Eugenics, genetic manipulation and equal worth

[Seteleechete]

What are your thoughts towards eugenics/genetic manipulation? I personally am fairly positive to the concept, but unsure about practical implementation. I don't believe that disrupting genetic diversity or evolution is too big of an issue as these factors could and should be taken into account if an eugenics program is created.

You would need to identify useful traits and this raises ethical questions(but it should be feasible on a practical basis). Also there is the issue of avoiding racism among the general population if such a program is created, which could be very hard. Still I do believe that the benefits of accelerating and controlling our evolutionary paths towards real benefits is well worth it.

We already see that these concepts could work via the success of GMOs/crossbreeding and I do believe it could work for humans as well.

Very closely linked to eugenics is the idea of equal worth, now while I do believe that it's an idea that should be followed on a lawful and cultural basis it's simply not true biologically.

 

[Sinny91]

I think we have a long way to go before we understand how and why we are designed this way, and until we know that, we sure beware of playing God.

However, I do think we could perform some general non-invasive eugenics such as selective breeding. Can we breed the stupid out of people?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

It's rife with subjectivity and immature science. We only recently discovered epigenetics ffs.

 

[Brontosaurie]

it makes me sad when so many are against it. what makes their particular way of life so precious?

 

[Haim]

I think we have a long way to go before we understand how and why we are designed this way, and until we know that, we sure beware of playing God.

However, I do think we could perform some general non-invasive eugenics such as selective breeding. Can we breed the stupid out of people?

There is no why because its just happened a combination of a lot of factors that have some general direction.
The thought of some parents that will decide for their child that he will be blonde is kind of yea.
Moreover,if we have a lot of strong charismatic and smart people with harmful idea it is extremely dangerous, just imgine an army of them that don't refuses orders and genetically hate some race.strong stupid people.
What human should decide what human should be?

On the other hand,the great potential might be worth it,no disease,no ageing, super smart people,human in other planet, no poisoning, no current biological or chemical weapon,mind reading,brain as PC,human with plant fotosinteza(I want!),car with fotosinteza,direct connect with computer, flying human,laser(think kamehameha),porn,slaves (might put it in "not good"),hear vision, eye hearing etc....

 

[Yellow]

While I would sell my nonexistent soul to work on such projects, the thought of Eugenics being in anyone else's hands is unnerving.

Scientifically:
The above arguments really summarize the thought: we don't know enough. We know enough to play with eugenics, sure. We've been doing it off and on in different cultures for a while. But when artificial selection crosses over to direct genetic manipulation of the human genome, it would make just about any geneticist uneasy. (Unless they were chosen for the project. Fuck scruples. Who could pass up that kind of exploration?)

We don't know enough about genetics or evolution to anticipate issues and account for them. Of course, what better way to learn, right? Experimentation, success, and especially failure have taught us so much. If the fear of what might happen had stopped us from scientific exploration in the past, we wouldn't be where we are today.

Ethically:
I think this is part of a bigger concern that we've advanced technologically, but our advancements in humanity have not kept pace. (Hence the fact that using this for porn and slaves has already come up).

Also, since no one else has brought it up yet, I'll take the bullet: We already played with the idea of eugenics in the beginning of the last century, back when the concept was first conceivable from a scientific perspective. I honestly don't think we've advanced beyond that point, as a moral collective.

Spoiler

Spiritually:
Our genes/evolutionary path are what connects us to this world. It is our heritage, our language, and our existence. We've already suffered so much, in a spiritual sense, because of our feelings of separation and isolation from our physical roots. I think the dysphoria of further disconnection would be the final blow against our psyches.

 

[SolarCycler]

We are a long way from safe eugenics. I love the idea though when we actually have a grasp how to edit life. Take a look at how we change the genetics in gmo crops. Taking a bateria/virus that will do the actual work of changing the DNA, it's covered in gold, and shot out of a gun to a plate of cells. Each viable cell is allowed to grow where they have to pull out the oddities that somehow resulted and hope they ended up with what they wanted. It's a whole lot more likely that we start cloning people, just think of the soldiers, productive workers, service people, etc we can indoctrinate to be amazing at those jobs. We still have a long way to go on getting the start of life point correct. There should be a point we understand how to add to the telomeres first, that we can all have our kids live 150 years and more.

When we start seeing life from scratch made, then I believe we will have the understanding needed to make safe gmo crops and allow eugenics to take over. Evolution has led to accepting the way that works from the previous toolset. We of course, should one day be able to design a humaniod completely without having all the faults we know about. Until then, I just want someone to fully understand how the full process of smelling works. It's amazing the stuff we don't know yet.

 

[Pyropyro]

Scientific:
It's now confirmed that we can genetically edit human zygotes. Yay China :P

Anyways, I suggest that we gather more data first before conducting a eugenics program. The tech is too young, as in April 2015 young, so it's best to give it a decade or two before we can have a reliable gene editing system.

I also suggest that we focus less on making a master race or something and more on eliminating genetically linked diseases like hemophila. If the abovementioned genetic method becomes reliable in the future then couples may still be able to conceive but scientists can edit out the baby's harmful genes before the baby is transplanted back to the mother's womb.

Ethical:
Who's to judge which traits are "better"?

 

[onesteptwostep]

On the part about racism, that already exists without the technical modification.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-5sHglFbO8

It'll be hard for homogeneous countries to accept it. Opinions vary by generation.

But really, the media not priding it tells all.

 

[Inquisitor]

I'd echo Pyro on this. Making widely-available technology that would allow a couple to select the most genetically perfect sperm and egg and then implanting the zygote back into the mother has zero downsides as far as I can see. No one wants to be born with genetic disease.

As for GMOs, it's fairly clear the reason they are being developed is purely for money and power, not to feed the world's poor and hungry as advertised. Specifically, the agricultural biotech giants like Monsanto create seeds that are resistant only to a specific kind of pesticide/herbicide that only those very same companies make. In essence, if you grow GMO seeds from those companies, you also have to buy chemicals from them. This has immense national security implications because those same companies are effectively controlling the food supply. No more chemicals = no more food, which can cause massive price shocks/economic disruption. Monsanto even created so-called "terminator" seeds which are incapable of reproduction. The result is that farmers are tied to the company and have to keep buying seed and chemicals from Monsanto. Whatever marginal, short-term gains in yield are achieved are outweighed by environmental and financial costs.

 

[propianotuner1]

Scientific:
It's now confirmed that we can genetically edit human zygotes. Yay China :P

Anyways, I suggest that we gather more data first before conducting a eugenics program. The tech is too young, as in April 2015 young, so it's best to give it a decade or two before we can have a reliable gene editing system.

I also suggest that we focus less on making a master race or something and more on eliminating genetically linked diseases like hemophila. If the abovementioned genetic method becomes reliable in the future then couples may still be able to conceive but scientists can edit out the baby's harmful genes before the baby is transplanted back to the mother's womb.

Ethical:
Who's to judge which traits are "better"?

Then what about people with ASD like myself? Would we simply no longer exist? I can easily see this stifling neurological differences.

 

[Pyropyro]

Then what about people with ASD like myself? Would we simply no longer exist? I can easily see this stifling neurological differences.

If anyone will use the method to prevent ASD then I'm the first one who will fight them.

ASD's cause/s are not yet clearly defined and a genetic edit will not simply solve it.

What I'm after are the diseases whose genetic causes are clearly defined.