[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
Eugenics stems from fear. Do not be afraid.[/quote]
Of having handicapped or terminally ill children? [/quote]
So, they don’t deserve the dignity and opportunity to live, because…?
[quote]forlife wrote:
If we created a pill that guarantees our kids would never get cancer, wouldn’t we give it to them in a heartbeat?
If we could modify their genetic code to provide the same protection, wouldn’t we also do it in a heartbeat?[/quote]
A kid taking a pill and corrupting the marital act are two different things, sorry.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]ZombieLover wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]ZombieLover wrote:
Without going into the topic of religion (which is a ridiculous restriction BTW). The main problem that I have with eugenics, other then its dark history, is that it takes away one of the greatest assests of humanity: potential.
Lets just say we can select attractiveness, athletics, and intellect for our children, in doing that we have cursed them. By saying we have designed them, there is an implication that we have set all they can do; that they are not creatures of unlimited potential, but merely a product of genes. Not that their genes are a base upon which they can stretch out from with the constant search of new challenges, but instead challenges are the benchmarks of how far they have been designed to go and they can go no further.
If humanity sinks to that then we have de-evolved in way that science can’t save.[/quote]
I disagree. We’re the result of our genes, environment, and experiences.
I would look at it more like they’ve been primed to be the best, but the best at what? No one can be the best at everything(yet), there just isn’t enough time to become an expert in all fields, so to say that their life has been decided for them is short sighted.[/quote]
To say a person is merely the makings of the three above things is extremely short sighted. If those were the limits then there would not have been a Carnegie, Edison, Jordon, Fitzgerald, Ellison. I could go on but you get the point. These people and many others have risen well above their base genes, environment, and learned from their experiences rather than be limited by them.[/quote]
I have at one time or another held both viewpoints, but the more I have read, the more I tend towards the “genetics” argument. Our genes determine so much that it is scary. The drives which motivate us all come from our genes, the drive to reproduce, the drive to protect our offspring and make their life better, the drive to survive. I agree that the people that you have mentioned certainly excelled in their environment, but was this above their base genes? I don’t think so, it is just as accurate to say they excelled BECAUSE of their genes, since their genes gave them the reasoning apparatus to excel like they did.[/quote]
Ever read about epigenetic control/epigenetics? Do it. It’ll change this idea you have about “genes determining so much that it is scary”. We are far more than our DNA and a reductionist view of the human person is at the heart of eugenics and things like nihilism are the fruit of it.[/quote]
I am more than familiar with epigenetics. I fail to see how that provides any evidence that contradicts how we are the result of our genes. Perhaps you could elaborate with a specific example.[/quote]
If you are more than familiar then it seems I shouldn’t have to explain this, but there are at least a few studies with identical twins and looking at gene expression (ie which genes are turned on/off) that show at birth they are almost identical, but rapidly diverge. What’s more they have different personalities etc… This is environment, but also the fact that they are distinct persons. I am sure I am saying what you already know, but genes, DNA, is nothing more than a blue print for what kinds of things a cell can produce and the DNA only is used in reproduction or when there is some interaction of the cell with the envrionment and it (the cell) needs to use the DNA to make a protein. So, on a cellular level you could really say that the environment controls the cell and the DNA merely determines potential (but I don’t think that is quite right with humans though).
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
So…what you’re saying is that you’d rather kill two or three of your kids so, you know one of them can be perfect genetic wise? Still sounds like a lead into Nationalism.[/quote]
Don’t put words in my mouth Chris. I never said anything about ‘killing my kids’ until the perfect one came along. What I said was given the choice between giving one the best genetic profile or not, I would choose the former. Nowhere did I say I would keep going thru it until ‘those scientists finally got it right’.
If the technology wasn’t 100% consistently repeatable then what would be the point?
[/quote]
Doesn’t matter, if you have two embryos and you are able to replace imperfect genetics with those of the other embryo and then the other embryo becomes destroyed and thrown away, you have killed an innocent life.
And, if you are waiting for them to be a 100% consistent, it’ll never happen. Nothing works 100% of the time.
From my (lack of) understanding, I took this conversation of eugenics to mean that the genetic code that we possess would be written without error(s), not throwing out embryos.[/quote]
I’ve never heard of that (it might be my lack of understanding), but that still begs the question, how do you do it without corrupting the marital act?[/quote]
Based on what you have said so far, an acceptable form of eugenics would be when the genetic changes are introduced at the sperm/egg level before conception. The sperm and eggs would then be re-introduced to preserve the “marital act”
In this scenario, none of your current objections apply. And remember, we are only a short space of time away from technological capabilities that equal or exceed that needed to accomplish the above. Is eugenics ok now? If not, why not?[/quote]
No, you can’t extract eggs or sperm, it still corrupts the martial act. Marital act is between two people and requires love and unity. Plus, I am not aware of a way of putting sperm back into the testicles.[/quote]
Where exactly in your religious text does it say specifically that the “temporary extraction of sperm and eggs” renders this hypothetical “marital act” null and void.
Lets take another technological leap, and again this is still within the realms of possibility based on current gene therapy techniques. What if there was a vaccine available that worked by correcting your genetic code in vivo? Sit back, get a shot in the arm and then have cancer and defect free children guaranteed. Does this corrupt some sacred institution as well?
Just out of interest, how do you know that the religion you follow is the right one? What about the other people following the myriad other faiths on this planet? They can’t all be right can they?
This is why I wanted to keep religion out of this, because anyone who seriously applies faith to everyday thinking and morality at some point on the chain has abandoned rational thought. I cannot debate with you about some superstition called the marital act and get anywhere since you have already convinced yourself that you are right “by the good grace of the lord”
'This is why I wanted to keep religion out of this, because anyone who seriously applies faith to everyday thinking and morality at some point on the chain has abandoned rational thought. I cannot debate with you about some superstition called the marital act and get anywhere since you have already convinced yourself that you are right “by the good grace of the lord” ’ - MassiveGuns
What good is faith if it doesn’t permeate your very being? Seriously man, what you believe permeates your entire being. Also any discussion about eugenics without some basis in the value of the human person is pointless, because if we have no inherent value then we can do whatever we want to each other. Also the marital act isn’t a superstition it’s fun, it’s been around a long time, and it makes babies
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]ZombieLover wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]ZombieLover wrote:
Without going into the topic of religion (which is a ridiculous restriction BTW). The main problem that I have with eugenics, other then its dark history, is that it takes away one of the greatest assests of humanity: potential.
Lets just say we can select attractiveness, athletics, and intellect for our children, in doing that we have cursed them. By saying we have designed them, there is an implication that we have set all they can do; that they are not creatures of unlimited potential, but merely a product of genes. Not that their genes are a base upon which they can stretch out from with the constant search of new challenges, but instead challenges are the benchmarks of how far they have been designed to go and they can go no further.
If humanity sinks to that then we have de-evolved in way that science can’t save.[/quote]
I disagree. We’re the result of our genes, environment, and experiences.
I would look at it more like they’ve been primed to be the best, but the best at what? No one can be the best at everything(yet), there just isn’t enough time to become an expert in all fields, so to say that their life has been decided for them is short sighted.[/quote]
To say a person is merely the makings of the three above things is extremely short sighted. If those were the limits then there would not have been a Carnegie, Edison, Jordon, Fitzgerald, Ellison. I could go on but you get the point. These people and many others have risen well above their base genes, environment, and learned from their experiences rather than be limited by them.[/quote]
I have at one time or another held both viewpoints, but the more I have read, the more I tend towards the “genetics” argument. Our genes determine so much that it is scary. The drives which motivate us all come from our genes, the drive to reproduce, the drive to protect our offspring and make their life better, the drive to survive. I agree that the people that you have mentioned certainly excelled in their environment, but was this above their base genes? I don’t think so, it is just as accurate to say they excelled BECAUSE of their genes, since their genes gave them the reasoning apparatus to excel like they did.[/quote]
Ever read about epigenetic control/epigenetics? Do it. It’ll change this idea you have about “genes determining so much that it is scary”. We are far more than our DNA and a reductionist view of the human person is at the heart of eugenics and things like nihilism are the fruit of it.[/quote]
I am more than familiar with epigenetics. I fail to see how that provides any evidence that contradicts how we are the result of our genes. Perhaps you could elaborate with a specific example.[/quote]
If you are more than familiar then it seems I shouldn’t have to explain this, but there are at least a few studies with identical twins and looking at gene expression (ie which genes are turned on/off) that show at birth they are almost identical, but rapidly diverge. What’s more they have different personalities etc… This is environment, but also the fact that they are distinct persons. I am sure I am saying what you already know, but genes, DNA, is nothing more than a blue print for what kinds of things a cell can produce and the DNA only is used in reproduction or when there is some interaction of the cell with the envrionment and it (the cell) needs to use the DNA to make a protein. So, on a cellular level you could really say that the environment controls the cell and the DNA merely determines potential (but I don’t think that is quite right with humans though).[/quote]
I see what you are saying. Epigenetics is simply the cellular machinery of adaption to your environment. Its not quite as fluid as you make out. Of course depending upon environment, different genes are switched on and off, but no matter what genes are activated/deactivated the two twins always have identical DNA, and they will have identical epigenetic responses to the same environment. It is a mistake to think that this is somehow producing distinct variation between two identical twins.
That blueprint you talk about is very specific, from the fine microstructure of the brain to our individual hormonal chemistry. It is that blueprint that subsequently determines who we are and how we act. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a complete reductionist, I do think we have the ability to over-ride our programming to some small degree, since we are capable of rational thought. However, I think the human being that can ultimately over-ride them more than 1% of the time though is vanishingly rare.
I have for a long time sat on your side of the fence though, so I can really see where you are coming from.
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
'This is why I wanted to keep religion out of this, because anyone who seriously applies faith to everyday thinking and morality at some point on the chain has abandoned rational thought. I cannot debate with you about some superstition called the marital act and get anywhere since you have already convinced yourself that you are right “by the good grace of the lord” ’ - MassiveGuns
What good is faith if it doesn’t permeate your very being? Seriously man, what you believe permeates your entire being. Also any discussion about eugenics without some basis in the value of the human person is pointless, because if we have no inherent value then we can do whatever we want to each other. Also the marital act isn’t a superstition it’s fun, it’s been around a long time, and it makes babies
[/quote]
Why do you need faith to place value on a human life? Without faith all life is worthless?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
If we created a pill that guarantees our kids would never get cancer, wouldn’t we give it to them in a heartbeat?
If we could modify their genetic code to provide the same protection, wouldn’t we also do it in a heartbeat?[/quote]
Exactly. Some of these questions are a no brainer. Others are a little tougher.[/quote]
Yeah, I was hoping to get into that too.
So what questions are tougher, and why?
How is designing a baby with blue eyes any different than intentionally marrying another person with blue eyes, so you can keep blue eyes in the family?
Class warfare? Should we disallow the development of an anti-cancer pill just because most people wouldn’t be able to afford it? And what if it became cheaper over time, but only if it was initially available to the wealthy?[/quote]
Again I agree with you on both of these. The questions I think are tougher are with regard to what would be considered “improvements” over and above normal human characteristics. Whether or not we should allow these types of changes is a different question than eye colour because of the possible implications for society at large.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
So…what you’re saying is that you’d rather kill two or three of your kids so, you know one of them can be perfect genetic wise? Still sounds like a lead into Nationalism.[/quote]
Don’t put words in my mouth Chris. I never said anything about ‘killing my kids’ until the perfect one came along. What I said was given the choice between giving one the best genetic profile or not, I would choose the former. Nowhere did I say I would keep going thru it until ‘those scientists finally got it right’.
If the technology wasn’t 100% consistently repeatable then what would be the point?
[/quote]
Doesn’t matter, if you have two embryos and you are able to replace imperfect genetics with those of the other embryo and then the other embryo becomes destroyed and thrown away, you have killed an innocent life.
And, if you are waiting for them to be a 100% consistent, it’ll never happen. Nothing works 100% of the time.
From my (lack of) understanding, I took this conversation of eugenics to mean that the genetic code that we possess would be written without error(s), not throwing out embryos.[/quote]
I’ve never heard of that (it might be my lack of understanding), but that still begs the question, how do you do it without corrupting the marital act?[/quote]
Based on what you have said so far, an acceptable form of eugenics would be when the genetic changes are introduced at the sperm/egg level before conception. The sperm and eggs would then be re-introduced to preserve the “marital act”
In this scenario, none of your current objections apply. And remember, we are only a short space of time away from technological capabilities that equal or exceed that needed to accomplish the above. Is eugenics ok now? If not, why not?[/quote]
No, you can’t extract eggs or sperm, it still corrupts the martial act. Marital act is between two people and requires love and unity. Plus, I am not aware of a way of putting sperm back into the testicles.[/quote]
Where exactly in your religious text does it say specifically that the “temporary extraction of sperm and eggs” renders this hypothetical “marital act” null and void.
[/quote]
It’s in my religious text, but this is stuff I learned studying Aristotle, someone used by secular philosopher.
I would have to look into it further to make a conclusion, but I don’t necessarily see anything wrong with the shot. However, I am not an expert in bioethics.
History and reason.
I like reason, so like I said, don’t worry about it. I’ll stick with what I learnt from Aristotle and Natural Law. It’s not a superstition, superstition is the belief that you can do something in order to get a certain supernatural result.
And, this stuff that I am talking about is in Aristotle’s work. Do you consider Aristotle “the Lord”?
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
'This is why I wanted to keep religion out of this, because anyone who seriously applies faith to everyday thinking and morality at some point on the chain has abandoned rational thought. I cannot debate with you about some superstition called the marital act and get anywhere since you have already convinced yourself that you are right “by the good grace of the lord” ’ - MassiveGuns
What good is faith if it doesn’t permeate your very being? Seriously man, what you believe permeates your entire being. Also any discussion about eugenics without some basis in the value of the human person is pointless, because if we have no inherent value then we can do whatever we want to each other. Also the marital act isn’t a superstition it’s fun, it’s been around a long time, and it makes babies
[/quote]
Why do you need faith to place value on a human life? Without faith all life is worthless?
[/quote]
Okay, I believe Jakerz is a Catholic, when Catholics say “faith,” they mean the truths of the Catholic Church, not as protestants that say they have faith in Jesus Christ even though Catholics do believe Jesus died for their sins, their faith is just broader.
Catholics faith is in truth and recognize those that search for the truth. Justin Martyr (kind of famous Catholic man) gave praise to the Greeks who looked for the truth and the source of truth. Justin Martyr did this because that is what Catholics are supposed to do search for the truth and the source of all truth, Justin just thought that the Greeks just didn’t realise at the time that what they were looking for Jesus. The Catholic truths are the same truth that was the incubation chamber for western medicine and science, and is still the biggest benefactor of science, today. So, excuse those that are irrational in their arguments, as Catholics are supposed to look for the truth with reason and faith (in Catholic truths, like all humans have dignity).
I want to point out that a fair percentage of embryos conceived through the marital act do not come to term. It is not as if once a women is pregnant there is a guaranteed child. In fact women often will miscarriage their first 'baby". I have several couple friends where the women has experienced more miscarriages, some late term, then born children. So it is a curious argument to make it about life/death.
If science could reduce the ratio of non-term embryos to full term children, would that be better than rely on traditional methods? What if we move the numbers to children who survive the first two years?
Also, some studies are showing that our understanding of genetics is more limited than thought. The idea that genes are all ‘reset’ has been proven false and that environmental experiences can be reflected in what genes are turned ‘on’ and ‘off’ for up to four generations. Also, let us not forget that the body is adaptive and the adult form of a human can be markedly different than what scientist would suggest at the child’s birth based on genes.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
Eugenics stems from fear. Do not be afraid.[/quote]
Of having handicapped or terminally ill children? [/quote]
So, they don’t deserve the dignity and opportunity to live, because…?[/quote]
Whether they deserve the dignity is one thing, whether they will get it is another thing entirely.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
Eugenics stems from fear. Do not be afraid.[/quote]
Of having handicapped or terminally ill children? [/quote]
So, they don’t deserve the dignity and opportunity to live, because…?[/quote]
Whether they deserve the dignity is one thing, whether they will get it is another thing entirely.
[/quote]
Of course, whatever for the greatest good!
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]ZombieLover wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]ZombieLover wrote:
Without going into the topic of religion (which is a ridiculous restriction BTW). The main problem that I have with eugenics, other then its dark history, is that it takes away one of the greatest assests of humanity: potential.
Lets just say we can select attractiveness, athletics, and intellect for our children, in doing that we have cursed them. By saying we have designed them, there is an implication that we have set all they can do; that they are not creatures of unlimited potential, but merely a product of genes. Not that their genes are a base upon which they can stretch out from with the constant search of new challenges, but instead challenges are the benchmarks of how far they have been designed to go and they can go no further.
If humanity sinks to that then we have de-evolved in way that science can’t save.[/quote]
I disagree. We’re the result of our genes, environment, and experiences.
I would look at it more like they’ve been primed to be the best, but the best at what? No one can be the best at everything(yet), there just isn’t enough time to become an expert in all fields, so to say that their life has been decided for them is short sighted.[/quote]
To say a person is merely the makings of the three above things is extremely short sighted. If those were the limits then there would not have been a Carnegie, Edison, Jordon, Fitzgerald, Ellison. I could go on but you get the point. These people and many others have risen well above their base genes, environment, and learned from their experiences rather than be limited by them.[/quote]
I have at one time or another held both viewpoints, but the more I have read, the more I tend towards the “genetics” argument. Our genes determine so much that it is scary. The drives which motivate us all come from our genes, the drive to reproduce, the drive to protect our offspring and make their life better, the drive to survive. I agree that the people that you have mentioned certainly excelled in their environment, but was this above their base genes? I don’t think so, it is just as accurate to say they excelled BECAUSE of their genes, since their genes gave them the reasoning apparatus to excel like they did.[/quote]
Ever read about epigenetic control/epigenetics? Do it. It’ll change this idea you have about “genes determining so much that it is scary”. We are far more than our DNA and a reductionist view of the human person is at the heart of eugenics and things like nihilism are the fruit of it.[/quote]
I am more than familiar with epigenetics. I fail to see how that provides any evidence that contradicts how we are the result of our genes. Perhaps you could elaborate with a specific example.[/quote]
If you are more than familiar then it seems I shouldn’t have to explain this, but there are at least a few studies with identical twins and looking at gene expression (ie which genes are turned on/off) that show at birth they are almost identical, but rapidly diverge. What’s more they have different personalities etc… This is environment, but also the fact that they are distinct persons. I am sure I am saying what you already know, but genes, DNA, is nothing more than a blue print for what kinds of things a cell can produce and the DNA only is used in reproduction or when there is some interaction of the cell with the envrionment and it (the cell) needs to use the DNA to make a protein. So, on a cellular level you could really say that the environment controls the cell and the DNA merely determines potential (but I don’t think that is quite right with humans though).[/quote]
I see what you are saying. Epigenetics is simply the cellular machinery of adaption to your environment. Its not quite as fluid as you make out. Of course depending upon environment, different genes are switched on and off, but no matter what genes are activated/deactivated the two twins always have identical DNA, and they will have identical epigenetic responses to the same environment. It is a mistake to think that this is somehow producing distinct variation between two identical twins.
That blueprint you talk about is very specific, from the fine microstructure of the brain to our individual hormonal chemistry. It is that blueprint that subsequently determines who we are and how we act. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a complete reductionist, I do think we have the ability to over-ride our programming to some small degree, since we are capable of rational thought. However, I think the human being that can ultimately over-ride them more than 1% of the time though is vanishingly rare.
I have for a long time sat on your side of the fence though, so I can really see where you are coming from.[/quote]
We really have no proof that two genetically identical humans would respond the same to the same environment. And in fact it is impossible to test, because two people can’t occupy the same space… (Warning snarky comment coming!) For such a rational individual you hold rational thought in very low esteem.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
If we created a pill that guarantees our kids would never get cancer, wouldn’t we give it to them in a heartbeat?
If we could modify their genetic code to provide the same protection, wouldn’t we also do it in a heartbeat?[/quote]
A kid taking a pill and corrupting the marital act are two different things, sorry.[/quote]
You’re a sensationalist who doesn’t understand the topic.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
If we created a pill that guarantees our kids would never get cancer, wouldn’t we give it to them in a heartbeat?
If we could modify their genetic code to provide the same protection, wouldn’t we also do it in a heartbeat?[/quote]
A kid taking a pill and corrupting the marital act are two different things, sorry.[/quote]
You’re a sensationalist who doesn’t understand the topic.[/quote]
How am I a sensationalist?
Gene expression is not guaranteed is it? I mean, just because a characteristic is present in dna does not mean it will manifest in the organism, does it?
Without absolute knowledge of exactly what the product of combining two different genetic codes would be, you can’t really predict what the outcome will be, can you? Aside from a basic schematic terms, I mean, like dog + dog = dog.
So, say you want a brown haired, blue eyed, genius. Geneticist does his thing, and out comes a brown haired, blue eyed, genius that sprouts tumors like a field of daisies at the age of 40.
You got what you wanted though, right?
Disclaimer- I don’t know shit about genetic science or the current state of it.
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]ZombieLover wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]ZombieLover wrote:
Without going into the topic of religion (which is a ridiculous restriction BTW). The main problem that I have with eugenics, other then its dark history, is that it takes away one of the greatest assests of humanity: potential.
Lets just say we can select attractiveness, athletics, and intellect for our children, in doing that we have cursed them. By saying we have designed them, there is an implication that we have set all they can do; that they are not creatures of unlimited potential, but merely a product of genes. Not that their genes are a base upon which they can stretch out from with the constant search of new challenges, but instead challenges are the benchmarks of how far they have been designed to go and they can go no further.
If humanity sinks to that then we have de-evolved in way that science can’t save.[/quote]
I disagree. We’re the result of our genes, environment, and experiences.
I would look at it more like they’ve been primed to be the best, but the best at what? No one can be the best at everything(yet), there just isn’t enough time to become an expert in all fields, so to say that their life has been decided for them is short sighted.[/quote]
To say a person is merely the makings of the three above things is extremely short sighted. If those were the limits then there would not have been a Carnegie, Edison, Jordon, Fitzgerald, Ellison. I could go on but you get the point. These people and many others have risen well above their base genes, environment, and learned from their experiences rather than be limited by them.[/quote]
I have at one time or another held both viewpoints, but the more I have read, the more I tend towards the “genetics” argument. Our genes determine so much that it is scary. The drives which motivate us all come from our genes, the drive to reproduce, the drive to protect our offspring and make their life better, the drive to survive. I agree that the people that you have mentioned certainly excelled in their environment, but was this above their base genes? I don’t think so, it is just as accurate to say they excelled BECAUSE of their genes, since their genes gave them the reasoning apparatus to excel like they did.[/quote]
Ever read about epigenetic control/epigenetics? Do it. It’ll change this idea you have about “genes determining so much that it is scary”. We are far more than our DNA and a reductionist view of the human person is at the heart of eugenics and things like nihilism are the fruit of it.[/quote]
I am more than familiar with epigenetics. I fail to see how that provides any evidence that contradicts how we are the result of our genes. Perhaps you could elaborate with a specific example.[/quote]
If you are more than familiar then it seems I shouldn’t have to explain this, but there are at least a few studies with identical twins and looking at gene expression (ie which genes are turned on/off) that show at birth they are almost identical, but rapidly diverge. What’s more they have different personalities etc… This is environment, but also the fact that they are distinct persons. I am sure I am saying what you already know, but genes, DNA, is nothing more than a blue print for what kinds of things a cell can produce and the DNA only is used in reproduction or when there is some interaction of the cell with the envrionment and it (the cell) needs to use the DNA to make a protein. So, on a cellular level you could really say that the environment controls the cell and the DNA merely determines potential (but I don’t think that is quite right with humans though).[/quote]
I see what you are saying. Epigenetics is simply the cellular machinery of adaption to your environment. Its not quite as fluid as you make out. Of course depending upon environment, different genes are switched on and off, but no matter what genes are activated/deactivated the two twins always have identical DNA, and they will have identical epigenetic responses to the same environment. It is a mistake to think that this is somehow producing distinct variation between two identical twins.
That blueprint you talk about is very specific, from the fine microstructure of the brain to our individual hormonal chemistry. It is that blueprint that subsequently determines who we are and how we act. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a complete reductionist, I do think we have the ability to over-ride our programming to some small degree, since we are capable of rational thought. However, I think the human being that can ultimately over-ride them more than 1% of the time though is vanishingly rare.
I have for a long time sat on your side of the fence though, so I can really see where you are coming from.[/quote]
We really have no proof that two genetically identical humans would respond the same to the same environment. And in fact it is impossible to test, because two people can’t occupy the same space… (Warning snarky comment coming!) For such a rational individual you hold rational thought in very low esteem.[/quote]
Actually, we do.
This is easily deduced from experimentation with simpler organisms like the E Coli bacteria.
The questions are more ones of degrees of effect in environment, genotype, phenotype, etc…
We’ve made mistakes with medicine (epigenetic regulation), and I’m sure we will make mistakes with eugenics. This should not stop us from trying.
No doubt, there will always be a certain amount of people who are terrified of the boogeyman of progress. But, they always seem to enjoy the fruits of our labors in the end.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Gene expression is not guaranteed is it? I mean, just because a characteristic is present in dna does not mean it will manifest in the organism, does it?
Without absolute knowledge of exactly what the product of combining two different genetic codes would be, you can’t really predict what the outcome will be, can you? Aside from a basic schematic terms, I mean, like dog + dog = dog.
So, say you want a brown haired, blue eyed, genius. Geneticist does his thing, and out comes a brown haired, blue eyed, genius that sprouts tumors like a field of daisies at the age of 40.
You got what you wanted though, right?
Disclaimer- I don’t know shit about genetic science or the current state of it.
[/quote]
In some instances, phenotype is guaranteed in the 90th percentile. In some cases it is lower. For instance, effectively all viable humans are born with at least one lung.
What you state above is the obvious potential downside. It’s obvious… got it? I don’t suspect that geneticists have overlooked this possibility. Nor do I suspect that trials that cannot overcome these types of possibilities would get very far in the world.
The real questions are how well can we determine statistical likelihoods of downsides or maladaptations, and at what percentage of certainty should we consider experimentation? Are there potential upsides that outweigh the risk? Do we have any choice?
There is good reason to be more concerned about the epigenetic effects of our culture, industry, etc… that may be causing long-term maladaptations that could be catastrophic to our species. What causes cancer?
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]jakerz96 wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[quote]ZombieLover wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]ZombieLover wrote:
Without going into the topic of religion (which is a ridiculous restriction BTW). The main problem that I have with eugenics, other then its dark history, is that it takes away one of the greatest assests of humanity: potential.
Lets just say we can select attractiveness, athletics, and intellect for our children, in doing that we have cursed them. By saying we have designed them, there is an implication that we have set all they can do; that they are not creatures of unlimited potential, but merely a product of genes. Not that their genes are a base upon which they can stretch out from with the constant search of new challenges, but instead challenges are the benchmarks of how far they have been designed to go and they can go no further.
If humanity sinks to that then we have de-evolved in way that science can’t save.[/quote]
I disagree. We’re the result of our genes, environment, and experiences.
I would look at it more like they’ve been primed to be the best, but the best at what? No one can be the best at everything(yet), there just isn’t enough time to become an expert in all fields, so to say that their life has been decided for them is short sighted.[/quote]
To say a person is merely the makings of the three above things is extremely short sighted. If those were the limits then there would not have been a Carnegie, Edison, Jordon, Fitzgerald, Ellison. I could go on but you get the point. These people and many others have risen well above their base genes, environment, and learned from their experiences rather than be limited by them.[/quote]
I have at one time or another held both viewpoints, but the more I have read, the more I tend towards the “genetics” argument. Our genes determine so much that it is scary. The drives which motivate us all come from our genes, the drive to reproduce, the drive to protect our offspring and make their life better, the drive to survive. I agree that the people that you have mentioned certainly excelled in their environment, but was this above their base genes? I don’t think so, it is just as accurate to say they excelled BECAUSE of their genes, since their genes gave them the reasoning apparatus to excel like they did.[/quote]
Ever read about epigenetic control/epigenetics? Do it. It’ll change this idea you have about “genes determining so much that it is scary”. We are far more than our DNA and a reductionist view of the human person is at the heart of eugenics and things like nihilism are the fruit of it.[/quote]
I am more than familiar with epigenetics. I fail to see how that provides any evidence that contradicts how we are the result of our genes. Perhaps you could elaborate with a specific example.[/quote]
If you are more than familiar then it seems I shouldn’t have to explain this, but there are at least a few studies with identical twins and looking at gene expression (ie which genes are turned on/off) that show at birth they are almost identical, but rapidly diverge. What’s more they have different personalities etc… This is environment, but also the fact that they are distinct persons. I am sure I am saying what you already know, but genes, DNA, is nothing more than a blue print for what kinds of things a cell can produce and the DNA only is used in reproduction or when there is some interaction of the cell with the envrionment and it (the cell) needs to use the DNA to make a protein. So, on a cellular level you could really say that the environment controls the cell and the DNA merely determines potential (but I don’t think that is quite right with humans though).[/quote]
I see what you are saying. Epigenetics is simply the cellular machinery of adaption to your environment. Its not quite as fluid as you make out. Of course depending upon environment, different genes are switched on and off, but no matter what genes are activated/deactivated the two twins always have identical DNA, and they will have identical epigenetic responses to the same environment. It is a mistake to think that this is somehow producing distinct variation between two identical twins.
That blueprint you talk about is very specific, from the fine microstructure of the brain to our individual hormonal chemistry. It is that blueprint that subsequently determines who we are and how we act. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a complete reductionist, I do think we have the ability to over-ride our programming to some small degree, since we are capable of rational thought. However, I think the human being that can ultimately over-ride them more than 1% of the time though is vanishingly rare.
I have for a long time sat on your side of the fence though, so I can really see where you are coming from.[/quote]
We really have no proof that two genetically identical humans would respond the same to the same environment. And in fact it is impossible to test, because two people can’t occupy the same space… (Warning snarky comment coming!) For such a rational individual you hold rational thought in very low esteem.[/quote]
Actually, we do.
This is easily deduced from experimentation with simpler organisms like the E Coli bacteria.
The questions are more ones of degrees of effect in environment, genotype, phenotype, etc…
We’ve made mistakes with medicine (epigenetic regulation), and I’m sure we will make mistakes with eugenics. This should not stop us from trying.
No doubt, there will always be a certain amount of people who are terrified of the boogeyman of progress. But, they always seem to enjoy the fruits of our labors in the end.
[/quote]
Um, no we don’t. I said proof and humans. You said deduced from and bacteria. These are seriously different things. Also progress is not the boogeyman. The boogeyman is the boogeyman. Eugenics is not progress except in the eyes of those who get to control it, for them it is like becoming god, getting to decide which human lives are valuable and which are not that is the ultimate tieranny and that is the boogeyman.