|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Eugenics of Personal Choice | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
According to The Nation, the fact that we're developing the ability to edit genes could have consequences for preventing genetic illnesses. But some see the specter of eugenics lurking in the background. The classic eugenicist aim of improving the human community by weeding out bad specimens seems old school compared to the sci-fi fantasy of directing the genetic destiny of ourselves and our families. And even though we're aiming at stretches of DNA instead of individuals, the program fits the neoliberal agenda so well that trouble ahead seems inevitable:
"With the emergence of gene editing during an era of self-interested free-market individualism, will eugenics become acceptable and widespread again?" I wonder if this isn't just unethical but jumping the gun: even if we could pinpoint the genes responsible (a leap of faith in itself), tinkering with the genome seems like a premature panacea for maladies that probably have strong environmental and cultural factors as well. And what's the political price?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
MrHambre writes: "With the emergence of gene editing during an era of self-interested free-market individualism, will eugenics become acceptable and widespread again?" I certainly hope so. As long as it can be shown that it's helpful.If it's shown that it's detrimental, then by all means stop it. But don't stop it because it's "playing with DNA," that's just immature.There's also nothing obviously unethical about it. The unethical parts only come up if you start doing things without some sort of factual foundation and/or intentions of harm. However, if the genetic manipulation is based on a sound factual basis, and it is doing helpful things (better resistance to disease, stronger muscles, more brain power...). Add in a monitoring system checking for any adverse side-effects and either correcting or stopping at those points as well as willing volunteers... then it would actually be unethical not to do genetic manipulation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Hmm, well.
I remember I once met a white supremacist who insisted that allowing interracial marriage was genocide. He reasoned that if it went on long enough eventually there'd be no-one left whom you could reasonably describe as white, so you'd have abolished a race, which is what genocide means. Well, if that's genocide, then apparently there are two sorts of genocide, one which involves killing people and which I object to, and another which doesn't and which I don't. Similar remarks may apply here. You say "some see the specter of eugenics". Well, see, there's a reason why I don't think much of eugenics. It's the compulsory element. If, on the other hand, what is offered is that parents could (for example) freely choose to conceive a child without cystic fibrosis, then how is that a "specter"? That's a genie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... If, on the other hand, what is offered is that parents could (for example) freely choose to conceive a child without cystic fibrosis, then how is that a "specter"? That's a genie. My first thoughts were along those lines -- eliminate sickle cell by altering the gene -- but then the issue becomes who has access to this and who doesn't. Gattaca - Wikipedia If it is part of a universal health program where the emphasis is on eliminating the most horrid genetic diseases from ALL peoples then it can be a tool for greater good. If it is part of a for-profit health system where only the very wealthy can afford it then it will be a tool for evil. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Dueling dictionaries is about to begin.
Eugenics, defined as seeking improvement in the genetic quality (defined as ?) of the human race, can be a laudable goal. The problem comes in how these improvements are made. The history of eugenics is fraught with forced sterilization, restricted reproduction laws and murder of undesirable phenotypes. Going Godwin can not be helped. Eugenics, in the popular vernacular, is synonymous with Nazi. Gene selection/insertion/replacement in a fetus to improve the resultant expressed phenotype may be eugenics by classical definition but has nothing whatever to do with the pop culture boogieman of violating living peoples human rights. Using the scare word "eugenics" as the article does is an intentional hype. Genome alteration is going to happen and mistakes will occur. Unintended consequences can, and probably will, produce the most gross horror stories if the technology is not monitored and regulated closely. But this has nothing to do with the popular conceptions of abusive eugenics and the forced comparison the article makes is bullshit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
If I read it right, the article isn't trying to say that death camps for the unfit are right around the corner. What it's saying is that the eugenic goal of genetic improvement of the human race is essentially the same whether we're talking about the Malthusian idea of letting the less fit die, the sterilizers arguing that the gene pool can do without criminal chromosomes, or the post-human scheme to tinker with the genome directly. You sound like you're in general agreement with this concept. But this has nothing to do with the popular conceptions of abusive eugenics and the forced comparison the article makes is bullshit. But the article points out that the eugenicists of old were interested in the value of genetic improvement for its own good, in a (perhaps misguided) collective vision for the future of humanity. And in our neoliberal day and age, gene-splicing won't just be done to rid humanity of cystic fibrosis but also to "improve" individuals and give their offspring some sort of perceived advantage over people who still have less-fit genes. To many doctors, this will just be the genetic version of cosmetic surgery, the individual's choice for increased self-worth. And there may be consequences down the line even apart from unforeseen effects on health: how can we be sure there won't be a social stigma attached to the possession of less-fit genes that will prevent people from attaining positions of influence? Food for thought, anyway, and undeserving of dismissal as bullshit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
What it's saying is that the eugenic goal of genetic improvement of the human race is essentially the same whether we're talking about the Malthusian idea of letting the less fit die, the sterilizers arguing that the gene pool can do without criminal chromosomes, or the post-human scheme to tinker with the genome directly. "The financial goal of acquiring money is essentially the same whether we're talking about earning it from useful work or stabbing people and stealing their wallets."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: "The financial goal of acquiring money is essentially the same whether we're talking about earning it from useful work or stabbing people and stealing their wallets." The author of the article would say, I'd say, and I think AZPaul3 would say, that there is indeed a big ethical difference in the methods we use to go about realizing the eugenics goal. The point I was making was that the cultural context of eugenics has changed as well as the means used to conduct it. Furthermore, there may be consequences that we should be proactive in assessing before we decide that there's absolutely no downside to this program.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
MrHambre writes: Furthermore, there may be consequences that we should be proactive in assessing before we decide that there's absolutely no downside to this program. I don't think we should ever decide that there's absolutely no downside to this program.That seems like a very un-intelligent thing to decide about any program, ever. My point is that the idea of possible-downsides does not necessarily outweigh the evidence of factual-goodsides. There are still many flavours... what are the gravity and probabilities of the downsides?What sort of evidence is actually backing the goodsides (are they actually factual?) These sorts of things would be unique per situation, and should be taken as such. "Eugenics" is a massive scope.Sweeping generalizations in either direction are rather silly. Yes, it's certainly possible that future issues could occur.It's also certainly possible that future issues could occur with setting and putting a cast on a broken bone. The ideas of "oh noes, the entire culture will go corrupt!!... so we can't go through with ensuring your baby has a maximally-healthy brain to start their life..." are just silly. The fear itself isn't so silly... it's the knee-jerk solution to calm that fear that is silly.The fear that the entire culture will go corrupt is quite normal to have... but the solution is to be proactive about laws/regulations/monitoring systems that prevent "the entire culture from going corrupt." The solution is not "oh well, let's forget about helping people, then..." Systems that could be incorporated to resist the possible corruption are ones like RAZD already mentioned... ensure that such procedures are not exclusive to certain classes/levels of people. Ensure that such procedures are voluntary as opposed to mandatory. Those are great beginnings. And, of course, we may want to start with the corrupt governments we *already have* before we start worrying about future-corrupt-governments...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Furthermore, there may be consequences that we should be proactive in assessing before we decide that there's absolutely no downside to this program. Well, what's the "program"? Various possibilities lie open to us. Several possibilities for each polymorphic gene, I guess. And the only reasonable thing to do is to judge them on a case-by-case basis. There is no sensible way we can think about whether "eugenics" (broadly defined) is a good or bad thing any more than we can pass such a judgement on (for example) things made of metal. It depends on the thing and what it does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Stile 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. 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, it's certainly possible that future issues could occur.It's also certainly possible that future issues could occur with setting and putting a cast on a broken bone. No one's disputing that getting rid of cystic fibrosis would be a good thing. 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. 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? Isn't decreased genetic diversity 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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? We don't. And the Wright brothers didn't know that airplanes would be flown into building. But these aren't good reasons to limit technological advancement.
Is anyone who brings up questions like this engaging in nothing but knee-jerk fearmongering, impeding scientific progress for no reason? There's a difference between "Be careful." and "Don't do it.", which side are you on?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Cat Sci writes: We don't. And the Wright brothers didn't know that airplanes would be flown into building. But these aren't good reasons to limit technological advancement. Because you've handwaved them away, not because they're not good reasons to be circumspect about messing with the ecosystem of the genome. There are plenty of technological advancements that took place before anyone realized the full extent of their consequences: DDT, splitting the atom, thalidomide, the list goes on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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? Well, this is something we could perfectly well do even if we didn't exercise our ability to change genes. That just involves looking at the genes. We can look at the genes now, we could look at the phenotypes since forever. There was a time in the USA when we did forbid people to procreate (and sterilized them) based on phenotype. There was a time when Spartan fathers tossed their sickly children off a cliff. The bad face of eugenics can appear whether or not we can give ourselves better genes through technology --- but, if you think about it, it's much less likely to appear if we have the technology. Imagine some politician, or some dictator, saying "We must stamp out cystic fibrosis by screening everyone and preventing carriers from marrying." Which he could do now. But then imagine that we have such powers as are presupposed in your OP. Would his attack on liberty not seem, and be, perfectly futile, if carriers could simply elect to have children without the gene? --- which they would.
Isn't decreased genetic diversity a bad thing in itself? That depends on the particular allele of the particular gene. Is there anyone who wants to stick up for phenylketonuria because we need diversity? Again, this is a case-by-case question.
Is anyone who brings up questions like this engaging in nothing but knee-jerk fearmongering, impeding scientific progress for no reason? Well ... with respect ... it's the way you brought it up. Your talking point was: "If this happened, wouldn't it technically be ... eugenics?" Which is fearmongering, and is no reason, or no good reason, to impede anything.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024