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

Flagrant epigenetics and culling

EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 10:23:49 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
This seems like a topic which may have been covered in the past on here, but I want to test to the idea.

Why would it be a bad idea to select for genes which are beneficial to the human race, or at least do not hinder it with faulty genes. Faulty genes are ones which produce serious mental (e.g. down syndrome, low I.Q) or physical defects (those rare diseases -- you know the ones). Wouldn't it be better to remove these toxic, unwanted genes, so as to not pollute the gene-pool? You could cull them through abortion, too, so as to remove a lot of the pain. Overall, in terms of economics, care required etc., why would it be a bad idea?

Yes, I know I didn't put forth an argument of my own. I'm testing to the waters to see if anyone is good enough to say that it is bad.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 11:02:08 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 10:23:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
This seems like a topic which may have been covered in the past on here, but I want to test to the idea.

Why would it be a bad idea to select for genes which are beneficial to the human race, or at least do not hinder it with faulty genes. Faulty genes are ones which produce serious mental (e.g. down syndrome, low I.Q) or physical defects (those rare diseases -- you know the ones). Wouldn't it be better to remove these toxic, unwanted genes, so as to not pollute the gene-pool? You could cull them through abortion, too, so as to remove a lot of the pain. Overall, in terms of economics, care required etc., why would it be a bad idea?

Yes, I know I didn't put forth an argument of my own. I'm testing to the waters to see if anyone is good enough to say that it is bad.

Depending on how much research you want to do, you would be pairing certain people, or denying certain people the ability to reproduce based on a metric of dubious construction.

As a for instance, nasty gene "X" has a... say, 10 percent chance of cropping up with me and my spouse. Is that small enough? How about 15? 20? What if we have a 50/50 chance of getting a "Good" gene, as well as a bad one? Or a favorable trait is part and parcel to an unfavorable one?

Regarding abortion, said nasty gene shows up, but... um... so what? That nasty gene only has a small percentage of being passed on, etc etc etc. Where are the lines being drawn?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
keithprosser
Posts: 1,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 11:04:52 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
You could argue its our 'good' genes that are the problem. It is being so 'intelligent' that has given us industrial pollution and global warming, which are going to do a lot more harm to a lot more people than a few kids with Downs syndrome will.

If we had eliminated the genes that lead to blindness we would never have had 'Paraise Lost', if we had eliminated deafness we'd have no Beethoven's fifth. Stephen Hawking wouldn't have stood a chance. On the other hand Pol Pot had absolutely wonderful genes as far as I know.

In most cases traits like intelligence and athletic ability aren't down to single genes but are the result of the interaction of many genes. Many genes are good in one context, not so good in another.

Really bad genes tend to eliminste themselves. The apparently bad ones we are left with generally persist for a good reason. Eliminating such 'bad' genes risks finding out why they aren't so bad after all the hard way.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 11:32:04 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 11:02:08 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/6/2016 10:23:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
This seems like a topic which may have been covered in the past on here, but I want to test to the idea.

Why would it be a bad idea to select for genes which are beneficial to the human race, or at least do not hinder it with faulty genes. Faulty genes are ones which produce serious mental (e.g. down syndrome, low I.Q) or physical defects (those rare diseases -- you know the ones). Wouldn't it be better to remove these toxic, unwanted genes, so as to not pollute the gene-pool? You could cull them through abortion, too, so as to remove a lot of the pain. Overall, in terms of economics, care required etc., why would it be a bad idea?

Yes, I know I didn't put forth an argument of my own. I'm testing to the waters to see if anyone is good enough to say that it is bad.


Depending on how much research you want to do, you would be pairing certain people, or denying certain people the ability to reproduce based on a metric of dubious construction.

As a for instance, nasty gene "X" has a... say, 10 percent chance of cropping up with me and my spouse. Is that small enough? How about 15? 20? What if we have a 50/50 chance of getting a "Good" gene, as well as a bad one? Or a favorable trait is part and parcel to an unfavorable one?

Mmm infinite regression. I suppose it has to be seen in the light of *not* having a filter for some level of genetic aberration, is worse than having one, hence justifying one. But then this doesn't suggest what level would be required.


Regarding abortion, said nasty gene shows up, but... um... so what? That nasty gene only has a small percentage of being passed on, etc etc etc. Where are the lines being drawn?

I'm not sure yet...

I guess I can only justify having some line drawn (rather than having a specific line drawn), at least so far...
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 11:38:58 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 11:04:52 AM, keithprosser wrote:
You could argue its our 'good' genes that are the problem. It is being so 'intelligent' that has given us industrial pollution and global warming, which are going to do a lot more harm to a lot more people than a few kids with Downs syndrome will.

Well, that could be a problem too, arguably a bigger one (I really don't know), but that does not mitigate the problem of genetic pollution.


If we had eliminated the genes that lead to blindness we would never have had 'Paraise Lost', if we had eliminated deafness we'd have no Beethoven's fifth. Stephen Hawking wouldn't have stood a chance. On the other hand Pol Pot had absolutely wonderful genes as far as I know.

The exceptions don't negate the rule. Since we're talking macro-societal concepts, we need to look at whole populations. Otherwise, your argument will suffer from a small sample-size fallacy.


In most cases traits like intelligence and athletic ability aren't down to single genes but are the result of the interaction of many genes. Many genes are good in one context, not so good in another.

Of course, so we could look at genes for a per-birthed child holistically, or observe the overall likelihood of the baby incurring a seriously harmful deficiency.


Really bad genes tend to eliminste themselves. The apparently bad ones we are left with generally persist for a good reason. Eliminating such 'bad' genes risks finding out why they aren't so bad after all the hard way.

I'm not sure that the bad ones are eliminated. Are you saying that people don't breed with these people whom have these bad genes? Maybe (if that's the case). I wouldn't mind seeing statistical data on this...

I'm not sure how a set of genes could be considered good/bad, depending on content. Did you have any in mind, or is your argument purely abstract?
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Vaarka
Posts: 7,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 11:57:27 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 10:23:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
This seems like a topic which may have been covered in the past on here, but I want to test to the idea.

Why would it be a bad idea to select for genes which are beneficial to the human race, or at least do not hinder it with faulty genes. Faulty genes are ones which produce serious mental (e.g. down syndrome, low I.Q) or physical defects (those rare diseases -- you know the ones). Wouldn't it be better to remove these toxic, unwanted genes, so as to not pollute the gene-pool? You could cull them through abortion, too, so as to remove a lot of the pain. Overall, in terms of economics, care required etc., why would it be a bad idea?

Yes, I know I didn't put forth an argument of my own. I'm testing to the waters to see if anyone is good enough to say that it is bad.

I'm sorry...but can you give a definition of what "Flagrant epigenetics and culling" is?
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
Vaarka
Posts: 7,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 12:01:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 11:57:27 AM, Vaarka wrote:
At 5/6/2016 10:23:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
This seems like a topic which may have been covered in the past on here, but I want to test to the idea.

Why would it be a bad idea to select for genes which are beneficial to the human race, or at least do not hinder it with faulty genes. Faulty genes are ones which produce serious mental (e.g. down syndrome, low I.Q) or physical defects (those rare diseases -- you know the ones). Wouldn't it be better to remove these toxic, unwanted genes, so as to not pollute the gene-pool? You could cull them through abortion, too, so as to remove a lot of the pain. Overall, in terms of economics, care required etc., why would it be a bad idea?

Yes, I know I didn't put forth an argument of my own. I'm testing to the waters to see if anyone is good enough to say that it is bad.

I'm sorry...but can you give a definition of what "Flagrant epigenetics and culling" is?

After reading the rest of the posts, I think I got an idea of what you're saying.
Now, I don't know much about this subject, but I remember that my parents told me I wanted to come early when my mom was pregnant with me, like 2-3 months early. And the doctors said my mom wasn't supposed to have a second child, and said I'd probably have some birth defect, or be deaf or something.
Well, my mom didn't care, and here I am, no birth defects, not deaf, and born around when my actual due date was
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 12:01:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 11:57:27 AM, Vaarka wrote:
At 5/6/2016 10:23:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
This seems like a topic which may have been covered in the past on here, but I want to test to the idea.

Why would it be a bad idea to select for genes which are beneficial to the human race, or at least do not hinder it with faulty genes. Faulty genes are ones which produce serious mental (e.g. down syndrome, low I.Q) or physical defects (those rare diseases -- you know the ones). Wouldn't it be better to remove these toxic, unwanted genes, so as to not pollute the gene-pool? You could cull them through abortion, too, so as to remove a lot of the pain. Overall, in terms of economics, care required etc., why would it be a bad idea?

Yes, I know I didn't put forth an argument of my own. I'm testing to the waters to see if anyone is good enough to say that it is bad.

I'm sorry...but can you give a definition of what "Flagrant epigenetics and culling" is?

Sure. What I mean by this, in regards to "flagrant epigenetics", is epigenetics which mercilessly removes genetic imperfections.

The same kind of definition is applied to culling, in that abortions take place to remove genetic imperfections.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Vaarka
Posts: 7,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 12:03:18 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 12:01:16 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 5/6/2016 11:57:27 AM, Vaarka wrote:
At 5/6/2016 10:23:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
This seems like a topic which may have been covered in the past on here, but I want to test to the idea.

Why would it be a bad idea to select for genes which are beneficial to the human race, or at least do not hinder it with faulty genes. Faulty genes are ones which produce serious mental (e.g. down syndrome, low I.Q) or physical defects (those rare diseases -- you know the ones). Wouldn't it be better to remove these toxic, unwanted genes, so as to not pollute the gene-pool? You could cull them through abortion, too, so as to remove a lot of the pain. Overall, in terms of economics, care required etc., why would it be a bad idea?

Yes, I know I didn't put forth an argument of my own. I'm testing to the waters to see if anyone is good enough to say that it is bad.

I'm sorry...but can you give a definition of what "Flagrant epigenetics and culling" is?

Sure. What I mean by this, in regards to "flagrant epigenetics", is epigenetics which mercilessly removes genetic imperfections.
Yes, but what are epigenetics?

The same kind of definition is applied to culling, in that abortions take place to remove genetic imperfections.
and what is culling? Is it abortions for children who are likely to be born with bad defects?
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 12:08:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 12:03:18 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 5/6/2016 12:01:16 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 5/6/2016 11:57:27 AM, Vaarka wrote:
At 5/6/2016 10:23:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
This seems like a topic which may have been covered in the past on here, but I want to test to the idea.

Why would it be a bad idea to select for genes which are beneficial to the human race, or at least do not hinder it with faulty genes. Faulty genes are ones which produce serious mental (e.g. down syndrome, low I.Q) or physical defects (those rare diseases -- you know the ones). Wouldn't it be better to remove these toxic, unwanted genes, so as to not pollute the gene-pool? You could cull them through abortion, too, so as to remove a lot of the pain. Overall, in terms of economics, care required etc., why would it be a bad idea?

Yes, I know I didn't put forth an argument of my own. I'm testing to the waters to see if anyone is good enough to say that it is bad.

I'm sorry...but can you give a definition of what "Flagrant epigenetics and culling" is?

Sure. What I mean by this, in regards to "flagrant epigenetics", is epigenetics which mercilessly removes genetic imperfections.
Yes, but what are epigenetics?

Basically, manually switching genes on to ensure that better ones are expressed.


The same kind of definition is applied to culling, in that abortions take place to remove genetic imperfections.
and what is culling? Is it abortions for children who are likely to be born with bad defects?

Yes, in this instance. Be mindful that conventional definitions may not hold such a connotation, though.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 1:50:17 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
because someone has to choose, and that's a hell of a lot of trust to put into anyone or anything.

selective genetic specialization yields a unary evolutionary vector based on limited predictive information. It's mathematically improbable that the end result would be universally beneficial and highly likely that a single threat source could end the entire race.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 3:37:36 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Sterilisation maybe, but never abortion.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 3:39:31 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
This can get a little tricky, though. Do you remove Aspergers from the gene pool? Do you remove homosexual tendencies?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vaarka
Posts: 7,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 3:53:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
The problem with this idea isn't really that people will want to remove possible defects, but there's probably a good chance that people will start to use this "epigenetics" thing to make their child look a certain way, or something like that. Idk if that makes much sense, but what I'm trying to say is if some mom decided she wanted her kid to look like a certain celebrity, or a character from a show/movie/book, then she could possibly do that.

Also, idk if it can really go this far, but technically, couldn't this mean if a parent found out they were having a boy, but they wanted a girl (or vice versa), then they could change the genes and switch the genders?
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 5:39:58 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 10:23:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
This seems like a topic which may have been covered in the past on here, but I want to test to the idea.

Why would it be a bad idea to select for genes which are beneficial to the human race, or at least do not hinder it with faulty genes. Faulty genes are ones which produce serious mental (e.g. down syndrome, low I.Q) or physical defects (those rare diseases -- you know the ones). Wouldn't it be better to remove these toxic, unwanted genes, so as to not pollute the gene-pool? You could cull them through abortion, too, so as to remove a lot of the pain. Overall, in terms of economics, care required etc., why would it be a bad idea?

Yes, I know I didn't put forth an argument of my own. I'm testing to the waters to see if anyone is good enough to say that it is bad.

Do you mean eugenics rather than epigenetics?

Down's syndrome is mostly not inherited, so "culling" affected people will have no effect on its occurrence, except within that generation.

personally, I'd rather not kill people or forcibly sterilize them.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 6:53:49 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Sterilisation won't work because everybody has some bad genes. Most of the time they don't show up because chromosomes are paired, so there is a 'backup' good gene on the other chromosome, but the bad gene can be passed to offspring. You cant sterilise everybody.

I don't know what the cost of 'genetic defects' to society is. Even individuals with genetic defects can contribute to socity - Lord Byron wrote good poems despite his club foot. The cost of mass screening and sterilisation - in money terms and in less tangible terms - would almost certainly far exceed any benefit. There would be a lot of pain for very little gain.

It might - at great expense and with draconian enforcement - be possible to eliminate one or two particular genes we could certainly do without, but that sort of gene tends to be self-limiting anyway.

The idea of genetically manipulating a population is morally dubious and practically infeasible. I don't know why people think it could work.
janesix
Posts: 3,439
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 7:55:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 12:01:16 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 5/6/2016 11:57:27 AM, Vaarka wrote:
At 5/6/2016 10:23:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
This seems like a topic which may have been covered in the past on here, but I want to test to the idea.

Why would it be a bad idea to select for genes which are beneficial to the human race, or at least do not hinder it with faulty genes. Faulty genes are ones which produce serious mental (e.g. down syndrome, low I.Q) or physical defects (those rare diseases -- you know the ones). Wouldn't it be better to remove these toxic, unwanted genes, so as to not pollute the gene-pool? You could cull them through abortion, too, so as to remove a lot of the pain. Overall, in terms of economics, care required etc., why would it be a bad idea?

Yes, I know I didn't put forth an argument of my own. I'm testing to the waters to see if anyone is good enough to say that it is bad.

I'm sorry...but can you give a definition of what "Flagrant epigenetics and culling" is?

Sure. What I mean by this, in regards to "flagrant epigenetics", is epigenetics which mercilessly removes genetic imperfections.

The same kind of definition is applied to culling, in that abortions take place to remove genetic imperfections.

I think you might mean eugenics, not epigenetics?
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 11:14:53 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 5:39:58 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 5/6/2016 10:23:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
This seems like a topic which may have been covered in the past on here, but I want to test to the idea.

Why would it be a bad idea to select for genes which are beneficial to the human race, or at least do not hinder it with faulty genes. Faulty genes are ones which produce serious mental (e.g. down syndrome, low I.Q) or physical defects (those rare diseases -- you know the ones). Wouldn't it be better to remove these toxic, unwanted genes, so as to not pollute the gene-pool? You could cull them through abortion, too, so as to remove a lot of the pain. Overall, in terms of economics, care required etc., why would it be a bad idea?

Yes, I know I didn't put forth an argument of my own. I'm testing to the waters to see if anyone is good enough to say that it is bad.

Do you mean eugenics rather than epigenetics?

Yes, in hindsight. Whilst epigenetics applies to limiting harmful genes in the gene-pool, eugenics much better applies to both, especially aborting to keep the gene-pool free of impurities.

Down's syndrome is mostly not inherited, so "culling" affected people will have no effect on its occurrence, except within that generation.

Perhaps other psychological issues then (like bipolar disorder). I'm not well versed on genetic heritability of psychological issues, so forgive me if I write things inaccurately -- more than willing to learn. But I think you get the idea, nonetheless.


personally, I'd rather not kill people or forcibly sterilize them.

Why not?
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 11:25:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 6:53:49 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Sterilisation won't work because everybody has some bad genes. Most of the time they don't show up because chromosomes are paired, so there is a 'backup' good gene on the other chromosome, but the bad gene can be passed to offspring. You cant sterilise everybody.

Sure, everybody has some "bad" genes. However, could not you sterilise/abort those people who have more inferior genes than others? Even if most of the time they do not show up, if you could stop a person with many of them from breeding, then you would prevent many future genetic inferiorities.


I don't know what the cost of 'genetic defects' to society is. Even individuals with genetic defects can contribute to socity - Lord Byron wrote good poems despite his club foot.

Perhaps some deformities are not sufficiently severe to prevent -- sure.

The cost of mass screening and sterilisation - in money terms and in less tangible terms - would almost certainly far exceed any benefit. There would be a lot of pain for very little gain.

It seems like you're purely speculating here. Do you have any sources for what you're writing?


It might - at great expense and with draconian enforcement - be possible to eliminate one or two particular genes we could certainly do without, but that sort of gene tends to be self-limiting anyway.

What do you mean by self-limiting?


The idea of genetically manipulating a population is morally dubious and practically infeasible. I don't know why people think it could work.

Can you show why it wouldn't work?
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 11:25:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 7:55:45 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/6/2016 12:01:16 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 5/6/2016 11:57:27 AM, Vaarka wrote:
At 5/6/2016 10:23:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
This seems like a topic which may have been covered in the past on here, but I want to test to the idea.

Why would it be a bad idea to select for genes which are beneficial to the human race, or at least do not hinder it with faulty genes. Faulty genes are ones which produce serious mental (e.g. down syndrome, low I.Q) or physical defects (those rare diseases -- you know the ones). Wouldn't it be better to remove these toxic, unwanted genes, so as to not pollute the gene-pool? You could cull them through abortion, too, so as to remove a lot of the pain. Overall, in terms of economics, care required etc., why would it be a bad idea?

Yes, I know I didn't put forth an argument of my own. I'm testing to the waters to see if anyone is good enough to say that it is bad.

I'm sorry...but can you give a definition of what "Flagrant epigenetics and culling" is?

Sure. What I mean by this, in regards to "flagrant epigenetics", is epigenetics which mercilessly removes genetic imperfections.

The same kind of definition is applied to culling, in that abortions take place to remove genetic imperfections.

I think you might mean eugenics, not epigenetics?

Yes, eugenics would have been a more accurate term.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 11:53:50 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 11:14:53 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 5/6/2016 5:39:58 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 5/6/2016 10:23:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
This seems like a topic which may have been covered in the past on here, but I want to test to the idea.

Why would it be a bad idea to select for genes which are beneficial to the human race, or at least do not hinder it with faulty genes. Faulty genes are ones which produce serious mental (e.g. down syndrome, low I.Q) or physical defects (those rare diseases -- you know the ones). Wouldn't it be better to remove these toxic, unwanted genes, so as to not pollute the gene-pool? You could cull them through abortion, too, so as to remove a lot of the pain. Overall, in terms of economics, care required etc., why would it be a bad idea?

Yes, I know I didn't put forth an argument of my own. I'm testing to the waters to see if anyone is good enough to say that it is bad.

Do you mean eugenics rather than epigenetics?


Yes, in hindsight. Whilst epigenetics applies to limiting harmful genes in the gene-pool, eugenics much better applies to both, especially aborting to keep the gene-pool free of impurities.

I think epigenetics refers to gene expression and how environmental and other factors influence it. What does that have to do with eugenics?

Down's syndrome is mostly not inherited, so "culling" affected people will have no effect on its occurrence, except within that generation.

Perhaps other psychological issues then (like bipolar disorder). I'm not well versed on genetic heritability of psychological issues, so forgive me if I write things inaccurately -- more than willing to learn. But I think you get the idea, nonetheless.

I don't think you can link psychological traits to particular genes in that way.

personally, I'd rather not kill people or forcibly sterilize them.

Why not?

It's mean.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 12:00:04 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 11:53:50 AM, Hoppi wrote:
At 5/6/2016 11:14:53 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 5/6/2016 5:39:58 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 5/6/2016 10:23:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
This seems like a topic which may have been covered in the past on here, but I want to test to the idea.

Why would it be a bad idea to select for genes which are beneficial to the human race, or at least do not hinder it with faulty genes. Faulty genes are ones which produce serious mental (e.g. down syndrome, low I.Q) or physical defects (those rare diseases -- you know the ones). Wouldn't it be better to remove these toxic, unwanted genes, so as to not pollute the gene-pool? You could cull them through abortion, too, so as to remove a lot of the pain. Overall, in terms of economics, care required etc., why would it be a bad idea?

Yes, I know I didn't put forth an argument of my own. I'm testing to the waters to see if anyone is good enough to say that it is bad.

Do you mean eugenics rather than epigenetics?


Yes, in hindsight. Whilst epigenetics applies to limiting harmful genes in the gene-pool, eugenics much better applies to both, especially aborting to keep the gene-pool free of impurities.

I think epigenetics refers to gene expression and how environmental and other factors influence it. What does that have to do with eugenics?

I think the definition allows for a manual changing of gene expression (i.e. not just environment). Since eugenics involves selecting for certain genes, the connection should now be obvious.


Down's syndrome is mostly not inherited, so "culling" affected people will have no effect on its occurrence, except within that generation.

Perhaps other psychological issues then (like bipolar disorder). I'm not well versed on genetic heritability of psychological issues, so forgive me if I write things inaccurately -- more than willing to learn. But I think you get the idea, nonetheless.

I don't think you can link psychological traits to particular genes in that way.

How do you know this?


personally, I'd rather not kill people or forcibly sterilize them.

Why not?

It's mean.

I'm still waiting for a worthwhile response.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 12:19:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 12:00:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 5/7/2016 11:53:50 AM, Hoppi wrote:
At 5/6/2016 11:14:53 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 5/6/2016 5:39:58 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 5/6/2016 10:23:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
This seems like a topic which may have been covered in the past on here, but I want to test to the idea.

Why would it be a bad idea to select for genes which are beneficial to the human race, or at least do not hinder it with faulty genes. Faulty genes are ones which produce serious mental (e.g. down syndrome, low I.Q) or physical defects (those rare diseases -- you know the ones). Wouldn't it be better to remove these toxic, unwanted genes, so as to not pollute the gene-pool? You could cull them through abortion, too, so as to remove a lot of the pain. Overall, in terms of economics, care required etc., why would it be a bad idea?

Yes, I know I didn't put forth an argument of my own. I'm testing to the waters to see if anyone is good enough to say that it is bad.

Do you mean eugenics rather than epigenetics?


Yes, in hindsight. Whilst epigenetics applies to limiting harmful genes in the gene-pool, eugenics much better applies to both, especially aborting to keep the gene-pool free of impurities.

I think epigenetics refers to gene expression and how environmental and other factors influence it. What does that have to do with eugenics?

I think the definition allows for a manual changing of gene expression (i.e. not just environment). Since eugenics involves selecting for certain genes, the connection should now be obvious.

it's not though.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 12:21:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 12:19:28 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 5/7/2016 12:00:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 5/7/2016 11:53:50 AM, Hoppi wrote:
At 5/6/2016 11:14:53 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 5/6/2016 5:39:58 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 5/6/2016 10:23:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
This seems like a topic which may have been covered in the past on here, but I want to test to the idea.

Why would it be a bad idea to select for genes which are beneficial to the human race, or at least do not hinder it with faulty genes. Faulty genes are ones which produce serious mental (e.g. down syndrome, low I.Q) or physical defects (those rare diseases -- you know the ones). Wouldn't it be better to remove these toxic, unwanted genes, so as to not pollute the gene-pool? You could cull them through abortion, too, so as to remove a lot of the pain. Overall, in terms of economics, care required etc., why would it be a bad idea?

Yes, I know I didn't put forth an argument of my own. I'm testing to the waters to see if anyone is good enough to say that it is bad.

Do you mean eugenics rather than epigenetics?


Yes, in hindsight. Whilst epigenetics applies to limiting harmful genes in the gene-pool, eugenics much better applies to both, especially aborting to keep the gene-pool free of impurities.

I think epigenetics refers to gene expression and how environmental and other factors influence it. What does that have to do with eugenics?

I think the definition allows for a manual changing of gene expression (i.e. not just environment). Since eugenics involves selecting for certain genes, the connection should now be obvious.

it's not though.

Stop wasting my time with your bare assertions.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
keithprosser
Posts: 1,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 12:41:17 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
It might - at great expense and with draconian enforcement - be possible to eliminate one or two particular genes we could certainly do without, but that sort of gene tends to be self-limiting anyway.

What do you mean by self-limiting?


What I mean is that individuals with a really bad gene tend not to breed anyway. A large fraction of genetic diseases are due to new mutations or accidents in cell duplication so aren't really amenable to elimination in the way proposed.

If the question is whether a foetus observed to have a gross defect (say by ultrasound) should be aborted, then there are certainly cases where that would be acceptable to me - anacephaly for instance. But I would not necessarily make it compulsory, which is the gist of the OP. Certaintly for lesser defects - such as club foot - I think compulsory abortion is going too far, although that raises the difficuly question of where the line is drawn.

In practice, a policy of eugenics would require near 100% screening and near 100% comliance and enforcement to have a change of working. Given that practical screening techniques would miss many defects and possibly produce a large number of false positives and false negatives I can't believe it would be worth the effort. I wouldn't affect the large number of defective births due to, say smoking, drinking and drug use during pregnancy.

Even if the homogenised, sanitised and frankly boring sounding society envisaged by the OP was a desirable goal, it couldn't be achieved by eugenic means without vastly increasing the power of the state individuals choice. Indeed, the main effect would be on personal liberties, with not much effect at all on the burden of genetic defects to society which is already not all that big.

I think many proponents of eugenics know that, and their motivation is 'control' rather then the 'public weal'. I am very distrustful of eugenics and eugenicists. I think the history of when it has been public policy justifies that distrust.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 12:52:01 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 10:23:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
This seems like a topic which may have been covered in the past on here, but I want to test to the idea.

Why would it be a bad idea to select for genes which are beneficial to the human race, or at least do not hinder it with faulty genes. Faulty genes are ones which produce serious mental (e.g. down syndrome, low I.Q) or physical defects (those rare diseases -- you know the ones). Wouldn't it be better to remove these toxic, unwanted genes, so as to not pollute the gene-pool? You could cull them through abortion, too, so as to remove a lot of the pain. Overall, in terms of economics, care required etc., why would it be a bad idea?

Yes, I know I didn't put forth an argument of my own. I'm testing to the waters to see if anyone is good enough to say that it is bad.

How do you know which ones are "faulty"? I think being a Nazi is faulty, so let's use genetic engineering to make sure people don't grow up to be Nazis.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 11:31:37 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/7/2016 12:41:17 PM, keithprosser wrote:
It might - at great expense and with draconian enforcement - be possible to eliminate one or two particular genes we could certainly do without, but that sort of gene tends to be self-limiting anyway.

What do you mean by self-limiting?


What I mean is that individuals with a really bad gene tend not to breed anyway. A large fraction of genetic diseases are due to new mutations or accidents in cell duplication so aren't really amenable to elimination in the way proposed.

Well okay, but what about the ones that aren't that bad?


If the question is whether a foetus observed to have a gross defect (say by ultrasound) should be aborted, then there are certainly cases where that would be acceptable to me - anacephaly for instance. But I would not necessarily make it compulsory, which is the gist of the OP. Certaintly for lesser defects - such as club foot - I think compulsory abortion is going too far, although that raises the difficuly question of where the line is drawn.

Sure, there is difficulty in drawing the line. However, I think that it would be better to draw the line somewhere, rather than allow everything through. As you wrote, things like anacephaly would be better removed than allowed to replicate.


In practice, a policy of eugenics would require near 100% screening and near 100% compliance and enforcement to have a change of working. Given that practical screening techniques would miss many defects and possibly produce a large number of false positives and false negatives I can't believe it would be worth the effort.

What does this mean? Are you saying that screening is inaccurate in detecting defects?

I wouldn't affect the large number of defective births due to, say smoking, drinking and drug use during pregnancy.

I can't make sense of what you wrote here. Can you please explain it again?


Even if the homogenised, sanitised and frankly boring sounding society envisaged by the OP was a desirable goal, it couldn't be achieved by eugenic means without vastly increasing the power of the state individuals choice. Indeed, the main effect would be on personal liberties, with not much effect at all on the burden of genetic defects to society which is already not all that big.

Okay, but I'm not sure why you value personal liberties so highly...


I think many proponents of eugenics know that, and their motivation is 'control' rather then the 'public weal'. I am very distrustful of eugenics and eugenicists. I think the history of when it has been public policy justifies that distrust.

Maybe. This is inductive speculation, though.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 11:34:04 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/7/2016 12:52:01 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/6/2016 10:23:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
This seems like a topic which may have been covered in the past on here, but I want to test to the idea.

Why would it be a bad idea to select for genes which are beneficial to the human race, or at least do not hinder it with faulty genes. Faulty genes are ones which produce serious mental (e.g. down syndrome, low I.Q) or physical defects (those rare diseases -- you know the ones). Wouldn't it be better to remove these toxic, unwanted genes, so as to not pollute the gene-pool? You could cull them through abortion, too, so as to remove a lot of the pain. Overall, in terms of economics, care required etc., why would it be a bad idea?

Yes, I know I didn't put forth an argument of my own. I'm testing to the waters to see if anyone is good enough to say that it is bad.

How do you know which ones are "faulty"?

Genes which have a high expression rate of undesirable traits, such as mental diseases and disorders, serious physical deformities etc. I think that the public could come to a consensus on this, so whilst it isn't objective, people aren't basing their opinions purely on subjective determinants.

I think being a Nazi is faulty, so let's use genetic engineering to make sure people don't grow up to be Nazis.

I appreciate the irony, but please keep the discussion serious.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...