Eugenics, for or Against?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
So…what you’re saying is that you’d rather kill two or three of your kids so, you know one of them can be perfect genetic wise? Still sounds like a lead into Nationalism.[/quote]

Don’t put words in my mouth Chris. I never said anything about ‘killing my kids’ until the perfect one came along. What I said was given the choice between giving one the best genetic profile or not, I would choose the former. Nowhere did I say I would keep going thru it until ‘those scientists finally got it right’.
If the technology wasn’t 100% consistently repeatable then what would be the point?
[/quote]
Doesn’t matter, if you have two embryos and you are able to replace imperfect genetics with those of the other embryo and then the other embryo becomes destroyed and thrown away, you have killed an innocent life.

And, if you are waiting for them to be a 100% consistent, it’ll never happen. Nothing works 100% of the time.

From my (lack of) understanding, I took this conversation of eugenics to mean that the genetic code that we possess would be written without error(s), not throwing out embryos.[/quote]

I’ve never heard of that (it might be my lack of understanding), but that still begs the question, how do you do it without corrupting the marital act?[/quote]

Based on what you have said so far, an acceptable form of eugenics would be when the genetic changes are introduced at the sperm/egg level before conception. The sperm and eggs would then be re-introduced to preserve the “marital act”

In this scenario, none of your current objections apply. And remember, we are only a short space of time away from technological capabilities that equal or exceed that needed to accomplish the above. Is eugenics ok now? If not, why not?

22

[quote]Beauzo wrote:
While eugenics sounds great in theory, history teaches us that every time man has tried to play God, he always fails. That is why God is God, and man is man.[/quote]

Really? How do you define playing god. Go to any emergency room and you will see people playing god on a daily basis. They do an excellent job too.

At what point is interfering in the “natural” cause of events playing god and why?

23

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
My worry is that only the richest will be able to afford it thus creating more of a caste system than there already is.[/quote]

Definately true, the elite probably wouldn’t allow the procedure to be affordable for ‘regular’ people. I don’t think it’s too far of a stretch to say that the elite want control everything and live forever.

24

Without going into the topic of religion (which is a ridiculous restriction BTW). The main problem that I have with eugenics, other then its dark history, is that it takes away one of the greatest assests of humanity: potential.

Lets just say we can select attractiveness, athletics, and intellect for our children, in doing that we have cursed them. By saying we have designed them, there is an implication that we have set all they can do; that they are not creatures of unlimited potential, but merely a product of genes. Not that their genes are a base upon which they can stretch out from with the constant search of new challenges, but instead challenges are the benchmarks of how far they have been designed to go and they can go no further.

If humanity sinks to that then we have de-evolved in way that science can’t save.

25

[quote]ZombieLover wrote:
Without going into the topic of religion (which is a ridiculous restriction BTW). The main problem that I have with eugenics, other then its dark history, is that it takes away one of the greatest assests of humanity: potential.

Lets just say we can select attractiveness, athletics, and intellect for our children, in doing that we have cursed them. By saying we have designed them, there is an implication that we have set all they can do; that they are not creatures of unlimited potential, but merely a product of genes. Not that their genes are a base upon which they can stretch out from with the constant search of new challenges, but instead challenges are the benchmarks of how far they have been designed to go and they can go no further.

If humanity sinks to that then we have de-evolved in way that science can’t save.[/quote]

I disagree. We’re the result of our genes, environment, and experiences.
I would look at it more like they’ve been primed to be the best, but the best at what? No one can be the best at everything(yet), there just isn’t enough time to become an expert in all fields, so to say that their life has been decided for them is short sighted.

26

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]ZombieLover wrote:
Without going into the topic of religion (which is a ridiculous restriction BTW). The main problem that I have with eugenics, other then its dark history, is that it takes away one of the greatest assests of humanity: potential.

Lets just say we can select attractiveness, athletics, and intellect for our children, in doing that we have cursed them. By saying we have designed them, there is an implication that we have set all they can do; that they are not creatures of unlimited potential, but merely a product of genes. Not that their genes are a base upon which they can stretch out from with the constant search of new challenges, but instead challenges are the benchmarks of how far they have been designed to go and they can go no further.

If humanity sinks to that then we have de-evolved in way that science can’t save.[/quote]

I disagree. We’re the result of our genes, environment, and experiences.
I would look at it more like they’ve been primed to be the best, but the best at what? No one can be the best at everything(yet), there just isn’t enough time to become an expert in all fields, so to say that their life has been decided for them is short sighted.[/quote]

To say a person is merely the makings of the three above things is extremely short sighted. If those were the limits then there would not have been a Carnegie, Edison, Jordon, Fitzgerald, Ellison. I could go on but you get the point. These people and many others have risen well above their base genes, environment, and learned from their experiences rather than be limited by them.

27

Please go on.

28

Eugenics stems from fear. Do not be afraid.

29

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
Eugenics stems from fear. Do not be afraid.[/quote]

Please elaborate. Fear of…?

30

Other people, disease, your own shortcomings, death, life, humanity… Have you ever read Aldous Huxley’s Brace New World? If not you should really give it a read. It was way before its time and really is kind of prophetic of where we are today and we might go via eugenics.

31

[quote]ZombieLover wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]ZombieLover wrote:
Without going into the topic of religion (which is a ridiculous restriction BTW). The main problem that I have with eugenics, other then its dark history, is that it takes away one of the greatest assests of humanity: potential.

Lets just say we can select attractiveness, athletics, and intellect for our children, in doing that we have cursed them. By saying we have designed them, there is an implication that we have set all they can do; that they are not creatures of unlimited potential, but merely a product of genes. Not that their genes are a base upon which they can stretch out from with the constant search of new challenges, but instead challenges are the benchmarks of how far they have been designed to go and they can go no further.

If humanity sinks to that then we have de-evolved in way that science can’t save.[/quote]

I disagree. We’re the result of our genes, environment, and experiences.
I would look at it more like they’ve been primed to be the best, but the best at what? No one can be the best at everything(yet), there just isn’t enough time to become an expert in all fields, so to say that their life has been decided for them is short sighted.[/quote]

To say a person is merely the makings of the three above things is extremely short sighted. If those were the limits then there would not have been a Carnegie, Edison, Jordon, Fitzgerald, Ellison. I could go on but you get the point. These people and many others have risen well above their base genes, environment, and learned from their experiences rather than be limited by them.[/quote]

I have at one time or another held both viewpoints, but the more I have read, the more I tend towards the “genetics” argument. Our genes determine so much that it is scary. The drives which motivate us all come from our genes, the drive to reproduce, the drive to protect our offspring and make their life better, the drive to survive. I agree that the people that you have mentioned certainly excelled in their environment, but was this above their base genes? I don’t think so, it is just as accurate to say they excelled BECAUSE of their genes, since their genes gave them the reasoning apparatus to excel like they did.

32

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
Eugenics stems from fear. Do not be afraid.[/quote]

Of having handicapped or terminally ill children?

33

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]ZombieLover wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]ZombieLover wrote:
Without going into the topic of religion (which is a ridiculous restriction BTW). The main problem that I have with eugenics, other then its dark history, is that it takes away one of the greatest assests of humanity: potential.

Lets just say we can select attractiveness, athletics, and intellect for our children, in doing that we have cursed them. By saying we have designed them, there is an implication that we have set all they can do; that they are not creatures of unlimited potential, but merely a product of genes. Not that their genes are a base upon which they can stretch out from with the constant search of new challenges, but instead challenges are the benchmarks of how far they have been designed to go and they can go no further.

If humanity sinks to that then we have de-evolved in way that science can’t save.[/quote]

I disagree. We’re the result of our genes, environment, and experiences.
I would look at it more like they’ve been primed to be the best, but the best at what? No one can be the best at everything(yet), there just isn’t enough time to become an expert in all fields, so to say that their life has been decided for them is short sighted.[/quote]

To say a person is merely the makings of the three above things is extremely short sighted. If those were the limits then there would not have been a Carnegie, Edison, Jordon, Fitzgerald, Ellison. I could go on but you get the point. These people and many others have risen well above their base genes, environment, and learned from their experiences rather than be limited by them.[/quote]

I have at one time or another held both viewpoints, but the more I have read, the more I tend towards the “genetics” argument. Our genes determine so much that it is scary. The drives which motivate us all come from our genes, the drive to reproduce, the drive to protect our offspring and make their life better, the drive to survive. I agree that the people that you have mentioned certainly excelled in their environment, but was this above their base genes? I don’t think so, it is just as accurate to say they excelled BECAUSE of their genes, since their genes gave them the reasoning apparatus to excel like they did.[/quote]
Ever read about epigenetic control/epigenetics? Do it. It’ll change this idea you have about “genes determining so much that it is scary”. We are far more than our DNA and a reductionist view of the human person is at the heart of eugenics and things like nihilism are the fruit of it.

34

I hope that one day we develop the technology to predict how long we will live for, allowing us to embrace Jesus at the last possible moment following a life of evil and debauchery.

35

If we created a pill that guarantees our kids would never get cancer, wouldn’t we give it to them in a heartbeat?

If we could modify their genetic code to provide the same protection, wouldn’t we also do it in a heartbeat?

36

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]ZombieLover wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]ZombieLover wrote:
Without going into the topic of religion (which is a ridiculous restriction BTW). The main problem that I have with eugenics, other then its dark history, is that it takes away one of the greatest assests of humanity: potential.

Lets just say we can select attractiveness, athletics, and intellect for our children, in doing that we have cursed them. By saying we have designed them, there is an implication that we have set all they can do; that they are not creatures of unlimited potential, but merely a product of genes. Not that their genes are a base upon which they can stretch out from with the constant search of new challenges, but instead challenges are the benchmarks of how far they have been designed to go and they can go no further.

If humanity sinks to that then we have de-evolved in way that science can’t save.[/quote]

I disagree. We’re the result of our genes, environment, and experiences.
I would look at it more like they’ve been primed to be the best, but the best at what? No one can be the best at everything(yet), there just isn’t enough time to become an expert in all fields, so to say that their life has been decided for them is short sighted.[/quote]

To say a person is merely the makings of the three above things is extremely short sighted. If those were the limits then there would not have been a Carnegie, Edison, Jordon, Fitzgerald, Ellison. I could go on but you get the point. These people and many others have risen well above their base genes, environment, and learned from their experiences rather than be limited by them.[/quote]

I have at one time or another held both viewpoints, but the more I have read, the more I tend towards the “genetics” argument. Our genes determine so much that it is scary. The drives which motivate us all come from our genes, the drive to reproduce, the drive to protect our offspring and make their life better, the drive to survive. I agree that the people that you have mentioned certainly excelled in their environment, but was this above their base genes? I don’t think so, it is just as accurate to say they excelled BECAUSE of their genes, since their genes gave them the reasoning apparatus to excel like they did.[/quote]
Ever read about epigenetic control/epigenetics? Do it. It’ll change this idea you have about “genes determining so much that it is scary”. We are far more than our DNA and a reductionist view of the human person is at the heart of eugenics and things like nihilism are the fruit of it.[/quote]

I am more than familiar with epigenetics. I fail to see how that provides any evidence that contradicts how we are the result of our genes. Perhaps you could elaborate with a specific example.

37

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
I hope that one day we develop the technology to predict how long we will live for, allowing us to embrace Jesus at the last possible moment following a life of evil and debauchery.[/quote]

lol, whats wrong with a life of debauchery?

38

[quote]forlife wrote:
If we created a pill that guarantees our kids would never get cancer, wouldn’t we give it to them in a heartbeat?

If we could modify their genetic code to provide the same protection, wouldn’t we also do it in a heartbeat?[/quote]

Exactly. Some of these questions are a no brainer. Others are a little tougher.

39

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
If we created a pill that guarantees our kids would never get cancer, wouldn’t we give it to them in a heartbeat?

If we could modify their genetic code to provide the same protection, wouldn’t we also do it in a heartbeat?[/quote]

Exactly. Some of these questions are a no brainer. Others are a little tougher.[/quote]

Yeah, I was hoping to get into that too.

So what questions are tougher, and why?

How is designing a baby with blue eyes any different than intentionally marrying another person with blue eyes, so you can keep blue eyes in the family?

Class warfare? Should we disallow the development of an anti-cancer pill just because most people wouldn’t be able to afford it? And what if it became cheaper over time, but only if it was initially available to the wealthy?

40

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
So…what you’re saying is that you’d rather kill two or three of your kids so, you know one of them can be perfect genetic wise? Still sounds like a lead into Nationalism.[/quote]

Don’t put words in my mouth Chris. I never said anything about ‘killing my kids’ until the perfect one came along. What I said was given the choice between giving one the best genetic profile or not, I would choose the former. Nowhere did I say I would keep going thru it until ‘those scientists finally got it right’.
If the technology wasn’t 100% consistently repeatable then what would be the point?
[/quote]
Doesn’t matter, if you have two embryos and you are able to replace imperfect genetics with those of the other embryo and then the other embryo becomes destroyed and thrown away, you have killed an innocent life.

And, if you are waiting for them to be a 100% consistent, it’ll never happen. Nothing works 100% of the time.

From my (lack of) understanding, I took this conversation of eugenics to mean that the genetic code that we possess would be written without error(s), not throwing out embryos.[/quote]

I’ve never heard of that (it might be my lack of understanding), but that still begs the question, how do you do it without corrupting the marital act?[/quote]

Based on what you have said so far, an acceptable form of eugenics would be when the genetic changes are introduced at the sperm/egg level before conception. The sperm and eggs would then be re-introduced to preserve the “marital act”

In this scenario, none of your current objections apply. And remember, we are only a short space of time away from technological capabilities that equal or exceed that needed to accomplish the above. Is eugenics ok now? If not, why not?[/quote]

No, you can’t extract eggs or sperm, it still corrupts the martial act. Marital act is between two people and requires love and unity. Plus, I am not aware of a way of putting sperm back into the testicles.