Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution => Topic started by: Jolly2 on 04/03/2021 19:06:53
-
Some people in the past and today really believe in eugenics. So why shouldnt everyone?
-
Because we don't actually know what is "eu". It is impossible to say today, what traits might be vital tomorrow.
Most people recognise the value of biodiversity, some aren't bright enough to recognise that the same logic applies to us.
-
Why shouldn't we engage in eugenics?
Some people who engaged in eugenics defined good and bad mainly by "do they look like me?"
- The greatest genetic diversity in humans today occurs in Africa, which must be preserved.
- Unfortunately, Africans are also influenced by "do they look like me?"
There has been considerable progress in analyzing and modifying DNA over the past 50 years
- In cases where there is a known genetic problems in the parents, doctors can select an embryo for implantation that does not carry the genetic defect of concern. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis
- If this progress continues, I expect that doctors will eventually be able to do genetic surgery to correct genetic problems
- CRISPR-CAS9 is often portrayed as like a genetic scalpel that can change a single letter of DNA
- There is increasing evidence that rather than the guide sequence acting like a scalpel, that in fact the guide sequence triggers the genetic equivalent of a chainsaw massacre
- This is not so surprising, since the original purpose of CRISPR-CAS9 in bacteria was to nuke invading viruses
- But if, in future, we get better processes, I expect that parents will be offered a menu of the most valuable genetic corrections to make to their children (initially, to the richer parents)
A somewhat dystopian view is portrayed in the movie GATTACA, which assumed progress in the techniques for genetic diagnosis, but not genetic surgery. People judged potential partners by analyzing their DNA.
- The name of the movie is cleverly constructed from the letters of DNA...
See: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/
-
People judged potential partners by analyzing their DNA.
Which we do anyway, in effect. We look at appearance, behavior, and sometimes family, all of which is partly determined by genetics and partly by circumstance, and base our relationships, including breeding programs, on the totality of what we find.
-
Because we will doom ourselves, by removing genes for one negative aspect we could affect and disgard genes for a beneficial one.
-
Unless it's a single gene trait, eugenics (which is basically a form of evolutionary selection), as with any evolutionary process, can usually be expect to take hundreds or thousands of generations to make any meaningful useful changes. Ain't nobody got time for that!
And in practice, eugenics is barbaric, an obscenity, Nobody with any morals should have time for that either.
-
Unless it's a single gene trait, eugenics (which is basically a form of evolutionary selection), as with any evolutionary process, can usually be expect to take hundreds or thousands of generations to make any meaningful useful changes. Ain't nobody got time for that!
And in practice, eugenics is barbaric, an obscenity, Nobody with any morals should have time for that either.
Some people actively do not reproduce because of genetic traits. Angelina Jolie is a famous example as she has a history of breast cancer in her family and has been told she carries the gene, also having a mastectomy to preserve herself. I used to know a fellow and his son who where aged about 55 and 30, they had a horrendous family history of bad hearts, not one of their male family members had made it past 50. Bringing a child into the world with breast cancer hanging over them is not a kind thing.
We do indulge in genetic bias at present, all of this survival against the Darwinian processes his very expensive and dangerous to man kind. The obvious example is infertility treatment, one would think that it is against all logic, we will end up like the giant panda.
-
we will end up like the giant panda.
Eh? AFAIK the animal evolved in perfect harmony with its environment until homo "sapiens" started to destroy the environment and kill the pandas. Same problem for gorillas, elephants and orang-utans.
-
Unless it's a single gene trait, eugenics (which is basically a form of evolutionary selection), as with any evolutionary process, can usually be expect to take hundreds or thousands of generations to make any meaningful useful changes. Ain't nobody got time for that!
And in practice, eugenics is barbaric, an obscenity, Nobody with any morals should have time for that either.
Some people actively do not reproduce because of genetic traits. Angelina Jolie is a famous example as she has a history of breast cancer in her family and has been told she carries the gene, also having a mastectomy to preserve herself. I used to know a fellow and his son who where aged about 55 and 30, they had a horrendous family history of bad hearts, not one of their male family members had made it past 50.
It's a simplification, a child is born of two parents just because one had a negative health trait doesn't mean that trait would get passed on, most people historically never managed to live to 50 anyway, that people are living longer is increasing the potential for associated health risks but as populations all increase in age, those issue will slowly resolve themselves.
Bringing a child into the world with breast cancer hanging over them is not a kind thing.
A rather paranoid assumption often cancer is caused by the environmental effects more then DNA, the last century has seen massive amounts of radioactive materials being released and the use of many harmful chemicals, all of which have lead to an increase in cancer. Your position is rather paranoid.
We do indulge in genetic bias at present, all of this survival against the Darwinian processes his very expensive and dangerous to man kind. The obvious example is infertility treatment, one would think that it is against all logic, we will end up like the giant panda.
Fertility is a thing eugenicsts have been trying to reduce, historically. Maybe they have been successful.
-
he last century has seen massive amounts of radioactive materials being released and the use of many harmful chemicals, all of which have lead to an increase in cancer.
No. The last century introduced massive amounts of useful chemicals which have increased life expectancy to the point at which cancer became a significant cause of death because we eliminated starvation and most infectious diseases.
Artificial sources of ionising radiation deliver about 50% of your lifetime dose in the last 5 years of your life, mostly in the diagnosis of cancer or heart disease, and less than 1% of your annual dose if you are not sick.
-
Your position is rather paranoid.
Yours is ignorant and arrogant.
-
Fertility is a thing eugenicsts have been trying to reduce, historically.
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn
-
Are we engaging in "eugenics" during the present Covid-19 pandemic.
If this pandemic was allowed to run its natural course, what would happen?
Everyone catches the virus. Then people with "weak" genes , which make them naturally more susceptible to the virus, die. Whereas people with "strong" genes, which make them naturally more resistant to the virus, live.
That's how it it would happen in a strictly Darwinian world. People with naturally "strong" genes survive. People with "weak" genes, die. This is called "Natural Selection"
However we are defying "Natural Selection" by inventing "vaccines". These artificial products of human ingenuity enable even people with "weak" genes to survive the pandemic.
Is that "Eugenics", or a kind of "Counter-Eugenics"? I can't make it out - can anyone advise?
-
Fertility is a thing eugenicsts have been trying to reduce, historically.
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn
YeS more nonsense from the chemist.
https://www.hli.org/resources/eugenic-sterilization/
"Though forcible eugenic sterilization is mostly a thing of the past and a dark spot in our country’s history, we often see that eugenic mentality today.
We see it in genetic engineering research with the manipulation of embryos. We see it in genetic enhancements. We see it in sex-selection abortion. We see it in embryos created through IVF who are selected for sex and genetic strength. And we see it in the pro-abortion movement. Organizations like Planned Parenthood target minorities. Almost 80% of PP’s clinics are in black and Latino neighborhoods."
https://theconversation.com/forced-sterilization-policies-in-the-us-targeted-minorities-and-those-with-disabilities-and-lasted-into-the-21st-century-143144
More than 60,000 people were sterilized in 32 states during the 20th century based on the bogus “science” of eugenics, a term coined by Francis Galton in 1883.
Israel was secretly preventing Black Jewish women having children
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-gave-birth-control-ethiopian-jews-without-their-consent-8468800.html
Sunday 27 January 2013
"Israel has admitted for the first time that it has been giving Ethiopian Jewish immigrants birth-control injections, often without their knowledge or consent."
They were doing that just a matter of a few years ago.
-
Are we engaging in "eugenics" during the present Covid-19 pandemic.
If this pandemic was allowed to run its natural course, what would happen?
Everyone catches the virus. Then people with "weak" genes , which make them naturally more susceptible to the virus, die.
Whereas people with "strong" genes, which make them naturally more resistant to the virus, live.
This is highly simplistic, it isnt the genetics but lifestyle choice and social issues that cause the majority of underlying health conditions, bad diet at times by choice but also because companies producing cheep low quality food using industrial methods, lack of exercise, with environmental pollution and poverty are all far more responsible for a persons underlying health conditions than their genetics.
That's how it it would happen in a strictly Darwinian world. People with naturally "strong" genes survive. People with "weak" genes, die. This is called "Natural Selection"
The genetics we have, have evolved from our past, modern society is a completely new environment in comparison, and "strong" Gene's for our ancestral environment quiet possibly bare little assistance to the current one. It's not the strongest Gene's that survive it's the best adapted Gene's and you can't know until you find yourself in that new environment how adaptable the Gene's a person has are.
Strong and weak are meaningless terms with regards to genes
However we are defying "Natural Selection" by inventing "vaccines". These artificial products of human ingenuity enable even people with "weak" genes to survive the pandemic.
Is that "Eugenics", or a kind of "Counter-Eugenics"? I can't make it out - can anyone advise?
It's neither, developing treatments for diseases isn't eugenics in any way. Well there are DNA mRNA treatments could be if they start changing the genetics of the people that recieve them.
But helping people survive through medicine isnt eugenics, any more then helping people survive by feeding them would be. Ofcourse death panels that are choosing who should be treated and who should not would be a form of eugenics, eugenisists would be selective in treating the "proper" people. And that is happening.
Bioethics and the new eugenics
-
Are we engaging in "eugenics" during the present Covid-19 pandemic.
If this pandemic was allowed to run its natural course, what would happen?
Everyone catches the virus. Then people with "weak" genes , which make them naturally more susceptible to the virus, die. Whereas people with "strong" genes, which make them naturally more resistant to the virus, live.
Nope you are thinking of the black death measles smallpox etc. When Europeans contacted the people of the americas the surviving Europeans from past pandemics annihilated the natives. Its a misconception cortez defeated the aztecs with a few hundred men, by the time hostilities broke out most of the aztecs where succumbing to the European viruses, he basically walked into Mexico City unchallenged.
This current "pandemic" is not dangerous to people in good health who have not been protected by past medical interventions. Almost all are over 50 and or have medical problems. Do you think a 122 year old nun would survive Ebola?
-
YeS more nonsense from the chemist.
Jolly has just announced that he doesn't understand that eugenics is about reducing the birth rate among "Them" so that we can increase it among "Us".
We see it in embryos created through IVF who are selected for sex and genetic strength.
Do we?
Where?
I ask because, if you know of someone doing that, you should probably be reporting them to the relevant authority.This current "pandemic" is not dangerous to people in good health
Nor is anything else- by the definition of "good health".
Being in a cage with a hungry lion isn't dangerous until the lion spoils your health.
However, this pandemic is killing young people with no (known) underlying health issues.
Pretending otherwise is lying, which isn't very scientific.
-
If this pandemic was allowed to run its natural course, what would happen?
Most of the deaths occur among people who have passed their reproductive years, so there would be no effect on future generations..
-
YeS more nonsense from the chemist.
Jolly has just announced that he doesn't understand that eugenics is about reducing the birth rate among "Them" so that we can increase it among "Us".
That doesn't seem to be the definition of eugenics expressed by eugenicists, honestly the definition they work by seems to be 'we the eugenicists are clearly superior people and everyone not like us, we consider interior so they should be removed from the earth. With added ideas about how to make themselves and their children even more superior then they clearly already are. You're reference to the Nazis is actually quiet apt in that sense.
We see it in embryos created through IVF who are selected for sex and genetic strength.
Do we?
Where?
I ask because, if you know of someone doing that, you should probably be reporting them to the relevant authority.
Scientists successfully genetically modify human embryos, allowing for editing of babies’ genes
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-successfully-genetically-modify-human-embryos-allowing-editing-babies-genes-10197357.html
-
allowing for
So, not actually "doing" then.
That's OK as long as we have sorted out where you were wrong.
-
That doesn't seem to be the definition of eugenics expressed by eugenicists
No.
But it's what they actually do.
-
...in a strictly Darwinian world. People with naturally "strong" genes survive. People with "weak" genes, die. This is called "Natural Selection"
This is sometimes true.
- But sometimes it is totally random - one gene variant in the population does its protein/enzyme thing just as well as other gene variants. However, a new disease or pathogen attacks one variant aggressively, but doesn't lock into another variant as successfully
- So the gene frequency in the population changes when there is a change in the environment, or when new gene variants appear.
- It is better to talk in terms of genes that are better suited for a given environment, rather than "strong" or "weak" genes
- Sometimes new gene variants open up new ecological niches. So a gene that may be poorly suited to one environment may be better suited to a different environment.
-Eugenicists who think that one appearance or one gene variant is the "ideal" are obviously not considering the many different environments on this planet (let alone other planets, one day...)
In the end, we are a product of the interplay of many different genes.
- Humanity at present is letting most of these gene variants multiply, increasing our genetic diversity
Unfortunately, humanity is simultaneously slashing the range and population of most other species, reducing their genetic diversity and fitness to survive.
-
Is the basic problem with eugenics this:
It would lead to a racial war between White people and non-White people.
-
...in a strictly Darwinian world. People with naturally "strong" genes survive. People with "weak" genes, die. This is called "Natural Selection"
- It is better to talk in terms of genes that are better suited for a given environment, rather than "strong" or "weak" genes
- Sometimes new gene variants open up new ecological niches. So a gene that may be poorly suited to one environment may be better suited to a different environment.
Agreed @evan_au it is a common mistake to associate natural selection with the words strong and weak genes.
Classic example is the Peppered Moth where the light variety was replaced by a darker variety in response to industrial pollution changing the colour of its environment. Neither variety has genes which are stronger or weaker than the other, just that one is better camouflaged than the other in a particular environment.
-
Is it really about "peppered moths"?
-
Is the basic problem with eugenics this:
It would lead to a racial war between White people and non-White people.
Which, to a visiting Martian, would be slightly less bizarre than the political, religious or tribal wars that characterise human history.
-
Is it really about "peppered moths"?
Yes, it is. It’s an example of how eugenics misuses and misrepresents evolution. The terms strong and weak imply that the stronger (read better, fitter, more valued, etc) have a right to survive at the expense of the ‘weak’.
Usually it’s just a justification as to why their particular group should eliminate another group.
Change moth for people. Light skin, dark skin; each suited to survive in different environments, but light skin, fair hair, blue eyes, becomes idolised by a particular group (whose architects just happen to be members of that group) and then they can justify treating other groups as subhuman.
As @evan_au pointed out, it’s really diversity in the gene pool that is most likely to ensure species survival in a changing environment.
-
I know you have to say that.
-
I know you have to say that.
That is a very immature response.
You asked a reasonable question and I gave a reasonable answer based on my own knowledge, understanding and beliefs.
Why do you feel the need to dis it with a trite remark?
-
Some communities are engaging in voluntary eugenics today - and it appears to have been very successful in informing community members, and is achieving good community participation.
- The events that gave eugenics a bad name were mostly about one group doing eugenics on another community, without their informed consent.
The idea of traditional eugenics is to have a healthy phenotype, while being totally ignorant about the underlying genotype.
There are some communities where recessive genes can result in unexpected genetic diseases in children.
- Some of these communities have used modern genetic techniques to almost eliminate these genetic diseases.
- One such organization was started by someone who lost several children to a genetic disease.
See, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dor_Yeshorim
-
OP - Why shouldn't we engage in eugenics?
Because...in comparison to LOVE, eugenics is simply futile.
Hence any " Pure Breed " per se, could be mixed and foiled in an instant.
P.S. - Luv at first sight is mostly considered a myth or fictional, Until Someone luks back at U & Smiles!
🙃
-
Some communities are engaging in voluntary eugenics today ............ There are some communities where recessive genes can result in unexpected genetic diseases in children.
I have some friends (not many) who have made a decision not to pass on their genes. This due to genetic disorders that have affected either themselves or close relatives.
They are not making the choice in order to improve the human race, but from a desire not to inflict suffering on their children.
However, you are right, this can be described as eugenics.
-
Genetic counselling is a serious business in the USA and a regulated profession in the UK.
-
allowing for
So, not actually "doing" then.
That's OK as long as we have sorted out where you were wrong.
Would help if you actually read the Article
"Chinese scientists have successfully edited the genes of human embryos for the first time"
More trolling from the chemist. So they not only ARE they HAVE!
Nice we can all see where the troll is wrong
-
I know you have to say that.
That is a very immature response.
You asked a reasonable question and I gave a reasonable answer based on my own knowledge, understanding and beliefs.
Why do you feel the need to dis it with a trite remark?
It's because these days, no-one dares say what they really think.
-
I know you have to say that.
That is a very immature response.
You asked a reasonable question and I gave a reasonable answer based on my own knowledge, understanding and beliefs.
Why do you feel the need to dis it with a trite remark?
It's because these days, no-one dares say what they really think.
I said exactly what I really think. So the question still stands!
-
The truth of Colin's remark is fairly obvious if you simply look at dogs. The species is remarkable for the plasticity of its genome but repetitive selection for particular traits produces animals that would have difficulty surviving outside of human society, whereas feral mutts tend to regress to the robust "ur-dog" after a few generations.
-
Would help if you actually read the Article
I read this bit "Using non-viable embryos ".
The phrase "non viable" rather shows that it's not been done "successfully".
Could they?
Yes
Are they?
No.
So, once again.
If you know anyone who is actually doing this, let the authorities know.
-
The truth of Colin's remark is fairly obvious if you simply look at dogs. The species is remarkable for the plasticity of its genome but repetitive selection for particular traits produces animals that would have difficulty surviving outside of human society, whereas feral mutts tend to regress to the robust "ur-dog" after a few generations.
It's ok to refer to dogs, and their "plasticity", which results in the innate physical and behavioural characteristics which we observe in the different "breeds" of the canine species.
-
Some people in the past and today really believe in eugenics. So why shouldnt everyone?
simple answer to this question would be Bioethics, knowing how little capitalism have the same as risk management mids own progress strive that will introduce quickly worst side effects and chimeras through genetic manipulation!
second more concerning answer would be super'human strive mids autocratic socialism where all that are unfit or disadvantaged would be deemed as excess in the society thus sent on forcible repatching or recycling!
third as behaviorist ancestor eugenics proved to be racist science i.e. aryanistic dream for racial purity and superiority!