Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Genetics in Politics

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2012 11:50:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I came across this question in a lecture about genetics that I was watching and it posed some thought.

It was basically: Does society have an obligation to eliminate undesirable traits from the gene pool? If so, then through what process (genetic engineering, genetic screening + abortion) should be used?

A more general question for the hippies would be: Is it O.K for man to eliminate traits which he might view as undesirable?

I decided to post this in the politics section 'cause science and society rarely get any action and this is somewhat related to politics.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 12:00:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Any question that starts with "Is it okay for society to...." or "does society have an obligation to... is automatically illogical. Society is what establishes ethical norms, the likes of which have no meaning beyond society's judgement.

The creator of rules, cannot itself, break them, because in so doing, it has made new ones.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 12:03:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 12:00:49 AM, 000ike wrote:
Any question that starts with "Is it okay for society to...." or "does society have an obligation to... is automatically illogical. Society is what establishes ethical norms, the likes of which have no meaning beyond society's judgement.

The creator of rules, cannot itself, break them, because in so doing, it has made new ones.

Useless answer is useless.

"Should society have an obligation...." Is that better for you? I really don't want to get into a redundant argument about subjective morality.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 12:07:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 12:03:22 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/10/2012 12:00:49 AM, 000ike wrote:
Any question that starts with "Is it okay for society to...." or "does society have an obligation to... is automatically illogical. Society is what establishes ethical norms, the likes of which have no meaning beyond society's judgement.

The creator of rules, cannot itself, break them, because in so doing, it has made new ones.

Useless answer is useless.

"Should society have an obligation...." Is that better for you? I really don't want to get into a redundant argument about subjective morality.

An obligation? No, I don't believe that it should have to do such a thing. Should it be aloud to if it wishes? Yes.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 12:12:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Take for example that there was found a specific gene (or a set of genes) which represented an inclination of extreme violent behaviour coupled with psychopathic tendencies. Should society(inb4 Ike) take active measures to remove those genes from future offsprings?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 12:19:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 12:12:09 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Take for example that there was found a specific gene (or a set of genes) which represented an inclination of extreme violent behaviour coupled with psychopathic tendencies. Should society(inb4 Ike) take active measures to remove those genes from future offsprings?

Just my opinion, but I think we should remove those traits if given the opportunity. Most of the objections are naturalistic fallacy in disguise.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 12:22:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Perhaps "obligation" was too strong a phrase. May "right" is more appropriate.

Does society have a right to do....?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 12:25:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 12:22:11 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Perhaps "obligation" was too strong a phrase. May "right" is more appropriate.

Does society have a right to do....?

I would say they have a right to do that to their own society (but not to other societies).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 12:51:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Will it be OK if a society considers a particular skin color to be undesirable trait and chooses to eliminate it?

I think it would be best if we stop playing around with eugenics.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 1:48:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 12:51:15 AM, baggins wrote:
Will it be OK if a society considers a particular skin color to be undesirable trait and chooses to eliminate it?

I believe we've been through enough societal evolution to get beyond that sort of notion.
I think it would be best if we stop playing around with eugenics.
I'm not sure. A genetic modification to get rid of undesirable human parts such as, say, the appendix, I'd be all game.
turn down for h'what
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 5:44:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
As long as it's all voluntary, sure. After all, I'm already subconsciously choosing for certain baby-makin' features, might as well make it explicit & more precise.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 6:21:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I subscribe to an objective morality, handed down to mankind by a supreme being. I think that denying people the right to procreate is evil, and the fact that there could be a benefit to it makes no difference; no one would commit evil unless it benefited them.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 6:26:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If this was allowed, would it not fringe on people rights? Wouldnt they be depriving people of who they was meant to be? I would think that every part of our body and mind is meant to be just the way it is. Why do we see need to mess with what has worked and been supplied by nature?
TheAsylum
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 7:25:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's not just to limit procreative rights and I can see this being abused. Indira Gandhi tried this in India to limit population expansion and it just became an excuse to sterilize anybody who opposed her politically.
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 7:47:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 11:50:55 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I came across this question in a lecture about genetics that I was watching and it posed some thought.

It was basically: Does society have an obligation to eliminate undesirable traits from the gene pool? If so, then through what process (genetic engineering, genetic screening + abortion) should be used?

A more general question for the hippies would be: Is it O.K for man to eliminate traits which he might view as undesirable?

I decided to post this in the politics section 'cause science and society rarely get any action and this is somewhat related to politics.

As for the science end of it, you have to keep in mind that to truly eliminate all so-called undesirable traits is nearly impossible. Because of how genes encode there's always an element of chance involved. It's a long held myth that identical twins are completely genetically identical. In reality because of the element of chance involved in genetic encoding it's very unlikely for identical twins to truly be genetically identical. As David Eagleman says brains are like fingerprints no two are exactly alike. Also note that you can't truly isolate genes and environment as independent of each other, they only work the way they do when connected. Now with all that said, you could certainly confound for desired genes.

As for the ethics/politics side of it, it really comes down to asking yourself what kind of society you want to live in. Do you want to live in a society that values hard work (Neuroplasticity *wink) and overcoming differences or do you want to live in a society obsessed with genes and talent -and likely willing to push it's way onto peoples lives forfeiting their freedom-?
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 7:55:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 12:12:09 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Take for example that there was found a specific gene (or a set of genes) which represented an inclination of extreme violent behaviour coupled with psychopathic tendencies. Should society(inb4 Ike) take active measures to remove those genes from future offsprings?

Might be easier to create some sort of "cure" that would interact with the person's physiology (amygdala primarily in this case) rather than getting down to the genes. But it's a thought.
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 8:07:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 7:55:27 AM, Brain_crazy wrote:
At 8/10/2012 12:12:09 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Take for example that there was found a specific gene (or a set of genes) which represented an inclination of extreme violent behaviour coupled with psychopathic tendencies. Should society(inb4 Ike) take active measures to remove those genes from future offsprings?

Might be easier to create some sort of "cure" that would interact with the person's physiology (amygdala primarily in this case) rather than getting down to the genes. But it's a thought.

Also should society depends on what kind of measures you have in mind for my opinion.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 11:39:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is a tough question. I'd say that we don't need to bother speeding up natural selection, but by putting so much effort forth to keep people with genetic birth defects living healthy normal lives, we're actually slowing it down. This is certainly a problem we've created, and it's vicious cycle as well. The better we get at extending the lives of the disabled, the more likely it is that they'll pass on their genes...

At some point, a tough decision has to be made. Unless, of course, we can live with the immorality and expenses that go with sustaining the current system.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 11:52:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, my answer would depend on exactly how one would go about doing it. To me, the means are very important. If it was required to prohibit certain people from breeding, then I'd say that that society neither has the obligation, nor the right, to phase out traits.

If the method was more voluntary, ie, some kind of gene therapy, then yes, I'd say the society has a right to do it.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 11:52:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 12:19:51 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/10/2012 12:12:09 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Take for example that there was found a specific gene (or a set of genes) which represented an inclination of extreme violent behaviour coupled with psychopathic tendencies. Should society(inb4 Ike) take active measures to remove those genes from future offsprings?

Just my opinion, but I think we should remove those traits if given the opportunity. Most of the objections are naturalistic fallacy in disguise.:

The problem with this kind of genetic manipulation is that we know very little about it, so f*cking with an individuals genome without their consent, and thereby unwittingly giving them some horrible degenerative disease instead, makes them complicit.

I think of every self-imposed "great idea" as I would any pharmaceutical. Great, this is what it's supposed to do... but what are the side effects?

Playing God is a dangerous proposition, and every conceivable hypothetical should be carefully examined before jumping headlong into things you can't take back once it's set in motion.

The Genie comes out of the bottle, it doesn't go back in. So when you open Pandora's Box, you better be damn certain of the consequences. (See: Nuclear warheads for example)
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 12:05:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 7:55:27 AM, Brain_crazy wrote:
At 8/10/2012 12:12:09 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Take for example that there was found a specific gene (or a set of genes) which represented an inclination of extreme violent behaviour coupled with psychopathic tendencies. Should society(inb4 Ike) take active measures to remove those genes from future offsprings?

Might be easier to create some sort of "cure" that would interact with the person's physiology (amygdala primarily in this case) rather than getting down to the genes. But it's a thought.

Perhaps, but genes create the framework for behaviour and if you don't address the underlying cause, then it might revert back.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 12:17:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Most likely no. Unless everyone carrying those genes agreed to have them "removed", in which case you wouldn't need "society"(IE government) to force them not to. Keeping someone from reproducing against their will is a rights violation
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 12:31:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 12:17:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
Most likely no. Unless everyone carrying those genes agreed to have them "removed", in which case you wouldn't need "society"(IE government) to force them not to. Keeping someone from reproducing against their will is a rights violation

You are conflating eugenics for genetic engineering. They are two different things. Eugenics is the active denying of reproduction, while genetic engineering is the altering of genes either in the embryo or gametes.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
thett3
Posts: 14,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 1:09:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 12:31:19 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/10/2012 12:17:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
Most likely no. Unless everyone carrying those genes agreed to have them "removed", in which case you wouldn't need "society"(IE government) to force them not to. Keeping someone from reproducing against their will is a rights violation

You are conflating eugenics for genetic engineering. They are two different things. Eugenics is the active denying of reproduction, while genetic engineering is the altering of genes either in the embryo or gametes.

Even so, you can't alter those without consent.

Although, and interesting point could be raised that certain genes are inherently aggressive and need to be eliminated
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 1:49:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 1:48:06 AM, Aaronroy wrote:
At 8/10/2012 12:51:15 AM, baggins wrote:
Will it be OK if a society considers a particular skin color to be undesirable trait and chooses to eliminate it?

I believe we've been through enough societal evolution to get beyond that sort of notion.

I don't think so. World is still full of prejudices.

I think it would be best if we stop playing around with eugenics.
I'm not sure. A genetic modification to get rid of undesirable human parts such as, say, the appendix, I'd be all game.

Appendix is not a trait.

Even otherwise, I think appendectomy when needed is simpler.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 2:38:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/9/2012 11:50:55 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
I came across this question in a lecture about genetics that I was watching and it posed some thought.

It was basically: Does society have an obligation to eliminate undesirable traits from the gene pool? If so, then through what process (genetic engineering, genetic screening + abortion) should be used?

A more general question for the hippies would be: Is it O.K for man to eliminate traits which he might view as undesirable?

I decided to post this in the politics section 'cause science and society rarely get any action and this is somewhat related to politics.

It really depends what you mean by undesirable because there's many different meanings of that. It covers everything from cancer to big ears. The more objectively undesirable it is the more I'd be inclined to say "yes." Also, the more the costs are outside the individual the more it becomes a collective responsibility.