4 ms·

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 a

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?

jkn 13y ago
Totally! I think your example is a good illustration of the difficult questions we will face as genetic screening becomes more and more practical and affordable, thanks a lot for sharing. (I can't help but wonder what you would say to a doctor that tells you, "So do you want me to press this little button to make sure your children won't have the same condition?") However, it might also be that in the long term, the quality of the gene pool objectively deteriorates. Taking it to the extreme, imagine if nobody can grow older than five years without medical assistance... I guess this is also something we should consider.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  >imagine if nobody can grow older than five years without medical assistance I think that way before that happens we'll have something like "virtual", "immortal" "bodies". In other words I think that before we need all that medical care the original William Gibson's idea that we'll all end up stored somewhere in a computer memory connected to a network will happen. No body or genes really needed - we just "sit" in RAM, interact with others via network and are - immortal. Ray Kurzweil says it may even happen in our lifetimes. Heard Stephen Hawking mentioning something similar. Reaching point that we can live forever and don't really need our body for that. Or our body can be strengthened by armor, hardware of various types, to be much better and advanced than our bodies are. This reminds me a little bit the dilema local Government in Paris had in 1890s -- what we'll do with all the horse dung if the number of horses grows at the current rate? And then cars came along and it was all irrelevant. Seems to me it's also the same with depopulation. Who cares if there will be 20 billion of us in 50 years if we finally start colonizing other planets and the Moon?
Dylan16807 13y ago
Are you trying to godwin without godwinning? Please don't.
zanny 13y ago
I'm confused why this debate even surfaces. Of course you don't forcibly sterilize people. I imagine the modern eugenics argument is about manipulating chromosomes rather than forcing people to not reproduce. IE, once we can selectively make the perfect human from a genetic standpoint (considering only using genes that promote intelligence / stamina / longevity / etc) that it becomes unethical to continue playing the genetic lottery and having children with FOP or down syndrome or some other life destroying condition. Which I guess says sterilize everyone and grow people in tubes (or wombs until we can get that far). At least it is fair!

jkn 13y ago

Totally! I think your example is a good illustration of the difficult questions we will face as genetic screening becomes more and more practical and affordable, thanks a lot for sharing. (I can't help but wonder what you would say to a doctor that tells you, "So do you want me to press this little button to make sure your children won't have the same condition?") However, it might also be that in the long term, the quality of the gene pool objectively deteriorates. Taking it to the extreme, imagine if nobody can grow older than five years without medical assistance... I guess this is also something we should consider.

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
>imagine if nobody can grow older than five years without medical assistance I think that way before that happens we'll have something like "virtual", "immortal" "bodies". In other words I think that before we need all that medical care the original William Gibson's idea that we'll all end up stored somewhere in a computer memory connected to a network will happen. No body or genes really needed - we just "sit" in RAM, interact with others via network and are - immortal. Ray Kurzweil says it may even happen in our lifetimes. Heard Stephen Hawking mentioning something similar. Reaching point that we can live forever and don't really need our body for that. Or our body can be strengthened by armor, hardware of various types, to be much better and advanced than our bodies are. This reminds me a little bit the dilema local Government in Paris had in 1890s -- what we'll do with all the horse dung if the number of horses grows at the current rate? And then cars came along and it was all irrelevant. Seems to me it's also the same with depopulation. Who cares if there will be 20 billion of us in 50 years if we finally start colonizing other planets and the Moon?

Dylan16807 13y ago

Are you trying to godwin without godwinning? Please don't.

zanny 13y ago

I'm confused why this debate even surfaces. Of course you don't forcibly sterilize people. I imagine the modern eugenics argument is about manipulating chromosomes rather than forcing people to not reproduce. IE, once we can selectively make the perfect human from a genetic standpoint (considering only using genes that promote intelligence / stamina / longevity / etc) that it becomes unethical to continue playing the genetic lottery and having children with FOP or down syndrome or some other life destroying condition. Which I guess says sterilize everyone and grow people in tubes (or wombs until we can get that far). At least it is fair!