Eugenics

I find that people are always arguing against advanced technology because of the negative uses a few sociopaths could make of it. What is wrong with removing genes that potentially cause obesity, heart disease, cancer, diabetes. Have you any idea how much suffering these diseases cause? Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars are spent giving free aide to people with these diseases.
Do you all truly have an objection to living longer, having better immune systems, having children that don't need tutoring and can leave home and get jobs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soundofmusic

I find that people are always arguing against advanced technology because of the negative uses a few sociopaths could make of it. What is wrong with removing genes that potentially cause obesity, heart disease, cancer, diabetes. Have you any idea how much suffering these diseases cause? Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars are spent giving free aide to people with these diseases.
Do you all truly have an objection to living longer, having better immune systems, having children that don't need tutoring and can leave home and get jobs?

---

In principle there is nothing wrong with "removing genes that potentially cause obesity, heart disease, cancer, diabetes...etc. The debate occurs
over how you "remove" these genes (and let's forget for a moment how you identify these genes and decide, once you have identified them, the statistical risk they pose to their possesor of actually developing the diseases
that they "potentially" cause. If you can technologically excise these genes from an individual and replace them with more favorable ones, so that the individual doesn't suffer from the disease, and better yet, not pass on the gene to his or her descendants, it would be hard to object. But when you talk about restricting the ability to procreate, that is a sticky wicket.

During most of human history natural selection rather harshly weeded out maladaptive traits. Human medical technology has allowed offspring with these
traits to survive and reproduce.

Nick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Capozzoli

During most of human history natural selection rather harshly weeded out maladaptive traits. Human medical technology has allowed offspring with these
traits to survive and reproduce.
Nick

---

Please forgive me for quoting myself, but consider this. Let's suppose that
some now extinct species, like the Irish Elk (not technically an elk) possessed the wherewithal to "immunize" their sexually selected but environmentally maladaptive bigger antlers from the harsh effects of "natural" selection. That would be analogous to our ability, through technology, to permit people with deleterious traits (like retinoblastoma) to live to reproductive age and reproduce. Would this be a good thing for the Irish Elk in the long term? I don't know, but I think that we need to pose the question clearly.

What are the long term evoluionary downsides to allowing deleterious genes to increase in frequency in the human population? Again, I don't know.

One way to approach this question is to take the optimistic attitude that medical technology will allow us to "rise above" natural selection, i.e. that
technology will provide a way for us to maintain the Darwinian fitness of our species while we allow "unfit" genes to increase in frequency. Maybe we can do this, and maybe we can't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soundofmusic

I find that people are always arguing against advanced technology because of the negative uses a few sociopaths could make of it. What is wrong with removing genes that potentially cause obesity, heart disease, cancer, diabetes. Have you any idea how much suffering these diseases cause? Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars are spent giving free aide to people with these diseases.
Do you all truly have an objection to living longer, having better immune systems, having children that don't need tutoring and can leave home and get jobs?

---

I absolutely agree, and I have always thought this, and it seems very simple to me.

As TA said, there are many varieties of eugenics which are in practice, though they are by-products and haphazard. Also there are countless science-fiction references.

I would say I don't understand why people think eugenics is necessary sinister - as a study and practice it could be engaged by individuals or groups. Not in an attempt to control others but to study it and practice it involving anyone who also wants to achieve the same goals.

Now as to the traits, and as to the practice - I would say a lot of studying should be done first. But it really should be studied. I think Abraham Maslow should be consulted, as well. Physical traits of good health are good, and complicated perhaps but even more complicated are traits of good mental health. Those traits may be more complicated but also are probably more important. So it seems to be a very intricate question.

What is the most essential trait of good mental health? It is basically a deep-seated peace... I may not be describing it right. But I would say underlying and most important of everything is the search for peace, love, and truth, etc. The reason I delve into this is simply this: physical good health is all well and good. But even Western science and medicine now knows: the body and mind are not separate from each other, but they are part of each other and affect each other. So therefore we can't select for physical health only, but mental health follows and the two are not separate.

And mental health is probably far more complicated and intricate a subject than physical health, but my own opinion is that the most important and universal need or ideal or value is the value of love - and along with it are peace and truth... now these are philosophical terms, but anyway that is my analysis.

Again, let me say, in response to the people who object to eugenics because of its association with the Nazis - it doesn't need to be in relation to government or anything like that. I am considering the best approach might be a low-budget, private organization which is interested in this, who would devote their time and energy... not that it has to be the focus of attention or even known to the rest of the country(ies).

And about the questions I raised, I don't assume that there are necessarily any conclsions which all would agree on...