Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by viddy9)

    The difference between enhancing the human species with genetic screening and enhancing it with genetic engineering is that genetic screening would select an embryo which could have plausibly come into existence anyway, whereas a genetically engineered human would most likely possess wildly different abilities to some of its peers.
    If we limit ourselves to wild type gene replacement and not introducing wild new genetic networks into, then genetically engineered humans would not possess any wildly different characteristics.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kimi1kimi2kimi3)
    Your post has nothing to do with mine. I'm saying that the "outbreeding" of disease has nothing to do with the designation of certain traits or abilities as being more desirable than others, or with the extermination or sterilization of people who don't possess those desirable traits (whatever they might be deemed to be by whomever might deem them so). And I fully acknowledge that human beings' corruptible nature would make it impossible for us to implement a morally sound eugenics program at this juncture of our existence. I'm just saying that the intent of the eugenics movement as originally conceived was simply to eliminate suffering caused by disease, not to pick and choose the attributes of our offspring.
    What is a disease?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    The type of autistic disorder matters. But I agree, eugenics should be focused on physical health and intelligence, to avoid problems like this



    No, it depends on the gene



    It is naive to think that there is a single gene 'responsible' for psychopathy. It is associated with it, perhaps, but there are many many many other genes which contribute to any given mental trait, because the human brain is so complex.



    I've already provided a counter argument to this, which you have not really countered.

    "I have thought about this too, and the obvious solution is to not fully implement eugenics, or keep populations evolving along different paths. It will give us enough diversity in the gene pool to give us a good chance to survive."
    Again, this is just another lack of knowledge response. It's been found that autism is caused by a lack of synapse pruning during brain development. But the synapse pruning is entirely random, so you may come out as low functioning or high functioning irrespective of what your parents were.

    While I agree that saying one gene is responsible for a trait is grossly simplifying things, psychopathy has been found to be caused by the warrior gene. Psychopathy isn't the same as being a remorseless murderer, it's a brain structure thing which normally gives people the ability to charm/manipulate others easily as well as a lack of guilt.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Again, this is just another lack of knowledge response. It's been found that autism is caused by a lack of synapse pruning during brain development. But the synapse pruning is entirely random, so you may come out as low functioning or high functioning irrespective of what your parents were.
    And that is the only cause, is it? Then why the variation in intelligence between autistic people? Why do you have severely autistic people who are geniuses in their fields, and others who have no skills at all? I think you are oversimplifying it as autistic vs. non-autistic, when there is huge variation between types of autistic disorder. Did Einstein have learning disabilities, or simply difficulties with social interactions? I'd like to see where you get the idea that learning disabilities and social empathy are affected by exactly the same process.

    Have you got figures on the likelihoods of low functioning and high functioning autistic parents having a high functioning autistic child?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Eugenics is a waste of time, no-one knows what "bad" genes and good genes are so how could anyone know which to eliminate and which to promote.

    For example, obesity is causing huge problems now but the genes that make people accumulate fat was essential to human survival when food was scarce and millions died from famine every year even in the West. An advantageous adaptation in our past has turned into a liability due to changes in our environment.

    Who is to say other genes that we find "bad" and try to eliminate would not turn out to be essential for human survival in the future and genes we now think are good would not be a liability in the future.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I am all for it
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Maker)
    Eugenics is a waste of time, no-one knows what "bad" genes and good genes are so how could anyone know which to eliminate and which to promote.
    Humans have more hope than mere chance of deciding which genes are in our long term interests

    For example, obesity is causing huge problems now but the genes that make people accumulate fat was essential to human survival when food was scarce and millions died from famine every year even in the West. An advantageous adaptation in our past has turned into a liability due to changes in our environment.

    Who is to say other genes that we find "bad" and try to eliminate would not turn out to be essential for human survival in the future and genes we now think are good would not be a liability in the future.
    Technology will almost certainly make it relatively easy to create a 'library' of genes, and we could probably reintroduce genes if environmental changes necessitated it. There are other ways of introducing genes, other than editing genes of embryos. E.g. retro virus gene therapy, which would not affect children, and therefore a good measure to protect against temporary problems.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Humans have more hope than mere chance of deciding which genes are in our long term interests



    Technology will almost certainly make it relatively easy to create a 'library' of genes, and we could probably reintroduce genes if environmental changes necessitated it. There are other ways of introducing genes, other than editing genes of embryos. E.g. retro virus gene therapy, which would not affect children, and therefore a good measure to protect against temporary problems.
    You can't add and subtract gene at will without any knock on effects that are difficult to predict. Genes need to be controlled and controlling one gene can affect a load of others that no one may know about now. Thats why gene therapy is so difficult because you need to get the gene in the right place and be able to control it and avoid side effects.

    So its easy to create a gene library, quite another to use it. Retro viruses do affect children, children get AIDs from HIV.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by Maker)
    You can't add and subtract gene at will without any knock on effects that are difficult to predict. Genes need to be controlled and controlling one gene can affect a load of others that no one may know about now. Thats why gene therapy is so difficult because you need to get the gene in the right place and be able to control it and avoid side effects.

    So its easy to create a gene library, quite another to use it. Retro viruses do affect children, children get AIDs from HIV.
    Nobody is saying gene therapy is easy. But just because it is difficult, doesn't mean that it should not be attempted.

    Only germline gene therapy affects the reproductive cells. There are retrovirus vectors that don't affect reproductive cells, and therefore the genes aren't inherited.

    With regards to HIV, children mainly get HIV from the mother. Blood transfusions are the main suspects, not viral infection of the reproductive cells that form the child.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Instead of employing all this science, how about if people who have hereditary and sexually transmitted diseases just stop reproducing in the interest of the greater good? Start with Africans who are HIV positive and crank out HIV positive babies like it's the thing to do.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ServantOfMorgoth)
    Sorry but you just come off as racist and quite frankly like a troll.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The OP does not know what he/she is talking about. He/she claims cancer can be eradicated with eugenics which is a ignorant thing to claim because most cancers are not hereditary and many people only get cancer after the age when most people have already had children.

    The OP also fails to understand that many cancers are caused when genes are modified after mitosis and differs from the genes they inherited.

    The OP also fails to take into account the changing environment people will live in. Babies designed for one period in time will likely to be less successful in a different time when they are being educated and working.

    Its a good thing eugenics is not being practiced now since the OP would most likely have been eliminated from the gene pool for ignorance.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asklepios)
    If we limit ourselves to wild type gene replacement and not introducing wild new genetic networks into, then genetically engineered humans would not possess any wildly different characteristics.
    I suppose, but I doubt we can limit ourselves. Plus, embryo selection could do that job anyway, although it would admittedly be less efficient.

    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    a more interesting dilemma is that some autistic disorders have high average intelligence - e.g. Aspergers. Eugenics to increase intelligence could end up increasing autistic disorders.
    Yes, good point, though I'm not sure how big the effect would be if there would be one at all. I think that would be perfectly acceptable, though, if it were the case (although I'm biased because I have Asperger's).

    I would be much more accepting of genetic engineering if we could modify humans to be more moral. Obviously, people vehmently disagree on what being moral is, but data-driven, mathematically-minded people who are probably on the autistic spectrum tend to take a universal and impartial stance on morality, so they're more likely to try to do the most good and more likely to consider the interests of all people, and those who use the emotional parts of their brain less and the areas of the brain associated with reason more are more likely to make utilitarian judgements in experiments.

    So, essentially, I wish to create a group of Vulcans. (Obviously, the risk is that you would create lots of psychopaths in the process instead).

    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    A counter argument would be that the 'inferior' humans would be improved to the level of the 'superior' humans by eugenics... I don't see how eugenics would encourage the creation of an obviously 'inferior' group of humans, rather than seeking to improve them
    Not all members of society will have access to these technologies in some countries (where elitism is already rampant), and some members of society, particularly the religious, will not go near these technologies.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    And that is the only cause, is it? Then why the variation in intelligence between autistic people? Why do you have severely autistic people who are geniuses in their fields, and others who have no skills at all? I think you are oversimplifying it as autistic vs. non-autistic, when there is huge variation between types of autistic disorder. Did Einstein have learning disabilities, or simply difficulties with social interactions? I'd like to see where you get the idea that learning disabilities and social empathy are affected by exactly the same process.

    Have you got figures on the likelihoods of low functioning and high functioning autistic parents having a high functioning autistic child?
    Firstly, there are no different types of autism. You are either autistic or you aren't. Autism is a spectrum and it effects everyone differently. Psychologists are well aware of this, but still attempt to classify individuals based on whereabouts on this spectrum they lie. Autism can be as little as Dyslexia (which is in fact an autistic spectrum disorder) or as severe as the stereotype.

    Next I need to point out that a lack of synapse pruning is known to cause autism. This has been proven through both brain scans (which showed significantly higher neuron density in autistic people - a tell tale sign of less synapse pruning during development) and through a series of experiments with animals. Animals can have autism as well, and in the most recent article I've read, researchers were able to cause or remove autistic traits in mice by limiting or supporting synapse pruning.

    Thirdly, because this process is entirely random autistic people can suffer from a lack of social skills and learning difficulties, or lack social skills and be geniuses, or any other combination of autistic traits. All autistic traits are caused by autism and autism is caused by less synapse pruning, therefore yes, they do all stem from the same process.

    I am autistic myself. My dad has high functioning autism but average smarts, my mum has ADHD and average smarts, but myself and my brother both have high functioning autism and IQs around 150 (not to brag, I'm just using myself as an example). My cousin has low functioning autism despite her parents both having high functioning autism. I know quite a few families like this too. You see? It's pretty random.

    If you're interested I can post some links to those journal articles I mentioned. I'm also happy to answer any questions you have about autism.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    The OP does not know what he/she is talking about. He/she claims cancer can be eradicated with eugenics which is a ignorant thing to claim because most cancers are not hereditary and many people only get cancer after the age when most people have already had children.

    The OP also fails to understand that many cancers are caused when genes are modified after mitosis and differs from the genes they inherited.

    The OP also fails to take into account the changing environment people will live in. Babies designed for one period in time will likely to be less successful in a different time when they are being educated and working.

    Its a good thing eugenics is not being practiced now since the OP would most likely have been eliminated from the gene pool for ignorance.
    While it's true that a lot of cancers aren't hereditary, there are genes associated with having a higher chance of developing certain cancers. Therefore you could reduce the possibility of developing cancer. I may have said 'cancers' but I never said eradicated. I did, however, claim that ms could be eradicated, which is true, you arrogant ****.

    I don't fail 'to understand that many cancers are caused when genes are modified after mitosis and differs from the genes they inherited', I'm well aware of this fact. You just assumed that I didn't. Therefore, making you come across as ignorant.

    The only thing I ever suggested was the eradication of hereditary illnesses. In what possible future could an illness such as ms, sickle cell anaemia, or cystic fibrosis be useful? All of which cause unnecessary pain and suffering whilst also reducing quality of life.

    And your final point, my potential non-existence if eugenics had been practiced because of your belief that I'm ignorant. Is incorrect, eugenics would never focus on someone being ignorant, if you consider the fact that that isn't genetic.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daito)
    While it's true that a lot of cancers aren't hereditary, there are genes associated with having a higher chance of developing certain cancers. Therefore you could reduce the possibility of developing cancer. I may have said 'cancers' but I never said eradicated. I did, however, claim that ms could be eradicated, which is true, you arrogant ****.

    I don't fail 'to understand that many cancers are caused when genes are modified after mitosis and differs from the genes they inherited', I'm well aware of this fact. You just assumed that I didn't. Therefore, making you come across as ignorant.

    The only thing I ever suggested was the eradication of hereditary illnesses. In what possible future could an illness such as ms, sickle cell anaemia, or cystic fibrosis be useful? All of which cause unnecessary pain and suffering whilst also reducing quality of life.

    And your final point, my potential non-existence if eugenics had been practiced because of your belief that I'm ignorant. Is incorrect, eugenics would never focus on someone being ignorant, if you consider the fact that that isn't genetic.
    Since 50% of people will get some form of cancer, you need to eliminate 50% of the people to get rid of the cancer associated genes but that still won't eliminate cancer since there are many other causes such as UV radiation, viruses and chemicals like asbestos which are not related to genes.

    Its pretty stupid to get rid of half the people for diseases that are increasingly treatable, survival rates for nearly all types of cancer is increasing with better treatment. Implementing eugenics will reverse that trend because people will not waste resources on diseases that is supposed to be eliminated in a few generations.

    You need to chill bro, getting stressed is bad for your health and may eliminate you from the gene pool.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Since 50% of people will get some form of cancer, you need to eliminate 50% of the people to get rid of the cancer associated genes but that still won't eliminate cancer since there are many other causes such as UV radiation, viruses and chemicals like asbestos which are not related to genes.

    Its pretty stupid to get rid of half the people for diseases that are increasingly treatable, survival rates for nearly all types of cancer is increasing with better treatment. Implementing eugenics will reverse that trend because people will not waste resources on diseases that is supposed to be eliminated in a few generations.

    You need to chill bro, getting stressed is bad for your health and may eliminate you from the gene pool.
    I never said get rid of them, I only really suggested that the genes highly associated with getting cancer-testicular, breast, ovarian etc- . As well as this, the figure is 4/10- significantly lower. Death isn't necessarily the only course of action for removing these genes also, which we can do by editing the genome of a cell.

    Nah man dw, I'm so chill rn.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.