Human eugenics, are you for or against it?

Genetics as it applies to evolution, molecular biology, and medical aspects.

Moderators: honeev, Leonid, amiradm, BioTeam

Ultrashogun
Coral
Coral
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 4:48 am

Human eugenics, are you for or against it?

Post by Ultrashogun » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:42 pm

What is your opinion on applying selective breeding to humans? How would you enforce it?

Personally I believe it would be positive for mankind, we do it to basicly everthing biological around us(animals, plants) why not also to ourselves?

User avatar
Dr.Stein
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 3501
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 7:58 am
Location: 55284 Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Contact:

Post by Dr.Stein » Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:52 am

I am against it. That's Nazism, Hitler's dream :twisted: For me it is similar as genocide!

*hits the table*

8)
Image

Ultrashogun
Coral
Coral
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 4:48 am

Post by Ultrashogun » Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:28 am

Dr.Stein wrote:I am against it. That's Nazism, Hitler's dream :twisted: For me it is similar as genocide!

*hits the table*

8)


Hitler also built the german highway, that doesnt mean that everybody who drives fast is a fascist.

Ultrashogun
Coral
Coral
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 4:48 am

Post by Ultrashogun » Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:29 am

Anyway, did you know that the americans were actually the forerunners in the field of eugenics before the nazis came?

User avatar
G-Do
Garter
Garter
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:23 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA; USA

Post by G-Do » Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:44 pm

Against.

Reasons:
1) Diversity is valuable. What seems like a crappy allele now might be critical for survival a hundred years down the road, when we're all sucking smog and living on grubs a thousand feet below the irradiated surface of the earth. It is difficult to predict in advance how the environment will change, so we should keep the genetic diversity we have. This rule applies to agriculture, too. Imagine that we artificially select for a certain rice crop, and that this selection process weeds a lot of variation out of the rice genome. What happens when a blight hits and there's no innate resistance in the rice? A famine, that's what.

2) It's impractical to get rid of recessive alleles, for three reasons: (a) removing the homozygous recessives from the breeding pool alone often takes hundreds of generations to produce an appreciable effect on the allele's frequency in the population, and the government may not have a eugenics policy in hundreds of generations, let alone ten generations, (b) you can try to get rid of carriers, too, but carrier detection methods aren't always perfect; they suffer from problems of sensitivity and specificity, and (c) you won't be able to convince people to give up the right to have children - especially in certain western societies, where that right is all but sacred - especially if carrier detection methods suffer from high false positive rates (this would mean that a person gets marked as a carrier and is forbidden from having children when s/he doesn't even have the disease).

3) The most important reason: it is unethical for a body of people to regulate whether a single person can or cannot bear a child. The real rub, here, is in your initial statement: "Personally I believe it would be positive for mankind, we do it to basicly everthing biological around us(animals, plants) why not also to ourselves?" If you replace "ourselves" with "each other" you'll see what I mean.
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici

User avatar
Dr.Stein
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 3501
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 7:58 am
Location: 55284 Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Contact:

Post by Dr.Stein » Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:19 am

Ultrashogun wrote:Hitler also built the german highway, that doesnt mean that everybody who drives fast is a fascist.

Yeah I know the "Deutschland über alles" thing. It is great, no doubt, they can conquer the world with their thought and technology but they cannot make "superhuman", because that's too far IMO :?
Image

User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Post by mith » Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:01 am

We could use a lot less stupid people but it would be hard to do because idiots are very hardy people lol
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr

User avatar
Dr.Stein
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 3501
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 7:58 am
Location: 55284 Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Contact:

Post by Dr.Stein » Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:39 am

mith wrote:We could use a lot less stupid people but it would be hard to do because idiots are very hardy people lol

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Image

User avatar
sachin
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: MUMBAI / INDIA
Contact:

Post by sachin » Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:04 am

NOT Totaly against It.

Because This Have Some Great Advantages Too.

Just we have to limit the Uses of It.

It looks difficult but not Impossible.
Senior Education Officer, BNHS, India. www.bnhs.org

Bitter Truth!
Who says reason for world war III will be Petrol?
Reason lies in two words "Me and Mine".

User avatar
Dr.Stein
King Cobra
King Cobra
Posts: 3501
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 7:58 am
Location: 55284 Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Contact:

Post by Dr.Stein » Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:23 am

I like the idea, it is a genius thought but I don't expect anything for the practical ;)
Image

User avatar
MrMistery
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
Posts: 6832
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Romania(small and unimportant country)
Contact:

Post by MrMistery » Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:28 pm

I'm with mith... i look around me each day and am astonished by the immense, ever increasing number of idiots...
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter

rvidal
Garter
Garter
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:34 pm
Location: Portugal

Post by rvidal » Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:08 am

G-Do wrote:Against.

Reasons:
1) Diversity is valuable. What seems like a crappy allele now might be critical for survival a hundred years down the road, when we're all sucking smog and living on grubs a thousand feet below the irradiated surface of the earth. It is difficult to predict in advance how the environment will change, so we should keep the genetic diversity we have. This rule applies to agriculture, too. Imagine that we artificially select for a certain rice crop, and that this selection process weeds a lot of variation out of the rice genome. What happens when a blight hits and there's no innate resistance in the rice? A famine, that's what.

2) It's impractical to get rid of recessive alleles, for three reasons: (a) removing the homozygous recessives from the breeding pool alone often takes hundreds of generations to produce an appreciable effect on the allele's frequency in the population, and the government may not have a eugenics policy in hundreds of generations, let alone ten generations, (b) you can try to get rid of carriers, too, but carrier detection methods aren't always perfect; they suffer from problems of sensitivity and specificity, and (c) you won't be able to convince people to give up the right to have children - especially in certain western societies, where that right is all but sacred - especially if carrier detection methods suffer from high false positive rates (this would mean that a person gets marked as a carrier and is forbidden from having children when s/he doesn't even have the disease).

3) The most important reason: it is unethical for a body of people to regulate whether a single person can or cannot bear a child. The real rub, here, is in your initial statement: "Personally I believe it would be positive for mankind, we do it to basicly everthing biological around us(animals, plants) why not also to ourselves?" If you replace "ourselves" with "each other" you'll see what I mean.

Great answer. I agree.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest