Can we take a moral stand to improve the lot of humans through genetic manipulation? Like to genetically get rid of Tay-Sacs, or to rid the genes of some of the virus loads, or to find the compassion gene if there is one, and enhance it in the world's population, or fine-tuning the immune system to eliminate auto-immune disorders if it is proven in the future to be possible to do just that, stuff like that, are we as a race ok with such tampering?
Originally posted by sonhouseI would like to be for it. But...
Can we take a moral stand to improve the lot of humans through genetic manipulation? Like to genetically get rid of Tay-Sacs, or to rid the genes of some of the virus loads, or to find the compassion gene if there is one, and enhance it in the world's population, or fine-tuning the immune system to eliminate auto-immune disorders if it is proven in the future to be possible to do just that, stuff like that, are we as a race ok with such tampering?
We don't know what the long term effect of this will be. So, I'd get some capitalist christians and experiment on them for a couple of centuries. If that works out okay, then yeah, sure... go for it.
I'm ok with helping people eliminate serious genetic diseases. I am fortunate enough to have two healthy children and I wish that everyone who wishes to have their kids have the best chance of suceeding in life. If a negative genetic disposition could be eliminated by all means go for it.
Is there a moral difference between changing a persons genetics to make them happier and let's say anti-depressants? I doubt it. There effectiveness is different I know it's not the equivalent, but as technology gets better I see no reason not to make use of genetic modification provided it's safe. Treating diseases with medicine I don't think is morally any different than treating it genetically. I see it as a natural extension of medicine, which isn't itself natural either per se...
I think we can draw a clear distinction between eliminating genetic diseases, on the one hand, and "improving" the species above and beyond normal standards of medical health. Eliminating Tay-Sacs is not the same as amplifying the "compassion gene" if there is one. Tay-Sacs is a genetic disorder, and treating it falls within the scope and mission of medical science. Promoting compassion through genetics, on the other hand, requires us to decide that compassion is always a good thing, and that we're better off as a species if our genes force us to be more compassionate. That's a pretty shaky proposition.
I think we'd all agree that, say, the government shouldn't try to promote evolution through genetic therapy this way. The real question is whether the government should stop individual parents from doing this sort of thing on their own. If wealthy families can afford to make their children smarter, or stronger, or better-looking through genetic manipulation, do we have any grounds for stopping them from doing so?
Originally posted by sonhousenah, genetic defects are just natural population control mechanisms. the Human population is increasing exponentially on its own.
Can we take a moral stand to improve the lot of humans through genetic manipulation? Like to genetically get rid of Tay-Sacs, or to rid the genes of some of the virus loads, or to find the compassion gene if there is one, and enhance it in the world's population, or fine-tuning the immune system to eliminate auto-immune disorders if it is proven in the future to be possible to do just that, stuff like that, are we as a race ok with such tampering?
Imagine how crowded we'd get if we lost the natural control.
We'd have to find another planet to live on....Fire up those Rockets to Mars!
Originally posted by uzlessActually, general increases in public health & welfare tend to have the effect of reducing population growth. As societies become less impoverished and better-educated, they become less prone to population explosions. There've been a number of panel studies about population explosions in places like Niger and all of them advocated fighting disease and reducing infant mortality to combat the out-of-control growth. It seems paradoxical, but diseased, poor, miserable people seem to make more babies.
nah, genetic defects are just natural population control mechanisms. the Human population is increasing exponentially on its own.
Imagine how crowded we'd get if we lost the natural control.
We'd have to find another planet to live on....Fire up those Rockets to Mars!
Originally posted by MacSwainThis, coincidentally, is called the genetic fallacy. Eugenics may be bad. But the fact that it was promoted by bad people back in the day doesn't make it bad; if it's bad, it has to be bad on its own merits, and not on the merits of the people it was once associated with.
Ah..Eugenics. Been around for quite some time.
In fact, A. Hitler was a big proponent. As far as experimentation, J. Mengele was an active researcher, only he used jews instead of christians, as was suggested above.
Originally posted by darthmixI think the availability of condoms, birth control, and family planning have alot to do with it too.
Actually, general increases in public health & welfare tend to have the effect of reducing population growth. As societies become less impoverished and better-educated, they become less prone to population explosions. There've been a number of panel studies about population explosions in places like Niger and all of them advocated fighting disease and reduc ...[text shortened]... ol growth. It seems paradoxical, but diseased, poor, miserable people seem to make more babies.
Originally posted by darthmixHere's a definition of eugenics taken from Wikipedia:
This, coincidentally, is called the genetic fallacy. Eugenics may be bad. But the fact that it was promoted by bad people back in the day doesn't make it bad; if it's bad, it has to be bad on its own merits, and not on the merits of the people it was once associated with.
"Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
The improvement of human hereditary traits has actually been happening since we became humans, through the process of natural selection. However, nature's definition and humans' definition of "improvement" is a little different: improvement from nature's perspective is an increase in the ability to propagate the species, improvement from the human perspective is usually along the lines of creating a "superman" who can out-compete every other human due to increased strength, intelligence, disease resistance, etc...
So what's wrong with that? Well, nothing, except for a few things, such as the "intervention" part mentioned in the definition. This intervention usually comes at the expense of someone's rights (such as the forced sterilization of "genetically defective" people so they can't pass on their "defective" traits). Also, eugenics isn't particularly scientific, i.e. the end result isn't predictable with sufficient accuracy to make eugenics a science. It usually involves somebody deciding what they don't like about someone else and trying to stomp it out without much regard for human limitations in the understanding of biology.
So I agree with your statement that eugenics isn't bad because it has been used as a tool of oppression in the past, but because we just don't know enough to use it properly.
But if we ever get to the point where we can use it properly, I wonder what the consequences would be? If we keep handy the notion of individual rights based on simply being a person, and not on how much we can bench press, how quickly we can calculate the square root of 57, or how few colds we get every year, then it might end up being a boon. However, due to the costs and exclusivity involved in "breeding better humans", I have a feeling only the rich and influential would have access to the techniques/technology. This would probably unbalance things even further. Who knows? We'll probably never find out.
Originally posted by darthmixI know that in many poor countries with lax standards on child labour, having extra kids is a net benefit to the family because it increases the workforce on your farm. In richer and more developed countries, having extra kids is a strain on your finances because of schooling, books, clothes, doctor's visits, food, etc... This has a big impact on population in those countries.
Actually, general increases in public health & welfare tend to have the effect of reducing population growth. As societies become less impoverished and better-educated, they become less prone to population explosions. There've been a number of panel studies about population explosions in places like Niger and all of them advocated fighting disease and reduc ...[text shortened]... ol growth. It seems paradoxical, but diseased, poor, miserable people seem to make more babies.