Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Eugenics of Personal Choice
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 16 of 34 (766596)
08-19-2015 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by MrHambre
08-19-2015 12:57 PM


Re: Chillmongering
MrHambre writes:
Let's at least admit that there are many, and much more momentous, unforeseen consequences that could come about by fucking with DNA than with a broken bone.
No.
Because you're wrong.
You're trying to compare the "unforeseen consequences" of DNA tinkering with the "totally foreseen consequences" of bone tinkering. And that's the point I'm trying to make... the difference isn't that the consequences are possibly horrible... the difference is merely that the consequences are unforeseen.
If you actually compare the "unforeseen consequences" of both... you'll see that they both have just as many, just as dangerous, and just as big. They have to be... because they're unforeseen. It's like comparing the size of two infinite numbers...
Yes, it's quite possible that DNA tinkering can be taken in a very bad direction.
It's also possible that bone tinkering could be taken in a very bad direction.
We have a history of bone tinkering with volunteer subjects and access to everyone under monitored regulations.
We don't have such a history for DNA tinkering.
It's also quite possible that DNA tinkering, given the same volunteer subjects and access to everyone and monitored regulations, could be just as helpful to people and benign to the corruption of society.
Can we just talk this through before we start making changes to the delicate ecosystem of the genome, just so we could make it look like we did due diligence before going whole hog?
Yes, of course. First off, I'm not advocating going "whole hog" in any manner. I'm advocating a controlled, monitored, volunteer-driven, accessible "hog."
Secondly... you have yet to pick anything specific you want to discuss. You keep saying that "the issues" are being hand-waved away... but you won't specify any issues. What's a specific issue? You're going to have to get a bit more specific than "delicate ecosystem."
But beyond things like that, we quickly get into territory where we're defining what are "good" genes and what aren't on the basis of our personal and cultural biases, and this leaves the door wide open for abuse.
That's exactly what should happen. We need to have many different personal and cultural biases give their opinions on such things. Otherwise we're only playing into our own personal biases.
What kind of abuse are you worried about?
Can you give an example that isn't something that would very obviously not be allowed in a democratic society anyway?
Like, obviously, "only people with DNA tinkered brains are allowed in schools so as not to waste public funding on the weak" is a possible abuse. But do you really think such a thing would actually fly? How would such a bill/law/regulation get through the voting process? Especially during this time when equality and fairness are things that are being politically stressed as baseline mandatory.
So, name a specific, possible abuse that you're worried about and we can begin discussing how big of a worry it really should or shouldn't be.
Like I asked before, how do we know that people won't be screened for "bad" genes and prevented from marrying/procreating/holding a job because of the perceived flaws in their DNA?
The same way we're not screened for "bad" IQ levels right now for such things.
The same way we're not screened for "bad" athletic prowess right now for such things.
Some jobs will have minimum requirements... you could say that being a doctor includes certain screening for "bad" IQ levels. You could say that being a professional football player includes certain screening for "bad" athletic levels. But such things are reasonable and valuable. Therefore, perhaps it's possible that certain screening for "bad" genes should be done in certain circumstances as well.
Isn't decreased genetic diversity a bad thing in itself?
No.
Totally decreased genetic diversity of any possible variation at all is a bad thing in itself.
But just "a decrease in genetic diversity" is not a bad thing in itself.
Is anyone who brings up questions like this engaging in nothing but knee-jerk fearmongering, impeding scientific progress for no reason?
No.
Like I said before, the questions themselves are not fearmongering. They're reasonable and understandable.
But anyone jumping to the conclusion of "we shouldn't do this at all" without giving any reasoning other than their fears of future possibilities... is fearmongering. (You may not actually be doing this, just saying...)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by MrHambre, posted 08-19-2015 12:57 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 34 (766597)
08-19-2015 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by MrHambre
08-19-2015 1:25 PM


Re: Chillmongering
Well, there's a difference between "Be careful." and "Don't do it.", which side are you on?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by MrHambre, posted 08-19-2015 1:25 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 18 of 34 (766658)
08-19-2015 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by MrHambre
08-19-2015 9:39 AM


Re: Eugenics 2.0
Food for thought, anyway, and undeserving of dismissal as bullshit.
Misunderstanding. I do not dismiss the issues involved. I dismiss as bullshit the media's fear mongering of the issue.
I agree with some of what you say. This designer DNA stuff can get well out of hand. As the article addresses, personal choice in designer genomes for our babies could well lead to a plethora of the tall, handsome, blue-eyed, muscle-man brainiacs of the Aryan ideal. And you just know that some rock star or movie star is going to have a baby with purple hair, zebra skin and a bony spike sticking through its little baby head.
What do we do to control this? What I see in the article is the fear mongered suggestion that we kill the research in total.
I don't know how the future society can/will control the all-too-human penchant to give every advantage to our babies. But the promise of further research in arresting disease, correcting genome malfunction, improving health, longevity, intellect, happiness, whatever good things we can do to make life warm and fuzzy for all time, seems, imho, well worth walking the minefield ... on my belly ... with a detector ... and a map.
If we stop now we only delay the good stuff. We can still progress while we ponder the limits we want to enforce, by whom, when and how. Some of these consequences we will need to experience before we even know they are there. Scary and dangerous, yes, but until we progress further we will not know what we can and cannot, should and should not do.
Ethics conferences, philosophical essays, a consensus gentium (minus the Republicans and the Vatican) will need to guide us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by MrHambre, posted 08-19-2015 9:39 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by MrHambre, posted 08-20-2015 12:54 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 19 of 34 (766702)
08-20-2015 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by AZPaul3
08-19-2015 11:12 PM


Re: Eugenics 2.0
AZPaul3 writes:
What I see in the article is the fear mongered suggestion that we kill the research in total.
But in its last paragraph, the article states, I’ll be excited to watch the workaday applications of techniques like CRISPR unfold, in medicine and, especially, basic science. I guess we have different definitions of what fear mongering is, and what's involved in the term "kill."
If we stop now we only delay the good stuff. We can still progress while we ponder the limits we want to enforce, by whom, when and how.
I understand you're not saying full speed ahead here, and I agree. But there's a Polyanna quality to the belief that the good stuff outweighs the bad, that progress is inevitable and ultimately beneficial. Especially in a field where there are so many unknowns, people have every right to be skeptical.
And the most emphatic point the article is trying to make is that eugenics in our neoliberal world just reinforces the idea that we should look at problems like disease and deviance as individual issues and not in terms of social problems. The extent to which we focus on the biomedical aspects of health and quality of life and not the socioeconomic ones is a political decision:
In short, neoliberal eugenics is the same old eugenics we’ve always known. When it comes to controlling our evolution, individualism and choice point toward the same outcomes as authoritarian collectivism: a genetically stratified society resistant to social changeone that places the blame for society’s ills on individuals rather than corporations or the government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by AZPaul3, posted 08-19-2015 11:12 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by caffeine, posted 08-20-2015 2:46 PM MrHambre has seen this message but not replied
 Message 21 by AZPaul3, posted 08-20-2015 2:52 PM MrHambre has replied
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2015 10:55 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 20 of 34 (766713)
08-20-2015 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by MrHambre
08-20-2015 12:54 PM


Re: Eugenics 2.0
And the most emphatic point the article is trying to make is that eugenics in our neoliberal world just reinforces the idea that we should look at problems like disease and deviance as individual issues and not in terms of social problems. The extent to which we focus on the biomedical aspects of health and quality of life and not the socioeconomic ones is a political decision:
Most of the conditions we are looking at being able to 'fix' in the near future with genetic engineering are, indeed, individual issues. An excess of trinucleotide repeats in the HTT gene isn't caused by poverty or social exclusion (unless your parents' poverty meant they lived somewhere exposed to more mutagens, which is possible, I suppose). How well you're able to cope with the effects of the disorder probably will depend on your socioeconomic condition, but that isn't a concern if the offending allele can be fixed in advance.
Now, how you make a treatment available - how it's funded and who is able to access it - is a wholly different social question, but the fact that the distribution of healthcare is a complicated problem we need to solve is no reason to stop medical advances.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by MrHambre, posted 08-20-2015 12:54 PM MrHambre has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 21 of 34 (766714)
08-20-2015 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by MrHambre
08-20-2015 12:54 PM


Re: Eugenics 2.0
In short, neoliberal eugenics is the same old eugenics we’ve always known. When it comes to controlling our evolution, individualism and choice point toward the same outcomes as authoritarian collectivism: a genetically stratified society resistant to social changeone that places the blame for society’s ills on individuals rather than corporations or the government.
If there were nothing more than individualism and personal choice operating here then I cannot disagree. But, I think even at this point most of those involved understand that this is the hole we need to avoid falling into. Just how has yet to be determined and more importantly, by who and how do those determinations get made.
And just to muddy the waters against my own arguments, how do you deal with the potential of the renegade? Bill Joy's "gray goo" scenario. A genetically stratified society resistant to social change is tame by comparison.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by MrHambre, posted 08-20-2015 12:54 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Stile, posted 08-20-2015 3:23 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 27 by MrHambre, posted 08-21-2015 3:15 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 22 of 34 (766716)
08-20-2015 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by AZPaul3
08-20-2015 2:52 PM


Re: Eugenics 2.0
Made me do my homework: Grey Goo
That's not the way I'd program them to work...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by AZPaul3, posted 08-20-2015 2:52 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by AZPaul3, posted 08-20-2015 8:50 PM Stile has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 23 of 34 (766737)
08-20-2015 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Stile
08-20-2015 3:23 PM


Re: Eugenics 2.0
Well, that's good news, thank you. We were a bit concerned you'd go over to the dark side on us there, Stile. Now, what are your thoughts on designer hemorrhagic viruses?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Stile, posted 08-20-2015 3:23 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Stile, posted 08-21-2015 12:26 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 24 of 34 (766746)
08-21-2015 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by AZPaul3
08-20-2015 8:50 PM


Re: Eugenics 2.0
I've recently discovered that my thoughts on the matter fluctuate entirely depending on how much I've had to drink coupled with what movie I most recently watched.
Just put the lives of millions in my hands, I'll at least include subtitles 😁

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by AZPaul3, posted 08-20-2015 8:50 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by 1.61803, posted 08-21-2015 9:57 AM Stile has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


(1)
Message 25 of 34 (766756)
08-21-2015 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Stile
08-21-2015 12:26 AM


Re: Eugenics 2.0
Stile writes:
I've recently discovered that my thoughts on the matter fluctuate entirely depending on how much I've had to drink coupled with what movie I most recently watched.
Mine too.
Have you seen Gattica?
I suppose we simply have to trust that humanity will make the right choices in regards to having the power to alter our genes.
Given the track record with the ability to split the atom I feel we are in for a period of prolific abuse before it is reigned in.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Stile, posted 08-21-2015 12:26 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by MrHambre, posted 08-21-2015 9:37 PM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 33 by Stile, posted 08-23-2015 10:38 AM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 26 of 34 (766758)
08-21-2015 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by MrHambre
08-20-2015 12:54 PM


Re: Eugenics 2.0
In short, neoliberal eugenics is the same old eugenics we’ve always known.
If you mean it comes with forcible sterilization and death camps, you are wrong. And if you don't mean that then it's not actually the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by MrHambre, posted 08-20-2015 12:54 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 27 of 34 (766777)
08-21-2015 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by AZPaul3
08-20-2015 2:52 PM


Re: Eugenics 2.0
AZPaul3 writes:
quote:
When it comes to controlling our evolution, individualism and choice point toward the same outcomes as authoritarian collectivism: a genetically stratified society resistant to social changeone that places the blame for society’s ills on individuals rather than corporations or the government.
If there were nothing more than individualism and personal choice operating here then I cannot disagree. But, I think even at this point most of those involved understand that this is the hole we need to avoid falling into.
I'm of the opposite opinion, that people think that just because we're not leading anyone into death camps or euthanizing the infirm, it's just peachy.
I'm willing to admit that a lot of hypothetical dangers in gene-splicing may be more cautionary tales than realistic concerns. However, the emphasis on making individuals and families responsible for ameliorating problems like health and well-being rather than our corporate and political overlords is a facet of this issue that no one else seems to think is a big deal. As you said, glitches in the gene-tinkering process might cause problems, but they could convceivably be fixed. The decision of a culture to define health and standards of well-being as matters of individual choice rather than as social concerns might not be so easy to reverse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by AZPaul3, posted 08-20-2015 2:52 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2015 6:40 PM MrHambre has replied
 Message 32 by AZPaul3, posted 08-22-2015 7:56 AM MrHambre has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 34 (766781)
08-21-2015 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by MrHambre
08-21-2015 3:15 PM


Re: Eugenics 2.0
I'm of the opposite opinion, that people think that just because we're not leading anyone into death camps or euthanizing the infirm, it's just peachy.
People actually think that just because we're not leading anyone into death camps or euthanizing the infirm, it's not "the same old eugenics we’ve always known".
If you pay closer attention to what people say, you will have a better idea of what they think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by MrHambre, posted 08-21-2015 3:15 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by MrHambre, posted 08-21-2015 7:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 29 of 34 (766786)
08-21-2015 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dr Adequate
08-21-2015 6:40 PM


Re: Eugenics 2.0
Dr Adequate writes:
People actually think that just because we're not leading anyone into death camps or euthanizing the infirm, it's not "the same old eugenics we’ve always known".
And, um, I've reiterated a couple of times what they said in the article about why it's the same old eugenics, despite that. If you don't get the point by now, I don't know why I should think another go-round would do the trick.
If you pay closer attention to what people say, you will have a better idea of what they think.
Oh, the irony.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2015 6:40 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-21-2015 7:55 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 30 of 34 (766789)
08-21-2015 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by MrHambre
08-21-2015 7:17 PM


Re: Eugenics 2.0
And, um, I've reiterated a couple of times what they said in the article about why it's the same old eugenics, despite that.
It's the same old eugenics, despite being different?
That's not how being the same works.
If you don't get the point by now ....
I get the point. It is wrong. Things that are different are not the same.
... I don't know why I should think another go-round would do the trick.
It wouldn't, because reiteration is not a substitute for being right, or for finding a valid argument for different things being the same.
Oh, the irony.
I have paid close attention to what you say. I have also noticed that it's bollocks, because of different things not being the same.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by MrHambre, posted 08-21-2015 7:17 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024