Well quite, but I think we can all agree that pretty much all genetic illnesses can do one
Is eugenics really all that bad? (On an individual level)
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Well quite, but I think we can all agree that pretty much all genetic illnesses can do one
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Aug 2011
- Posts
- 682
An interesting proposition.
I have a hereditary blood disorder. It's pretty terrible but my life is still worth living. I have a wife, son, friends and a good job.
The wife and I went to see a geneticist about the hereditary of the condition, and were offered IVF with sperm washing.
Sperm washing would mean that my genetically inferior sperm would not be used in IVF. This would mean that I would not be able to have a daughter as my issue is associated with the X chromosome.
At the time, I didn't mind as I don't want to pass my condition on to future generations. But, my wife wasn't interested for ethical reasons.
Anyway, I now have a son, with no plans for more kids so the condition will die with me on my fork of the family tree.
However, eugenics, however valid and well intentioned, is definitely availabile on the NHS.
I have a hereditary blood disorder. It's pretty terrible but my life is still worth living. I have a wife, son, friends and a good job.
The wife and I went to see a geneticist about the hereditary of the condition, and were offered IVF with sperm washing.
Sperm washing would mean that my genetically inferior sperm would not be used in IVF. This would mean that I would not be able to have a daughter as my issue is associated with the X chromosome.
At the time, I didn't mind as I don't want to pass my condition on to future generations. But, my wife wasn't interested for ethical reasons.
Anyway, I now have a son, with no plans for more kids so the condition will die with me on my fork of the family tree.
However, eugenics, however valid and well intentioned, is definitely availabile on the NHS.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,341
problem is what are we defining as a genetic illness? sure it's easy to identify the big ones like cancer or alzheimers, but when you start digging down smaller and smaller details could be considered once your definition of genetic illness is anything that might possibly in some small way put you at a disadvantage compared to others.
like how about poor eyesight? or skin that's susceptible to sunburn? not too big a leap to questioning if lacking muscle mass or intelligence or having undesirable (read unfashionable) looks would also put you at a disadvantage.
plus with folk being resistant to the conditions that kill us off currently folk will live longer, and what new ailments might we uncover? do we cure those too? just how long can a human lifespan get before that becomes an issue in itself?
A bit off-topic, but what happens if we discover the reason cells age and die, and are able to fix it? Obviously you'd still die from begin run over, shot, etc.
I somehow doubt that it would be made available to everyone. Would it be like space tourism is now? Available only to the rich and famous? Would the general populace revolt if they knew the tech was there but that they could never afford it? Would the discovery be suppressed for as long as possible?
If we did start to fix aging in the general populace, how would we manage a soaring population if people just never aged past 33, say? You can guarantee that people wouldn't stop having kids, even if they knew it was unsustainable. Because, humans.
It's actually really interesting how we don't have the faintest idea why cells stop being able to reproduce perfectly. Basically, why we age.
Make the treatment include sterilisation.
Iirc telomears are damaged during the process and are limited.
Another question is say the human brain can hold 100 years of memory.
Who are you after 200 years?
We'd all become living living ships of theodosius
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
I have posted similar before, but it's staggering how someone buying a dog or horse will pore over the pedigrees, yet marry and reproduce with some unknown without a care in the world...
Not every dog owner does that. I have a pedigree cat but I didn't pore over her lineage. Certain breeds are expected to be more disposed to certain traits, but it's not a given, and there is variance within breeds.
Also as already said, plenty of children are nothing like their parents. Either more/less intelligent, or more/less inclined towards x,y,z.
So basically, put two theoretical physicists together and their offspring are not guaranteed to be academics. They could be painters or musicians or fighter pilots.
People are selective about their partners, but they select on caste, social circles, common experiences, values, etc. They don't just walk up to the nearest "unknown" and start getting busy
Or is that the norm in Shropshire?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
Not every dog owner does that. I have a pedigree cat but I didn't pore over her lineage. Certain breeds are expected to be more disposed to certain traits, but it's not a given, and there is variance within breeds.
Also as already said, plenty of children are nothing like their parents. Either more/less intelligent, or more/less inclined towards x,y,z.
So basically, put two theoretical physicists together and their offspring are not guaranteed to be academics. They could be painters or musicians or fighter pilots.
People are selective about their partners, but they select on caste, social circles, common experiences, values, etc. They don't just walk up to the nearest "unknown" and start getting busy
That does indeed appear to be the norm in parts of Shropshire, ten minutes viewing the customers going in and out of the shopping area in Whitchurch leaves anyone open to the sight of their own eyes to conclude local genetic issues are real
I have always been a strong supporter of selective eugenics until such a time UK and global population levels reach sane levels of reduction. Sadly the brightest brains supporting eugenics get trampled on by those that have escaped selective breeding
William Shockley in later years, for example.I think this article goes into some depth on the resistance to study and information regarding this.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-convinced-that-genetics-matters
Pull quote:
“Building a commitment to egalitarianism on our genetic uniformity is building a house on sand,”
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-convinced-that-genetics-matters
Pull quote:
“Building a commitment to egalitarianism on our genetic uniformity is building a house on sand,”
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2019
- Posts
- 1,117
- Location
- Channel Islands
It depends on how you read it, using IVF to have more children defiantly isn't Eugenics. Whether Choosing female embryos over male embryos, (if that is what you meant?) counts is a difficult one. I'm personally of the opinion that it doesn't count, as I don't consider being female as a genetic trait. At best it's giving an advantage to genes found on the X chromosome.
I'd have to read up on the topic more to be-able to give a more definitive answer. It defiantly isn't as clear cut as either selective breeding or gene therapy though.
Fixed it.
I just really hope I live to see the benefits.
Most people see it as a path to immortality, others a path to incredible beauty. Some at least are racing against their own clock.
Domestication and selective breeding of animals are (arguably) species-est Eugenics, of which are among mankind's great achievements. So successful that said impacted our own evolution, given how humans continue to create lactose into adult-hood, or find dogs cute and cuddly. Animals are natures mastery over engineering, I'm sure the upper limits are beyond our wildest imagination.
I'm certain the health related stuff will happen. Whether the immortal superhuman future happens, is more uncertain.
I don't think sperm banks make much of an impact eugenics wise. Generally for traits to really stick you need to keep the bias going generation to generation. Also, breeding takes two, so there is no guarantee that you'll get the desired result. I doubt that decedents of a person would feel compelled to continue the trend set by their parents.
Selecting from sperm banks is probably the most benign form of Eugenics in my book.
On gene editing, even if the kit's are affordable, it's far from democratized, Biology is insanely complicated, not many are in a position to do much beyond the basics with the technology we have. It's just too damn complicated to try and unpick the complexity involved.
Last edited:
Yeah that's the thing, as much as the term can generate some emotion then arguably some of it is already clearly here and available.
FYI the embryo sex selection example is something I know a friend of a friend went for outside the UK.
That's the other thing, if the NHS only allows for some selection (or in future, gene editing) under strict criteria re: serious genetic conditions etc. there will likely still be some regulatory arbitrage, can't stop people who can afford it from just flying to a location where they are allowed to engage in gene editing or selection of embryos for different traits...
Sure, maybe - if you find a gene that makes people prone to some eye condition then want to select against that, or likewise if you have a selection of embryos from one parent who is very pale and another who isn't so much and you'd rather the kids weren't super pale and prone to sunburn (that latter case is perhaps more akin to choosing eye colour though)
Is that a particular issue? If you can exclude say Down's later on via abortion then why not exclude the bad eyesight (if it were feasible) at the embryo stage... I mean you've got say half a dozen embryos to choose form and some of them are likely going to be destroyed/unsued so why not make an informed choice instead of selecting at random?
Unlike say Down's (or some significant serious rare condition) the trivial/minor stuff might be worth selecting different embryos over but probably isn't worth aborting and starting over again for most people... the more trivial the issue less likely you'd waste several months of trying to get pregnant, several weeks of carrying oa foetus only to then dispose and wait several months again etc...
To be clear no one asked whether IVF in itself is eugenics - IVF is simply the context for the first two questions, the first question is about selecting sex the second question is selecting eye colour - is either bad?
Don't think you could easily suppress something like that, lots of research is being done in that area, Jeff Bezos just invested in an anti-ageing startup, Altos Labs.
As for how expensive it would be, that presumably depends on what exactly is discovered, what needs to be done etc... IF some of the discoveries are made in say academia then you might might well have various companies competing to offer services etc..
Yeah, that's the sort of thing, but aside from perhaps if people are opposed to abortion in general I don't see the point. I don't really see why there needs be some special distinction here - if aborting an otherwise perfectly healthy foetus because it's bad timing for your career or you're not sure you have a future with the father or you've just broken up with them etc.. is fine then why isn't aborting a Down's foetus too?
I mean you could get a similar video with the kid's of single mothers telling women how great their life has been etc.. but really it's got nothing to do with them whether a single mum chooses to abort or not.
I think for me you are zeroing in on the issue. What is an "acceptable" condition to "de-select" a fetus??
Sex for me is not (my wife is Asian origin and at scan for my son they would not tell us sex as girls do get aborted in Asian cultures sometimes - we didnt even ask or care)
Eyesight is not for me (I wouldnt exist if it had been!)
Downs - its very much a choice but who is to say you SHOULD
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,830
I'd be in favour of eugenics if it was possible to reduce the frequency that the kids interrupt me when I am having a relaxing pooh.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
Indeed, the joyous telomeres, issue in general isn't potential telomeric replacement, it is for the cells that do not divide and do not regenerate, nervous tissue for the main part, and brain matter, that's where issues with aggregates will prove a much bigger issue. Prion disease, Alzheimer's etc. We're not getting away so easily from that.
People are stupid.
The whole ideal of CRISPR, eugenics is problematic because it's rooted in time. Say we breed out (could be contentious and say a number of things) certain traits now.......we are not sure of the impact further down the line.
Also the complexities of how things interoperate could easily mean that we inadvertently fix one thing and banjax things for later.
We are too young as a species to be playing around with this yet. But hey ho the change is coming anyway.
The whole ideal of CRISPR, eugenics is problematic because it's rooted in time. Say we breed out (could be contentious and say a number of things) certain traits now.......we are not sure of the impact further down the line.
Also the complexities of how things interoperate could easily mean that we inadvertently fix one thing and banjax things for later.
We are too young as a species to be playing around with this yet. But hey ho the change is coming anyway.
We're going a good job of killing all these people already. Why not add a few more "problems" to the list to solve....
