# Eugenics: Can we? Should we? Will we?



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I believe we have entered a new age of eugenics, one where we manage the transmission of our genetic material consciously rather than leaving things up to Mother Nature. One example (there are others):

Eugenics movements traditionally have supported culling or sterilizing individuals who are "defective," meaning that they don't meet some well-defined set of desirable traits. This approach, historically used by animal breeders, can be very effective in changing the characteristics of populations.

However, it does tend to generate a lot of horror stories, and was also practiced by a government now excoriated by most. As a result, it is in disrepute (to put it mildly).

But what is abortion, in many cases, if not the same thing? Already fetuses with any of a long list of defects are routinely culled by conscious choice. Soon, with improved genetic analysis, the culling may be extended to a broad range of other characteristic: IQ below 120, not tall enough, predisposition to developing some illness later in life, and so forth. I'm not at all opposed to this, and only note that nature doesn't care if the culling takes place before birth or after.

Oddly, this just came up in a SCOTUS opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas. He wrote of "the potential for abortion to become a tool of eugenic manipulation," and added, "From the beginning, birth control and abortion were promoted as means of effectuating eugenics." Obviously he's thinking of _Roe v. Wade_, but that doesn't matter IMO. Abortions on demand aren't going to go away anytime soon.

My question: How will making our own decisions on heredity, without Darwin's intercession, change us? Are really smart enough to do that? What do you think?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

All I'll say on this matter is that Clarence Thomas is as close to insane as a Supreme Court Justice can be; only his wife is crazier. He clearly opposes contraception and will use any argument his hand touches to try to make it illegal.

https://www.salon.com/2019/05/29/cl...r-the-right-is-coming-for-birth-control-next/


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Eventually people will be giving their kids 6 fingers on each hand so they can play sappy embellishments on Schubert's G-Flat Major Impromptu!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Abortion to eliminate short people? At least we already have a song for a-holes who would propose such a thing.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Abortion to eliminate short people? At least we already have a song for a-holes who would propose such a thing.


Within the limits of current genetic analysis, this is already an option for any pregnant woman.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Within the limits of current genetic analysis, this is already an option for any pregnant woman.


If it catches on there will be a shortage of jockeys in the future.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Also, I think if we're going to try to use "eugenics" to control for any type of intelligence, we'll probably need a FAR better understanding of the genetics behind cognition than we have today. Our understanding of human cognition/intelligence is far too primitive right now (and kind of a mess tbh). Trying to lower risk of disease and controlling physical features such as height I can see being done pretty soon.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Also, I think if we're going to try to use "eugenics" to control for any type of intelligence, we'll probably need a FAR better understanding of the genetics behind cognition than we have today. Our understanding of human cognition/intelligence is far too primitive right now (and kind of a mess tbh). Trying to lower risk of disease and controlling physical features such as height I can see being done pretty soon.


Yes, breeding for intelligence will probably better be done by the mother's buying sperm donated by high-IQ males (since IQ is probably about 70% heritable). This can be done now, though quality control (verification of the donors' characteristics and accomplishments) seems to be poor at best! It's a good business opportunity for someone who can offer a quality service.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Producing highly desirable offspring will not necessarily result in well adjusted, productive adults if the parents have a toxic relationship, or other negative factors can't be avoided. And high IQs haven't prevented some from becoming psychopathic serial killers.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

My thought is that taking decisions on our offspring out of Darwin’s hands may be very dangerous. Since time immemorial, males have competed for the favor of females, and females have chosen their men. In some societies, the relationships have been monogamous, one-on-one. In others, perhaps the majority, the most powerful males have kept many females, the weakest going without.

Now we have the opportunity to define our offspring more directly – perhaps not exactly, but we can load the dice. Conception will be increasingly decoupled from intercourse and will become much more of an intellectual exercise with results depending on payment. Our offspring will become, again increasingly, a reflection of what we imagine to be some human ideal, not necessarily the best examples of a survivable species.

Given our long history of blowbacks and unintended consequences, I find this worrisome.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

The Chinese will directly do genetic manipulation on humans and produce GMH - genetically modified humans
https://heigos.hypotheses.org/10897
these dictatorial regimes governed by psychopaths have no moral inhibitions

one of the most visionary scifi books - Schismatrix by Bruce Sterling - describes so called genetically engineered superbrights with IQs>200
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/161297.Schismatrix
the main ideas that the book explores are transhumanism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

What May Become of Homo sapiens
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-may-become-of-homo-sapiens/?redirect=1


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Quite likely that in the end, it'll all go computerized anyway, or very assisted by it, I think.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Had eugenics existed in the past I don't think there would have been a Beethoven. Humans shouldn't try to play God in my opinion. As far as artificial intelligence, if you think about it what it is is intellect without heart, therefore I believe it to be literally the embodiment of evil. I want no part of it.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Sounds like a bad dream from the 1930-40's to me


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Survival of the fittest will win out in the end but we may be long gone by then.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

KenOC said:


> My question: How will making our own decisions on heredity, without Darwin's intercession, change us? Are really smart enough to do that? What do you think?


I'm not sure that "Darwin", i.e., "nature" does such a good job. How many flaws are there in the genetic code? Thousands! How much suffering in this world is caused by these flaws?

A genetic flaw that predisposes one toward autoimmune diseases runs in my family. Fixing that flaw would not have made me a "superman." It just would have made me happier and more productive as a human being.

Of course, in America, we already have a different attitude toward genetic flaws than the rest of the world: we arm them! What could go wrong?


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> All I'll say on this matter is that Clarence Thomas is as close to insane as a Supreme Court Justice can be; only his wife is crazier. He clearly opposes contraception and will use any argument his hand touches to try to make it illegal.
> 
> https://www.salon.com/2019/05/29/cl...r-the-right-is-coming-for-birth-control-next/


Racist.........


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2019)

Trying to breed the master race has such a good track record. I wonder what happens if we find a genetic component for homosexuality and hetero parents decide they don't want to deal with that? Or the fact that selecting against sickle cell will disproportionately eliminate those of African heritage?


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2019)

Room2201974 said:


> I'm not sure that "Darwin", i.e., "nature" does such a good job. How many flaws are there in the genetic code? Thousands! How much suffering in this world is caused by these flaws?
> 
> A genetic flaw that predisposes one toward autoimmune diseases runs in my family. Fixing that flaw would not have made me a "superman." It just would have made me happier and more productive as a human being.
> 
> Of course, in America, we already have a different attitude toward genetic flaws than the rest of the world: we arm them! What could go wrong?


That's because evolution isn't interested in good or bad per se. It just does. It is valueless. It is a process. Nothing more. You are here, aren't you? Presumably because of untold years of evolution effecting gradual change. Sometimes "defects" stick because of what they can help in a particular instance. You see sickle cell anemia as a defect, but it protects people from malaria, which is why that mutation persisted in an area of the world where malaria is endemic.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

DrMike said:


> That's because evolution isn't interested in good or bad per se. It just does. It is valueless. It is a process. Nothing more. You are here, aren't you? Presumably because of untold years of evolution effecting gradual change. Sometimes "defects" stick because of what they can help in a particular instance. You see sickle cell anemia as a defect, but it protects people from malaria, which is why that mutation persisted in an area of the world where malaria is endemic.


One "good" example cannot out weigh a whole host of horrid defects that have no upside. A tear filled stroll down a children's cancer ward should be sufficient to drive that point home. Then there's MS and lupus and spina bifida and Lou Gehrig's disease...and....and....and

Hmmmm, the whole debate reminds me of an ST:TOS episode!


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2019)

Room2201974 said:


> One "good" example cannot out weigh a whole host of horrid defects that have no upside. A tear filled stroll down a children's cancer ward should be sufficient to drive that point home. Then there's MS and lupus and spina bifida and Lou Gehrig's disease...and....and....and
> 
> Hmmmm, the whole debate reminds me of an ST:TOS episode!


That may be, but a critical lesson from evolutionary research is that genetic diversity is a good thing. As much as we all claim to want to be unique individuals, designer babies will likely lead to a great genetic choke point. After all, if you get to choose it all, why would you choose anything but the best? But what is the best. You talk of only curing illness. That isn't where our minds go.

Everybody will want their children tall. Maybe all blonde? What is the most desirable eye color? I want to breed my kid to be able to ace the SAT and the ACT! Only the best for my kid - so long as I can pay for it. The poor - well, they'll just have to settle for the genetic roll of the dice. Maybe they'll get lucky, and their kids (or, statistically, maybe a few of their kids?) will be able to compete with the genetically enhanced kids of the wealthy, but there really isn't an even playing field anymore, is there? Of course, then, in the name of full equality, the government will have to intervene to give everybody access. And then there goes the control - government panels will decide which traits should be passed on, and which ones eliminated. Suddenly it won't just be Brca mutations that predispose women to breast cancer - it will be something else, whatever the scientists tell us we need to screen out. And then we become a genetically inbred species. And the problem with genetically inbred species is that they tend to be very good at what they are bred for, but ill prepared for anything new. After all, in screening each sperm/egg pairing, they certainly wouldn't want to allow through anything new and unknown, because who wants to be the guinea pig to see if the latest mutation is desirable or not? True - you might get a reduction in some illnesses, but what about other anomalous occurrences, like that very rare population of humans that seem to be genetically predisposed to being able to actually clear HIV?

Genetically inbred populations of research animals are wonderful tools for science - they cut down on experimental variability, making results much easier to interpret. In humans? Diversity is preferable.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Since I haven't addressed whether or not we "should", I should say I have to agree with tdc that we shouldn't play God.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DrMike said:


> Everybody will want their children tall. Maybe all blonde? What is the most desirable eye color? I want to breed my kid to be able to ace the SAT and the ACT! Only the best for my kid - so long as I can pay for it.


I was hoping that would come up. Yes, genetic modifications prior to birth are likely to be expensive. I expect a segmented market, with rich folks specifying Porsche kids while the poor can afford, at best Yugo-kinder. Bear in mind that these modifications will be mostly heritable, so what we will soon have is the genetic stratification of mankind.

It's also possible that parents might be paid to produce offspring genetically suited for certain kinds of work that "normal people" can't or won't do. Speculation along those lines might be interesting!


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2019)

KenOC said:


> I was hoping that would come up. Yes, genetic modifications prior to birth are likely to be expensive. I expect a segmented market, with rich folks specifying Porsche kids while the poor can afford, at best Yugo-kinder. Bear in mind that these modifications will be mostly heritable, so what we will soon have is the genetic stratification of mankind.
> 
> It's also possible that parents might be paid to produce offspring genetically suited for certain kinds of work that "normal people" can't or won't do. Speculation along those lines might be interesting!


The average layperson is not that familiar with genetic manipulation. The technology to manipulate the DNA has gotten more and more sophisticated. I have never done it myself, but the technology has gotten to the point that I could probably have someone teach me here in my lab in short time. But the technology is separate from the real feasibility.

In truth, quite a few systems, genes, proteins, have numerous redundancies and can also be pleiomorphic - they do more than one thing, given the circumstances. A particular molecule of the immune system has the capacity to both promote and suppress immune responses, depending on the type of cell with which it interacts, and what point of the immune response we are talking about. A cellular receptor has been shown to play a role in both cell death and regulating immune responses.

In inbred strains of mice, a common technique to study the functioning of any given gene is to manipulate its expression - either to express it in a cell that wouldn't normally, to over-express it in a cell, to complete remove it from a cell, or to put it under control of something like an external molecule we can deliver, allowing us to selectively turn it on and off. When we do this, it is not uncommon to find some other previously unknown function for that gene. That may be good or bad. Furthermore, one mouse strain I used to use completely eliminated an essential cell from the immune system - but we didn't see what we expected, because as it turned out, when you eliminate that particular population, another population compensated partly for the loss of that cell in ways previously not expected.

I don't think we are really at the point that we can confidently manipulate human genomes and produce exactly what we desire. And while there may not be any deleterious results, there is also a distinct chance that, in seeking a genetically superior being, we might create something quite hideous.

Humans are dangerous when we get a little knowledge - we think we are then gods, until inevitability comes and beats us over the head with our hubris.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DrMike said:


> ...I don't think we are really at the point that we can confidently manipulate human genomes and produce exactly what we desire. And while there may not be any deleterious results, there is also a distinct chance that, in seeking a genetically superior being, we might create something quite hideous.


No, we're not there yet. But we will be, or at least we'll think we're there.

As for that 'hideous something," it's fully to be expected. But that's why there are money-back guarantees!


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2019)

KenOC said:


> No, we're not there yet. But we will be, or at least we'll think we're there.
> 
> As for that 'hideous something," it's fully to be expected. But that's why there are money-back guarantees!


Other ethical questions will then also arise - if something unintended occurs, how much latitude will be given to destroy that life?


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Since I haven't addressed whether or not we "should", I should say I have to agree with tdc that we shouldn't play God.


Yeah, 3000 - 4000 flaws in the genetic code. He's doing such a great job!!!!!!!!

"And now as I leave you, I'm weary as hell
The confusion I'm feelin', there ain't no tongue can tell. ........... "


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'm reminded of a statement by Simone de Beavoir: Men of today seem to feel more acutely than ever the paradox of their condition. They know themselves to be the supreme end to which all action should be subordinated, but the exigencies of action force them to treat one another as instruments or obstacles, as means. The more widespread their mastery of the world, the more they find themselves crushed by uncontrollable forces. Though they are masters of the atomic bomb, yet it is created only to destroy them.


----------



## Minor Sixthist (Apr 21, 2017)

KenOC said:


> *But what is abortion, in many cases, if not the same thing?* Already fetuses with any of a long list of defects are routinely culled by conscious choice. Soon, with improved genetic analysis, the culling may be extended to a broad range of other characteristic: IQ below 120, not tall enough, predisposition to developing some illness later in life, and so forth. I'm not at all opposed to this, and only note that nature doesn't care if the culling takes place before birth or after.
> 
> Oddly, this just came up in a SCOTUS opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas. He wrote of "the potential for abortion to become a tool of eugenic manipulation," and added, "From the beginning, birth control and abortion were promoted as means of effectuating eugenics." Obviously he's thinking of _Roe v. Wade_, but that doesn't matter IMO. Abortions *on demand* aren't going to go away anytime soon.


This discussion has been full of interesting points, but this digression doesn't sit right. Are abortion and eugenic selection really equal enough for us to propose they might be "the same thing?" How often, actually, are abortions carried out because the mother is so repulsed by her child's "defects?" My knowledge has that a woman might seriously consider abortion if the child's defects are severe enough that they would wholly _impede_ the child's ability to live a comfortable, let far alone happy, existence - not just if the child is destined to be under 5'5". I mean, to equate the two borders on absurd. You realize sane women are as programmed to reproduce and love their offspring as other mammals, right?

At that, there are many levels of severity for any given defect, and factor into each of them the background of the mother herself - how much is she capable of handling? Financially, personally? To the extent she can still facilitate for the child decent personhood? Children don't exist in a vacuum.

Abortions "on demand?" I'm nothing sensitive, but I think this touches on callous. It's a choice nobody wants to make. It very often brings about in the woman unique and very acute feelings guilt, shame, and misgivings. It is in every sense an unfortunate last resort for the woman as well.

How could abortion become "a tool for genetic manipulation" if any legally sane woman has any of the same instincts to protect her young as anything else? You're equating things which achieve exactly polar results. Eugenics seeks to enhance the abilities of offspring (though the massive potential repercussions have been discussed at length here already); abortion ceases the life of one's offspring. Buy and large, they achieve very different things. And what's the need to call it "culling," like it's the slaughtering of livestock? This seems a very pathos-heavy argument. It drifts away from its objectivity.

To that effect, I'll briefly agree that eugenics could very easily get in the way of genetic diversity, which, as a few have mentioned already, is crucial to any population's survival, whether plant, animal, or paramecia.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Minor Sixthist said:


> You realize sane women are as programmed to reproduce and love their offspring as other mammals, right?


During the time that China had a one-child policy, elective abortions of female fetuses were commonplace, in some places so much so that a clear majority of live births were male.

It was widely reported that the government's response was to outlaw the use of ultrasound imaging of pregnant women in such areas.​


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

People have enough trouble being good parents. How many will succeed as genetic engineers? Why must people suck all of the joy of the unexpected out of life? I've got a couple of great friends who are blind. I'm glad they weren't aborted. It's understandable that parents want healthy children, but to have kids by design seems artificial. It's our imperfections and quirks that make us unique.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Imagine being able to specify that your offspring will be highly intelligent, physically outstanding, and disease-resistant. And that your offspring's offspring will carry on the same traits.

It may cost a bundle, but there are many who will pay it. Those who can't will settle for a step down the evolutionary ladder. I really believe that's in our future.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Room2201974 said:


> Yeah, 3000 - 4000 flaws in the genetic code. He's doing such a great job!!!!!!!!
> 
> "And now as I leave you, I'm weary as hell
> The confusion I'm feelin', there ain't no tongue can tell. ........... "


He's done a far better job managing nature than we have. And I'm not even religious.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> He's done a far better job managing nature than we have. And I'm not even religious.


Depends on how you define good management. 99% of the species that have ever lived are extinct. That suggests, at a minimum, poor planning on God's part.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Room2201974 said:


> Yeah, 3000 - 4000 flaws in the genetic code. He's doing such a great job!!!!!!!!


The genetic flaws are due to the curse (see Genesis Chapter 3).


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

DrMike said:


> That's because evolution isn't interested in good or bad per se. It just does. It is valueless. It is a process. Nothing more. You are here, aren't you? Presumably because of untold years of evolution effecting gradual change. Sometimes "defects" stick because of what they can help in a particular instance. You see sickle cell anemia as a defect, but it protects people from malaria, which is why that mutation persisted in an area of the world where malaria is endemic.


Good answer.
Frankly, I think the four letters of the genetic code are H, Y, P and E. At regular intervals, this or that lab grab headlines with some 'genetic breakthrough'. These are often technically brilliant and tell us something about the operation of DNA coding, but that's are very, very long way from making possible some direct, eugenic intervention. This important ethical debate could be all too easily dominated (beyond TC, obviously) by knee-jerk reactions to over-hyped claims.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Pat Fairlea said:


> Good answer.
> Frankly, I think the four letters of the genetic code are H, Y, P and E. At regular intervals, this or that lab grab headlines with some 'genetic breakthrough'. These are often technically brilliant and tell us something about the operation of DNA coding, but that's are very, very long way from making possible some direct, eugenic intervention. This important ethical debate could be all too easily dominated (beyond TC, obviously) by knee-jerk reactions to over-hyped claims.


Actually, human germline engineering has been done already, though widely condemned. The position of the American Medical Association's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs is that "genetic interventions to enhance traits should be considered permissible only in severely restricted situations: (1) clear and meaningful benefits to the fetus or child; (2) no trade-off with other characteristics or traits; and (3) equal access to the genetic technology, irrespective of income or other socioeconomic characteristics."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Actually, human germline engineering has been done already, though widely condemned.


All very fine for the US, but my son is bopping down Mexico-way to have a bit of germline engineering done. He will have a male offspring of IQ ~135, 6'3" tall, healthy and resistant to serious diseases. He will kick the butts of others in his generation and make enough more money to further improve his heritable characteristics.

Ruling class of the future?


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2019)

KenOC said:


> Actually, human germline engineering has been done already, though widely condemned. The position of the American Medical Association's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs is that "genetic interventions to enhance traits should be considered permissible only in severely restricted situations: (1) clear and meaningful benefits to the fetus or child; (2) no trade-off with other characteristics or traits; and (3) *equal access to the genetic technology, irrespective of income or other socioeconomic characteristics*."


It is the last part that is most troubling, as I mentioned before. The only way to achieve this is through government subsidizing it. A person on welfare, or earning minimum wage, would never be able to afford this technology unless the government paid. And What the government pays for, it regulates and tells you what you can and cannot have. And then you get into other issues. What if people start wanting to eliminate characteristics that go against political correctness - say, if a genetic component for homosexuality were to be discovered?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DrMike said:


> It is the last part that is most troubling, as I mentioned before. The only way to achieve this is through government subsidizing it. A person on welfare, or earning minimum wage, would never be able to afford this technology unless the government paid. And What the government pays for, it regulates and tells you what you can and cannot have. And then you get into other issues. What if people start wanting to eliminate characteristics that go against political correctness - say, if a genetic component for homosexuality were to be discovered?


I agree 100%. It's an interesting dilemma.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Fritz Kobus said:


> The genetic flaws are due to the curse (see Genesis Chapter 3).


Hmmm, I'm not sure that's the answer, but don't you get less genetic diversity with Genesis 19:36? 

You get Alabama too.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> He's done a far better job managing nature than we have. And I'm not even religious.


There is a different perspective when sitting next to a patient in a children's cancer ward.


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2019)

Room2201974 said:


> Hmmm, I'm not sure that's the answer, but don't you get less genetic diversity with Genesis 19:36?
> 
> You get Alabama too.


Big talk from someone from a state that is known for the crazed, idiotic individual known collectively as "Florida Man."
https://www.boredpanda.com/hilarious-florida-man-headings/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

DrMike said:


> Big talk from someone from a state that is known for the crazed, idiotic individual known collectively as "Florida Man."
> https://www.boredpanda.com/hilarious-florida-man-headings/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic


Yes, so true that Florida men do crazy s##t. But I'm still waiting for the headline: Florida Man "likes" little girls, runs for U.S. Senate. Ya gotta go to Alabama for that.


----------



## Guest (Jun 21, 2019)

Room2201974 said:


> Yes, so true that Florida men do crazy s##t. But I'm still waiting for the headline: Florida Man "likes" little girls, runs for U.S. Senate. Ya gotta go to Alabama for that.


Only as a half-hearted defense, they were teens. I think sexting with teens brought down Anthony Weiner. But if we are really going to use perverted politicians as a measure of the insanity of a state, I don't think Alabama is even in the top 10.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Room2201974 said:


> Hmmm, I'm not sure that's the answer, but don't you get less genetic diversity with Genesis 19:36?
> 
> You get Alabama too.


Yes, but to a limited extent of the population, but the entire population was subjected to some serious compartmentalizing (Genesis 11:1-9) of genetic material and this is where many of our people groups or as some call it "races" come from.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

Let's mostly leave eugenics alone. People often do NOT know better.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Yes, but to a limited extent of the population, but the entire population was subjected to some serious compartmentalizing (Genesis 11:1-9) of genetic material and this is where many of our people groups or as some call it "races" come from.


Ah yes, the heart of many "coded" sermons in the deep south. I'm sure it will find as much a useful relevance for some in the eugenics debate as it already has in the health care debate.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Actually, human germline engineering has been done already, though widely condemned. The position of the American Medical Association's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs is that "genetic interventions to enhance traits should be considered permissible only in severely restricted situations: (1) clear and meaningful benefits to the fetus or child; (2) no trade-off with other characteristics or traits; and (3) equal access to the genetic technology, irrespective of income or other socioeconomic characteristics."


Yes, to a limited and very particular extent. But it's a long way from germline intervention to reduce the probability of offspring being homozygous for a life-limiting condition to tailoring offspring for e.g. stature, intelligence and aptitudes that are part-genetic, part-environmental. 
As it happens, I have the 'athlete' allele for fast-twitch muscle fibres. Am I a medal-winning athlete? No.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

DrMike said:


> Big talk from someone from a state that is known for the crazed, idiotic individual known collectively as "Florida Man."
> https://www.boredpanda.com/hilarious-florida-man-headings/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic


Yo, DrMike, I see your Florida Man story and raise the ante with this classic Alabama man story:https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2019/06/18/squirrel-given-meth-alabama-man/1493707001/

It takes thousands of years of selective inbreeding to ensure the level of stupidity involved.

Alabama, the state that most clearly imitates Faye Dunaway being slapped by Jack Nicholson in _Chinatown_.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Not the first case of this I've read about. It seems some fertility doctors hear the clarion call of Darwin only too clearly.

Fertility doctor loses license after using his own sperm


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Not the first case of this I've read about. It seems some fertility doctors hear the clarion call of Darwin only too clearly.
> 
> Fertility doctor loses license after using his own sperm


Guess he is following Darwinism in trying to propagate his own genes.


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2019)

KenOC said:


> Not the first case of this I've read about. It seems some fertility doctors hear the clarion call of Darwin only too clearly.
> 
> Fertility doctor loses license after using his own sperm


Trying to outdo Genghis Khan in spreading his seed. The good old fashioned way is the best way for having kids.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Pat Fairlea said:


> ...But it's a long way from germline intervention to reduce the probability of offspring being homozygous for a life-limiting condition to tailoring offspring for e.g. stature, intelligence and aptitudes that are part-genetic, part-environmental.


We may not be very good at it yet, but we're getting there fast. Humans are definitely on the list for this sort of thing.

*These are the first genetically modified animals approved for U.S. consumption*

NEW YORK (AP) - Inside an Indiana aquafarming complex, thousands of salmon eggs genetically modified to grow faster than normal are hatching into tiny fish. After growing to roughly 10 pounds (4.5 kilograms) in indoor tanks, they could be served in restaurants by late next year.

The salmon produced by AquaBounty are the first genetically modified animals approved for human consumption in the U.S. They represent one way companies are pushing to transform the plants and animals we eat, even as consumer advocacy groups call for greater caution.

…To produce its fish, Aquabounty injected Atlantic salmon with DNA from other fish species that make them grow to full size in about 18 months, which could be about twice as fast as regular salmon.


----------

