Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joseph COulter on June 8, 2011 at 3:08pm

For two people who want to hand pick each other for the genetics, it doesn't have to be involuntary. However I don't think that the widespread scale scenario is realistic voluntarily(sorry to have not been clear on that).

 

As I mentioned before though, genetic improvements on par with embryo screening can't really be reached with just two consenting people(well it can, but there's a small chance, and why let chance get involved when you can have a direct science instead?) In fact, it wouldn't be realistic to think that genetic improvements on par with embryo screening could be achieved by an entire generation of the world breeding only through good genetic matches.

 

Of coarse, you're absolutely rite. There could be some cultural revolution where everyone becomes really interested in eugenics and achieves selective breeding on a worldwide scale... That sounds incredibly unrealistic to me though, where as embryo screening... even if it was only done by a small community of rich people, they would rapidly become genetically superior in a few generations, and be able to pick partners for more convenient reasons.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on June 8, 2011 at 3:57pm

Ok, so what if there were a publicly funded program that offered free tubal-ligation/vasectomy as well as storage of your eggs/sperm for later use?  Upon deciding to reclaim your 'donation' you could also have the publicly funded option of screening for genetic markers for a limited set diseases.  There could even be an option for "if my genes contain those markers, please substitute with similar material sans those markers and don't tell me".  Then, of course, publicly funded in vitro fertilization for those who take part in the program.

 

Now, don't you think a lot of people would be rather eager to take part to at least some degree?  Don't you think a lot of parents would be interested in encouraging their children to take part?  Wouldn't cutting back on thousands of unplanned pregnancies in and of itself be a good start to better foundations for parenting environments?  Even if only 1/3rd of people screened for the markers, that could cut back on occurrences of those childhood diseases by 30% each generation - which would get us moving in the correct direction.

 

Does this sound incredibly unrealistic?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph COulter on June 14, 2011 at 12:54am

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble understanding the proposed program. The eggs and sperm are collected and them matched together and then given back on demand?

"does this sound incredibly unrealistic?"

 

"Now, don't you think a lot of people would be rather eager to take part to at least some degree?  Don't you think a lot of parents would be interested in encouraging their children to take part?"

 

I wouldn't doubt for a second that a large number of people would participate. There are a lot of people in the world. But in ratio to the world population I don't think that any eugenics program will be used prevalently because many people want children with someone that they're attached to in some monogomous relationship.

 

"Wouldn't cutting back on thousands of unplanned pregnancies in and of itself be a good start to better foundations for parenting environments?"

 

Definitely!

 

"Even if only 1/3rd of people screened for the markers, that could cut back on occurrences of those childhood diseases by 30% each generation - which would get us moving in the correct direction."

 

I think that your right that this would be a move in the right direction. 30% may even be better than natural selection before humans. However, it's interesting that the example of the "program" you proposed is very similar to embryo screening, other than that in your proposed program, the materials that make the embryo are screened, rather than embryos themselves. I find this interesting specifically because our proposed programs are really only one step apart from being the same thing, and that that one step defines the difference between eugenics and transhumanism.

 

I'm really not as familiar with genetics as I'd like to be to give you a good arguement, but my figures and understands of it could be wrong. But lets compare and contrast our two proposed programs. Assuming your figure of 30% per generation is accurate, the 30% per generation is good. However, why not just skip screening for the sperm and eggs, and just screen the embryos for a 100% elimination of predispositions for diseases?

 

In addition to that, biology is just so slow, which is entirely why the Huxley family dropped their defense on eugenics and replaced it with transhumanism. 30% per generation is good in comparison to other biological methods, but to say that it's slow in comparison to technological progression would be an extremely dramatic understatement. While there has only been one man made living cell, and it's incredibly simple, even if moors law caps off when computers are near atom sized, amino acids, being atom sized and all, won't really be as expensive to assemble as they are now. I mention this because artificial amino acid assembly will probably be realistic in less than a few generations(or maybe just one) making both eugenics and even embryo screening obsolete.

 

Check this video out. In many ways it's an overview of our current state in transhumanism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovV7v2XYJAI

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on June 14, 2011 at 6:17am

I'll check the vid when I get home from work - I don't have 20 minutes to spare in my morning routine today.  Anyway, all I'm suggesting for a program is an system that will empower people to truly control their own reproduction.  You can go off to a publicly funded clinic, deposit your sperm or eggs, and have your tubes tied or get a vasectomy.  You can still meet the person you want to have children with, go together to the clinic and get invitro fertilization with your own material on demand.  This simply empowers many more people to take part in planned parenthood.  I think that sort of program would get a very high percentage of people interested in participation.

 

Now the 'eugenics' part is inserted by giving them the option of screening their genetics when they plan to have children - with the option of swapping for genetic material free of particular flaws, if they so choose.  Perhaps anti-dysgenics is a better term for it.

 

What I feel is most powerful about this system is that it would be very appealing to a very wide range of people.  You can still preach abstinence if you are religious, but realistically you can also prevent unplanned pregnancies from 'sinful moments'. :D

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph COulter on June 17, 2011 at 5:02am

So when you say "swap" genetic material, you don't mean matching to a different partner? You mean switching the specific sperm and egg from the same partners?

 

To be honest, I don't have the knowledge of genetics that would be required to agree or contest the practicality of that. I've been given the impression from a few biologists that the methods I learned in public school to asses the probability of passing genetic traits(pundit squares) are complete bullshit.

 

So a question comes to mind. If you know all the genetic details of the sperm and egg, are there probabilities in deciding which of those traits(be they dominant or otherwise) pass onto the embryo, or is it a direct science, independant of any chance(I actually don't believe chance is likely to exist but that's a completely different convo). However, I'd like to emphasize that even if the genetic traits of an embryo could be certainly determined by learning the traits of the sperm and egg that make that embryo, screening the genetic traits of the embryo would still be superior to screening the sperm and egg, if nothing else than from the fact that you would have to screen 1/2 as many times(in that situation, that would seriously be the only difference rite?)

 

I may try to look that up later, but if you beat me to it then much appreciated :)

 

I think I should also really emphasize that I never meant to say that your idea what was bad idea. I think it's a great idea! I merely meant to say that as far as the end result, there's a better alternative that makes it obsolete. 

 

:You can still preach abstinence if you are religious, but realistically you can also prevent unplanned pregnancies from 'sinful moments"

 

you seem to think that just because your idea is a good idea, people are likely to accept it. Keep in mind the reaction of the abstinence preachers to the HPV vaccine(a situation that I believe closely parallels the preventative effects that your plan could provide). I think that were talking about something that matters, and while I think you understand what I'm saying, and I think that I understand what you're saying, I wouldn't think that many religious people who propose abstinence will actually even understand very much of our conversation. And we've been given so many reasons to believe that the bulk of theist population doesn't understand genetics.  I really think you've been overly optimistic about people. 

 

It would help me understand your train of thought if I knew where you were from.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on June 17, 2011 at 6:43am

Either screening the sperm/egg to the end of swapping the sperm/egg if one doesn't like the probability offered of passing problematic genetic traits or screening the ebryo for invitro fertilization.  The key, I feel, is to give people the option.

 

I realize many theists may not go for it, but after a generation of those who are rational enough to make the choice ending up with healthier children, aren't we already moving in the right direction?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph COulter on June 19, 2011 at 7:30pm

"Either screening the sperm/egg to the end of swapping the sperm/egg if one doesn't like the probability offered of passing problematic genetic traits or screening the ebryo for invitro fertilization."

 

Ok but out of the two why would you want to pick screening the sperm/egg rather than screening the embryo if there is an element of probability rather than certainty is the genetic outcome of the sperm/egg scenario. Keep in mind that I'm agreeing with embryo screening as an alternative to sperm/egg screening.

 

"The key, I feel, is to give people the option."

 

Well I've been holding back on expressing my opinion on that until I got to know where your from, because you mentioned a lot of this as being publicly payed for. In the united states anything that resembles socialized health care is going to be hated, and of coarse there's the christian hate to it as well. In order to be provided publicly provided(most research is payed for by government grants too isn't it?) you'll need theists to agree with it.

 

"I realize many theists may not go for it, but after a generation of those who are rational enough to make the choice ending up with healthier children, aren't we already moving in the right direction?"

 

Yes, but if there's a better option that can be accomplished then why not go for that?

 

I think you'll like this link.

 

http://www.hfea.gov.uk/cps/hfea/gen/pgd-screening.htm

 

 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on June 19, 2011 at 9:46pm

Yes, now taking that program and tacking on free tube tying/vasectomy to those who donate sperm/eggs in order to encourage planned parenthood.  If the U.S. is too crippled by Christianity to take part then I guess they wallow in disease.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 18
• 19
• 20
• Next ›
• Page