of a gene they think is bad. Like with cosmetic surgeries. People with gene A have higher risk of being short, so please doctor, please, let's "fix" that. Our boy can't be short! Can't have red hair! Can't have 40% higher risk of being depressed or obese too. And here we go, all blond, tall, beautiful. Wouldn't you agree?
  - 13y ago
Dylan16807 13y ago
"lifelong treatment" means that it's not cured. You have lingering effects that are barely held at bay by your drug cocktail. It's not a state to look forward to.

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago

I just hate downvotes without explanation. It's like, yeah you have a valid point here, but I don't like it, so here we go. Pathetic. Downvotes seemed to me to be designed to cut off rude remarks, not to silence valid points that someone may not be able or willing to handle.

jeltz 13y ago
I interpreted your comment as a rude remark dismissing a long explanation from jkn for why this article could easily be used as an argument for eugenics. EDIT: BTW, down voted your comment above for being offtopic. So is this one so I wont blame anyone if they downvote.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  As long as you explain, I'm fine. Thanks!

jeltz 13y ago

Cancer is a very poor example when talking about eugenics since 1) most forms of cancer are non-hereditary and 2) cancer also rarely requires lifelong treatment, instead you either get cured or die (it can resurface though even when you think you are cured). And for eugenics to work you do not need to die, just not get any kids, which is why Sweden used to have people sterilized. One of the strongest arguments against eugenics is that when it has been applied in practiced it has brought out some of the worst sides in humans.

jkn 13y ago

The eugenic view I was referring to is not saying People should not be treated because it would spoil the gene pool but rather We certainly want to treat diseases, but this will spoil the gene pool unless we prevent the spread of bad genes Solutions to prevent the spread of bad genes range from quite evil (forced sterilization has been used extensively before WWII but I have never heard of something as bad as denying treatment) to slightly controversial, e.g. screening of embryos [1]. By the way, I have just stumbled on the Wikipedia page on dysgenics [2], which is more specifically what this argument is about. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preimplantation_genetic_diagnos... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
Thank you for your time and effort to explain this. Well, honestly, this smells national socialism from a mile. Which genes are bad? Is it really that genes are bad? What about their mutations? I have (not really suffer) ehlers-danlos type 2. Which is genetic disorder. Some people with it - like me - are lucky and have it really benign. It doesn't really affect my life in any way. It doesn't affect lifespan in my case. Then there are some others - with exact same gene mutations - who suffer constant pain to the point they would like to die (literally). Not to mention constant medical emergencies. Now, I have almost no problems because of eds. And one benefit - apparently I have lower risk of colon cancer. (there is more bile in the system which is laxative which helps preventing colon cancer, plus the colon is built differently, in my case causing "stuff" to move quicker). So, how would you know my gene mutation is good or bad? And how do you know that if you change it, something else won't be totally messed up instead? There is always the problem of unintended consequences. Not to mention that once you would open this pandora box, you'd also need to deal with prospect parents demanding "gene therapy" for their future kid because of a gene they think is bad. Like with cosmetic surgeries. People with gene A have higher risk of being short, so please doctor, please, let's "fix" that. Our boy can't be short! Can't have red hair! Can't have 40% higher risk of being depressed or obese too. And here we go, all blond, tall, beautiful. Wouldn't you agree?
- 13y ago

Dylan16807 13y ago

"lifelong treatment" means that it's not cured. You have lingering effects that are barely held at bay by your drug cocktail. It's not a state to look forward to.