Escape Artists
Escape Pod => Science Fiction Discussion => Topic started by: cuddlebug on May 31, 2008, 04:54:32 PM
-
I just listened to EP127: Results (http://forum.escapeartists.info/index.php?topic=1121.0), which deals with testing genetic compatibility of potential parents. Still working my way through old EP episodes, I skipped one of the workshops at the conference I am attending and went for a walk instead, a walk through Windsor Great Park that is, which was well worth it, even though the story wasn’t really that great. But it did make me think a bit, and since I am a woman in her thirties, who is NOT married and does NOT have children (and who maybe never will) I am becoming more and more aware of the stigma I have to deal with, every time I need to answer the question, “Don’t you want to start thinking about having children? It's about time..” etc. etc., therefore, the story’s themes resonated a lot with me.
I remembered how many ‘Geek Dads’ we have on the forum and I thought I could pick your brains a bit.
We know that the ‘genetic diagnosis’ described in the story is to a certain extent already possible, at least for some illnesses. My mother who has worked for years in genetic research (Human Genome Project) and medicine, told me when I was a teenager that I have a genetic disposition for developing a (minor) skin condition (as found on a particular gene), which kind of made me a bit nervous. I never did develop the skin condition and am well past the age it would first show up, but I always thought I never really wanted to know. There are so many other illnesses that can be diagnosed already, and the project is progressing really fast, I think.
I was wondering what you as (future) parents thought about this, whether for example
• you did get tested or would want to know whether your children would be likely to develop certain DISEASES?
• whether you would WANT to know what kind of problems or tendencies your children would develop (such as obesity, Alzheimer’s, etc.)?
• whether you would want to DO SOMETHING about that (‘have designer babies’, determine hair colour, physical appearances in general, talents, affinities, etc.)?
• etc. etc.
I have a big problem with the notion that everyone needs to be special. What is wrong with being mediocre? Obviously parents want the best for their children, but if it comes to some kind of competition as to whose children are the prettiest, the smartest, the most talented, I am getting really annoyed.
… and not to forget that upbringing and social environment have a huge impact on how a person becomes who they are (I know that alone is debatable). Loving children and supporting them to make their own decisions and determine what they WANT can mean that one can beat the odds determined by genetic testing. But that is my opinion, you as parents might have very different experiences and attitudes and I for one would love to hear them.
(Sorry, if you have discussed all this before, I haven's clicked through all the threads to check.)
-
Personally, I find the biggest concern regarding genetic testing to be the involvement of insurance companies. They could call genetic conditions "pre-existing" and therefore not covered. That's why I would prefer not to know (although a lot of people out there don't need to worry about this because of government supplied health care. I'm still undecided on that one...).
Perfect example: my company had a health fair. A company came in and took everyone's blood pressure, checked their lungs (spyrometry or something), cholesterol, and asked questions about activity levels. Rumor has it that it was just a big data gathering exercise for the insurance company to adjust rates according to the health of the employees. Nothing personally identifiable, and they gave tips on how to improve health so it's not all bad. Some people found out they had serious cholesterol and blood pressure problems and visited their doctors, which means it could have saved their lives. The whole data mining aspect is a little freaky though, if you ask me (since you did). ;D
-
We know that the ‘genetic diagnosis’ described in the story is to a certain extent already possible, at least for some illnesses. My mother who has worked for years in genetic research (Human Genome Project) and medicine, told me when I was a teenager that I have a genetic disposition for developing a (minor) skin condition (as found on a particular gene), which kind of made me a bit nervous. I never did develop the skin condition and am well past the age it would first show up, but I always thought I never really wanted to know. There are so many other illnesses that can be diagnosed already, and the project is progressing really fast, I think.
I was wondering what you as (future) parents thought about this, whether for example
• you did get tested or would want to know whether your children would be likely to develop certain DISEASES?
• whether you would WANT to know what kind of problems or tendencies your children would develop (such as obesity, Alzheimer’s, etc.)?
• whether you would want to DO SOMETHING about that (‘have designer babies’, determine hair colour, physical appearances in general, talents, affinities, etc.)?
• etc. etc.
If I were going to have children (which I am most certainly not), I would definitely want to preselect against disabilities such as Down's Syndrome or other, purely physical defects (no legs, a shrivelled and useless right arm, a partial conjoined twin growing out of the left kneecap, whatever). Let's be honest with ourselves: nobody really wants to embark for Italy and end up in Holland. (http://www.our-kids.org/Archives/Holland.html)
But that's probably as far as I would go. I wouldn't go all "designer" and be specifying hair and eye color. I might select for sex but that's about it.
(And I hated the story. Childfree forums frequently have accounts of one partner ending a relationship because he or she has chosen a hypothetical as-yet-nonexistent person (future child) over the person they already have and love, which strikes me as just plain idiocy.)
-
• you did get tested or would want to know whether your children would be likely to develop certain DISEASES?
SWe didn't, but I think it should be a standard thing. Yes, it'll increase abortions amongst people who don't feel capable of rasing a child with special needs, but I don't think that's a bad thing, and it'll give those parents who don't object to having such a child more time to prepare and be able to deal with it.
• whether you would WANT to know what kind of problems or tendencies your children would develop (such as obesity, Alzheimer’s, etc.)?
There's no reason why not. Several such conditions can treated or ameliorated with medication or attention to diet. More information can only be a good thing.[/quote]
• whether you would want to DO SOMETHING about that (‘have designer babies’, determine hair colour, physical appearances in general, talents, affinities, etc.)?
I, personally, wouldn't want to make purely cosmetic choices about my children. I'm not sure if I would approve of other people doing so.
-
Let's be honest with ourselves: nobody really wants to embark for Italy and end up in Holland. (http://www.our-kids.org/Archives/Holland.html)
Give up wine for joints? Quite a lot of people would be fine with that.
All I ever wanted was two healthy kids. I got my wish. I'm happy. Whenever we see a handicapped kid, I thank ma wife for the healthy babies.
We didn't check to see if we were carrying any particular DNA markers, but since a cousin of mine recently lost his 45 year battle with cystic fibrosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cystic_fibrosis), we should have.
We did a lot of prenatal checks and breathed a little easier after each one. I don't know what we would have done if they found something. My brain says abortion, but once you can feel the baby kick and even see the outline of a foot when the baby streches, how could you? Never needing to make that choice is one of the reasons I thank my wife. (BTW, dads if you aren't thanking your wife (or gf/one night stand/whatever) for the kids, swallow a melon and see if you can shit it out. We love to say guys are stronger, but if it was up to us, I think the human race would die out.)
I did screen for possible abilities in my kids. I set my sights high and went after the best girl I could find. My kids will be smarter, healthier, and more musically gifted than me, but that's because of my choice and how we're raising them.
I just spent a whole post bragging about my wife. I leave it to Wherethewild to check this post for accuracy.
-
Of course it makes complete sense to screen for certain medical conditions if possible, but that brings up a whole set of new questions. Such as:
Should potential parents who carry genetic markers for certain illnesses be prohibited from having children?
I think that would be devastating for many people who cannot imagine a future without children. I know a few people who would find that really hard. I am actually not sure how I would react if a doctor told me I should not have children. I would be devastated, but then again, I am trying to come to terms with the fact that I probably won’t have kids anyway.
But that kind of genetic testing in order to prevent certain people from procreating could start a ‘selection’ based on genetics that we might not be able to stop once we have started it. (thinking Brave New World again.) Because if we have started ‘selecting’ based on certain medical aspects, as a next step we might also end up eliminating minor health issues, such as farsightedness (which would have consequences for certain industries, such as manufacturing of contact lenses, laser eye surgery, etc.) or obesity (I know it is not actually proven that there is a ‘fat gene’) but I think from there it is only a small step towards determining a child’s eye colour or physical appearances in general. ...
And let’s assume that genetic testing for major health issues is possible, but can only be done safely and with a good chance of producing convincing ‘results’ in the second or third trimester (I really don’t know much about this, but I think most examinations of this sort have to be done quite late in the pregnancy in order to show anything at all, which is why abortions for medical reasons often still happen rather late in the pregnancy) … so let’s assume that most major (hereditary) illnesses could be detected during pregnancy, should/could the expecting parents then be forced to have an abortion?
This is another issue that makes me really uneasy. As Russell suggested, it could be horrendous for the mother and father to have an abortion when they can already feel the child moving and kicking in the womb. In fact, I personally imagine an abortion, no matter what the reason or how far the pregnancy has progressed, to be a horrendous experience for the mother/parents. But that might just be me.
My greatest fear as regards eliminating traits based on genetic testing is that it could lead to a selection and possible discrimination based on who has been conceived with the benefits of genetic testing/elimination of unwanted traits and who hasn’t (as seen in Gattaca). That outlook scares me a bit, I have to say.
*Oh and Russell, does your wife see your posts here? If not, you should definitely show her, most women reward that kind of appreciation. … she might bake you a cake or something. :D*
-
*Oh and Russell, does your wife see your posts here? If not, you should definitely show her, most women reward that kind of appreciation. … she might bake you a cake or something. :D*
Nope, she doesn't have time for very many online distractions. My reward is that she doesn't look around and realize she could do better.
-
Because if we have started ‘selecting’ based on certain medical aspects, as a next step we might also end up eliminating minor health issues, such as farsightedness (which would have consequences for certain industries, such as manufacturing of contact lenses, laser eye surgery, etc.)
There are many, many good arguments against genetic selection. I don't think the existence of industries designed around the exploitation of people with health issues is, or should be, one of them.
obesity (I know it is not actually proven that there is a ‘fat gene’)
Obesity is hardly a minor health problem. It is significantly shortening lifespans in most Western countries.
-
Should potential parents who carry genetic markers for certain illnesses be prohibited from having children?
I think that would be devastating for many people who cannot imagine a future without children. I know a few people who would find that really hard. I am actually not sure how I would react if a doctor told me I should not have children. I would be devastated, but then again, I am trying to come to terms with the fact that I probably won’t have kids anyway.
Unless abortion becomes mandatory in such situations, people who want kids will be able to have them, regardless of any possible medical problems. But they'll be better prepared to deal with those problems.
And let’s assume that genetic testing for major health issues is possible, but can only be done safely and with a good chance of producing convincing ‘results’ in the second or third trimester (I really don’t know much about this, but I think most examinations of this sort have to be done quite late in the pregnancy in order to show anything at all, which is why abortions for medical reasons often still happen rather late in the pregnancy)
That's because these tests are based on actual physical scans. If we're talking about genetic scans that reveal that a child will probably have cystic fibrosis, rather than discovering that they have already developed cystic fibrosis, then it can be done at the 50-cell blastocyst stage.
so let’s assume that most major (hereditary) illnesses could be detected during pregnancy, should/could the expecting parents then be forced to have an abortion?
Absolutely not. Speaking as a pro-choice individual who thinks that abortions can be a very good thing, under certain circumstances, I would be horrified if anyone ever seriously suggested that anyone should be forced to have an abortion.
And I suspect that, in America especially, such a suggestion would be political suicide. You're more likely to be able to get the public to accept total Soviet-style public ownership of all currently-private goods ;)
-
Because if we have started ‘selecting’ based on certain medical aspects, as a next step we might also end up eliminating minor health issues, such as farsightedness (which would have consequences for certain industries, such as manufacturing of contact lenses, laser eye surgery, etc.)
There are many, many good arguments against genetic selection. I don't think the existence of industries designed around the exploitation of people with health issues is, or should be, one of them.
obesity (I know it is not actually proven that there is a ‘fat gene’)
Obesity is hardly a minor health problem. It is significantly shortening lifespans in most Western countries.
I don't see industries such as these as designed around EXPLOITATION. Laser eye surgery and contact lenses are certainly not there to exploit people but rather to help them, imagine not having these industries. People would depend on glasses entirely, at least these offer some options to deal with the health issue they have to live with. .... and yes to me the loss of jobs, many jobs, is a matter of concern as well, given that I have seen what happens to a country when more than 20% of its adult population is unemployed.
And obesity is not a major DISEASE as compared to cancer for example, which is what I was trying to say, but didn't manage, obviously. And I think it is still debated whether obesity is a matter of lifestyle rather than an illnessm whatever the consequences.
-
But it did make me think a bit, and since I am a woman in her thirties, who is NOT married and does NOT have children (and who maybe never will) I am becoming more and more aware of the stigma I have to deal with, every time I need to answer the question, “Don’t you want to start thinking about having children? It's about time..” etc. etc., therefore, the story’s themes resonated a lot with me.
My sympathies on this. I don't know why the love lives of married people are considered private, but those of single people are often regarded as some sort of public property. It irritated the hell out of me before I got married -- I wish I had given the rather rude questions posed by some of my mother's friends about my failure to emerge from college with a girlfreind the answer they truly deserved, but that would have involved someone wearing their baked beans, and I'm better-behaved than that. One of those things I don't know how to change, though...
• whether you would WANT to know what kind of problems or tendencies your children would develop (such as obesity, Alzheimer’s, etc.)?
Like Chodron, my big concern here would be insurance companies. One more reason to vote for single-payer health care....
• whether you would want to DO SOMETHING about that (‘have designer babies’, determine hair colour, physical appearances in general, talents, affinities, etc.)?
Right now, no. However, give this another 15-20 years when the technology becomes commonplace, and my daughter may be facing these decisions, it may no longer be optional. Just like it's not really optional to own a car in most parts of the United States. For these reasons:
- Schools (at least the "better schools") will come to expect this information, in the same way we use various tests to determine what classes a student should take.
- People who have that information will begin to train their children to make them more competitive in their chosen areas; those who don't simply won't be competitive. Just like, in my town, you have to start private voice lessons during elementary school if you expect to have a reasonable chance of being selected for Swing Choir in high school
- Social pressure from parent's friends, who will probably regard failure to do this as eccentric at best, and low-level child-abuse at worst. Adults have peer pressure, too.
If this can be avoided, it will be because genetic testing may turn out to have less predictive ability than we currently think. As you point out, the whole "nuture" side of the equation has a rather large role to play here, too. However, at the moment genetics is the shiny new toy, it's what we've learned to measure, so we rush out and measure it. I suspect (actually, hope) we assign it power it doesn't really have. Time will tell...
-
I don't see industries such as these as designed around EXPLOITATION. Laser eye surgery and contact lenses are certainly not there to exploit people but rather to help them, imagine not having these industries.
Well, of course these industries help people. For a fee. That's still exploitation. They aren't creating a problem, but they are making a profit of those that have problems. Laser Surgery is not available to people who cannot pay. Note that I'm not using the term in a pejorative sense, but I think it's accurate.
Besides, the whole argument is a non-sequiter, since it's not about taking the industry away from the customers, it's taking the customers away from the industry. That just happens. The typewriter industry suffered significantly as computers rose to prominence. Would you argue that the development of computers was bad because of that?
and yes to me the loss of jobs, many jobs, is a matter of concern as well, given that I have seen what happens to a country when more than 20% of its adult population is unemployed.
Well, sure, if the industry would just vanish overnight. But that's not what we are talking about; it's about an industry that will slowly die as less and less people need it. We're talking about decades - it's not like most people who are already alive and currently fund the industry will suddenly be cured. Most people working in the industry will probably reach retirement age before their jobs are actively threatened, and the others will have plenty of warning. And new jobs will be opened - the genetic screening industry will become a whole lot bigger than it is now.
And obesity is not a major DISEASE as compared to cancer for example, which is what I was trying to say, but didn't manage, obviously.
I don't know if obesity is a disease or not, but that's sort of besides the point. It significantly increases the risk of diseases, and (as a social phenomenon) is a major problem. It is costing health services in countries such as the US and the UK billions which could otherwise be spent on cancer, or on making healthcare more available to weaker populations.
And I think it is still debated whether obesity is a matter of lifestyle rather than an illnessm whatever the consequences.
True - at least as an oversimplification (there clearly is a correlation between genetics and how one's lifestyle will affect them, but that doesn't make it an illness). But to the degree that it's not something that can be corrected genetically, it's not going to be affected by the overall argument here (smoking is also a major drain on our health resources, but I don't think anyone will start screening for it on a genetic level).
-
I don't see industries such as these as designed around EXPLOITATION. Laser eye surgery and contact lenses are certainly not there to exploit people but rather to help them, imagine not having these industries.
Well, of course these industries help people. For a fee. That's still exploitation. They aren't creating a problem, but they are making a profit of those that have problems. Laser Surgery is not available to people who cannot pay.
You are not suggesting contacts and laser surgery and glasses etc. should be FREE for everyone who might need them? How socialist of you !
But...
... very good point, and that is exactly why I am so sceptical about genetic screening, as it will possibly lead to a whole industry developed around SELLING genetic enhancements/improvements which will only be available to a certain subset of the population, leading to discrimination based on physical features which by then are deemed undesirable and can be eliminated IF one can afford to do so, as we have seen in Gattaca and which has been hinted at in the story.
And obesity is not a major DISEASE as compared to cancer for example, which is what I was trying to say, but didn't manage, obviously.
I don't know if obesity is a disease or not, but that's sort of besides the point. It significantly increases the risk of diseases, and (as a social phenomenon) is a major problem. It is costing health services in countries such as the US and the UK billions which could otherwise be spent on cancer, or on making healthcare more available to weaker populations.
Obviously, the impact obesity has on the health care system is not to be ignored. But originally I was interested to see whether people would want to screen for and eventually eliminate obesity in their children. Whether they would want to influence physical appearances as well as health issues. And while obesity, 'real' obesity (I think the definition is based in the BMI?), is a major health risk, a rounder face or a bit of extra 'padding' etc. are not and not everyone, not every child needs to be skinny.
And I think it is still debated whether obesity is a matter of lifestyle rather than an illness, whatever the consequences.
True - at least as an oversimplification (there clearly is a correlation between genetics and how one's lifestyle will affect them, but that doesn't make it an illness). But to the degree that it's not something that can be corrected genetically, it's not going to be affected by the overall argument here (smoking is also a major drain on our health resources, but I don't think anyone will start screening for it on a genetic level).
OK, maybe obesity, if it isn't actually an illness, should not have been mentioned here, but body shape certainly is something that falls under physical features people might want to influence if they could genetically enhance their children's physical appearances. Or at least that is what I was wondering.
And I was thinking whether in this case our 'designer babies' would grow up to be beautiful, slim people, who live very unhealthily, eat rubbish all day long and not get fat.
... actually maybe that doesn't even sound so bad. ;D
-
Obviously, the impact obesity has on the health care system is not to be ignored. But originally I was interested to see whether people would want to screen for and eventually eliminate obesity in their children. Whether they would want to influence physical appearances as well as health issues. And while obesity, 'real' obesity (I think the definition is based in the BMI?), is a major health risk, a rounder face or a bit of extra 'padding' etc. are not and not everyone, not every child needs to be skinny.
I entirely agree about that; I find the concept of screening for health risks troublesome but potentially worthwhile. Screening for appearance related issues is far harder to justify. For one, the cultural norms that motivate cosmetic decisions can be pretty detached from reality. The current ideal of skininess is both artificial, and perpetuated by a cosmetics/fashion industry rather than by what people actually would consider beautiful if left to themselves. It will probably last for a while longer, but eventually it will change. Genetic screening, if universal and effective, would change this dynamic. Once you have a generation where everyone is skinny, or everyone is blond and no-one is bald, or everyone is olive-skinned, or whatever, it will take many generations before the gene pool could recover, if ever (assuming we just don't start engineering people anyway).
-
But it did make me think a bit, and since I am a woman in her thirties, who is NOT married and does NOT have children (and who maybe never will) I am becoming more and more aware of the stigma I have to deal with, every time I need to answer the question, “Don’t you want to start thinking about having children? It's about time..” etc. etc., therefore, the story’s themes resonated a lot with me.
My sympathies on this. I don't know why the love lives of married people are considered private, but those of single people are often regarded as some sort of public property. It irritated the hell out of me before I got married -- I wish I had given the rather rude questions posed by some of my mother's friends about my failure to emerge from college with a girlfreind the answer they truly deserved, but that would have involved someone wearing their baked beans, and I'm better-behaved than that. One of those things I don't know how to change, though...
Thanks for the sympathies, I am sure this is something a lot of unmarried childless people (maybe especially women rather than men?) have to deal with. But to be honest, as annoyed as I am about it, I can understand the concern. Obviously, family members don't just think they have a right to get grandchildren, they also want the best for their children and to them having a family is often the purpose in life more than anything else. Maybe they just know better because they have been there and having reached a certain age they realized themselves how it might be too late at some point to change one's priorities in life. So I guess their comments should not be dismissed too easily. But there is also a very self-serving motive involved, as they themselves have to answer these questions all the time, when neighbors, friends of the family etc. etc. want to know whether there are/will be grandkids or not. And it is just as annoying for them as it is for us to say, 'none of your business, why don't you ask about something else...'. So yes, very annoying, but what can you do, he?
• whether you would WANT to know what kind of problems or tendencies your children would develop (such as obesity, Alzheimer’s, etc.)?
Like Chodron, my big concern here would be insurance companies. One more reason to vote for single-payer health care....
That is definitely a very good point, but insurance companies already (try to) 'discriminate' based on physical factors, they don't even need genetic testing for that.
Traditionally women had to pay higher insurance fees (esp health insurance) in Germany, under the assumption they will give birth and therefore cost the insurance a lot more money than men would. That kind of discrimination is now illegal.
And already in 2001 (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,133254,00.html) it was discussed that using genetic testing and determining insurance fees based on the results would be illegal, and anyone who decides to get a genetic diagnosis cannot be asked to make the results available to insurance companies.
But in England insurances have the right to ask for a genetic test for certain hereditary diseases (Huntington's for example), whereas in Germany people who know they carry certain genetic markers are allowed to keep that information to themselves without legal consequences. But I am not sure what is happening with the legislation at the moment.
So yes, the concern about consequences of genetic testing and the possible discrimination based on our genome is a very real one and not even Science-Fiction anymore.
-
And already in 2001 (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,133254,00.html) it was discussed that using genetic testing and determining insurance fees based on the results would be illegal, and anyone who decides to get a genetic diagnosis cannot be asked to make the results available to insurance companies.
But in England insurances have the right to ask for a genetic test for certain hereditary diseases (Huntington's for example), whereas in Germany people who know they carry certain genetic markers are allowed to keep that information to themselves without legal consequences. But I am not sure what is happening with the legislation at the moment.
Just found this (http://www.focus.de/finanzen/versicherungen/versicherung-widerstand-gegen-gengesetz_aid_299005.html) (in case you know any German), a recent article on how insurances in Germany refuse to accept the new Genetic-diagnosis-legislation, which still allows people to keep results from genetic tests to themselves, even if the insurance initiated the tests in the first place. But I am sure insurances will just refuse to give you a policy if you won't let them have the results. Something like that.
The article also mentions it will soon be possible to screen for genetic markers for very common illnesses such as diabetes. (!!!)
-
And I think it is still debated whether obesity is a matter of lifestyle rather than an illnessm whatever the consequences.
True - at least as an oversimplification (there clearly is a correlation between genetics and how one's lifestyle will affect them, but that doesn't make it an illness). But to the degree that it's not something that can be corrected genetically, it's not going to be affected by the overall argument here (smoking is also a major drain on our health resources, but I don't think anyone will start screening for it on a genetic level).
This is so weird, I keep coming across material related to this discussion. For example I just read an article in the Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/international/) (I get it for work every week) which deals with obesity in children and it mentions a proven correlation between genes and BMI. A mutation on a gene named MC4R leads to an incredibly effective fat storage capacity, which used to be an evolutionary advantage but is of course of no use to us in a society where food is always available. So eytanz, it seems you were right again (as usual :), will know better in the future than to contradict you)
And in the same Spiegel there is another article which seems to have been written so it perfectly slots into this thread. It deals with a company called 23andMe in Silicon Valley (and other similar companies in the US), which sell genetic tests (for $999 or more) and give their customers insight into genetic strengths and weaknesses. The text uses several examples and describes how someone just sent their saliva to 23andMe and they mapped out his genome completely, the problem is just that they cannot interpret everything yet. He did find out that he is NOT immune against HIV and that not having been breast-fed (?) did not have a detrimental effect on his IQ (whatever that means?). And he found out that he has a 0.26% chance of developing prostate cancer.
But .... and here we go with our 'sKeptic's view to the future', the company does NOT give their customers information on whether they carry the breast cancer gene BRCA1 or BRCA2 or the mutation that might lead to Huntington's or Alzheimer markers, etc. Maybe for more money they would?
Anyway, there we go, my point exactly.
(There is a whole dossier (http://wissen.spiegel.de/wissen/resultset.html?clsuchbegriff=%23sig_id_liste%3D7007928&clfilter=&quellen=&fo=SPIEGEL&vl=0&cl=0&cllabel=Das+letzte+Tabu+fällt) on related issues, if anyone is interested. In German, though, sorry, haven't found it in English yet.)
-
I'd like to put out the idea that we are already creating designer babies because we save children who would otherwise have died. We seem to have taken some of the natural selection out of having babies. People who otherwise would not be able to conceive do... Children with heart problems live and go on to have their own children who carry that risk. I am not advocating that we should change our practices = just stating that we already do have designer babies to a degree. And that this effects the evolution of humanity.
-
I'd like to put out the idea that we are already creating designer babies because we save children who would otherwise have died. We seem to have taken some of the natural selection out of having babies. People who otherwise would not be able to conceive do... Children with heart problems live and go on to have their own children who carry that risk. I am not advocating that we should change our practices = just stating that we already do have designer babies to a degree. And that this effects the evolution of humanity.
That's an interesting point. Especially since society considers anyone who doesn't take the extreme measures to save their children from treatable medical conditions as a Luddite at best and a monster at worst. In 50 years are we going to look at prenatal genetic manipulation the same way?
-
I'd like to point out that this only applies to the too-small percentage of humans that have access to modern healthcare. Most of the world still has very high infant mortality rates, and no access to fertility treatments.
-
I'd like to put out the idea that we are already creating designer babies because we save children who would otherwise have died. We seem to have taken some of the natural selection out of having babies. People who otherwise would not be able to conceive do... Children with heart problems live and go on to have their own children who carry that risk. I am not advocating that we should change our practices = just stating that we already do have designer babies to a degree. And that this effects the evolution of humanity.
I've almost replied to this thread three times now, but thought better of it ... "post in haste, repent at leisure", one might say. I definitely have strong feelings about the topic of clonepod's post, but here I will say only:
One (of many) things that I really hate about racism is that it's given eugenics a bad name.
-
I'd like to point out that this only applies to the too-small percentage of humans that have access to modern healthcare. Most of the world still has very high infant mortality rates, and no access to fertility treatments.
Noted. I don't see how this affects the question I posed though. Not everyone will have access to genetic manipulation of their fetus initially, but it is still going to raise the same moral and ethical questions if only a very select few have access to it. Maybe it would raise even more of an issue than if everyone had access. Are you trying to say it's only an issue BECAUSE a small percentage has access to modern health care?
One (of many) things that I really hate about racism is that it's given eugenics a bad name.
I don't know how one could give eugenics a good name. Everyone is entitled to the joy of having children. It is a basic right. To say eugenics (or selective breeding of humans) is a good thing and that some people should not be able to have children is very, very distrubing.
-
I'd like to point out that this only applies to the too-small percentage of humans that have access to modern healthcare. Most of the world still has very high infant mortality rates, and no access to fertility treatments.
Noted. I don't see how this affects the question I posed though. Not everyone will have access to genetic manipulation of their fetus initially, but it is still going to raise the same moral and ethical questions if only a very select few have access to it. Maybe it would raise even more of an issue than if everyone had access. Are you trying to say it's only an issue BECAUSE a small percentage has access to modern health care?
No, just providing some balance to the (true, but too broad) statement that "We seem to have taken some of the natural selection out of having babies."
I don't know how one could give eugenics a good name. Everyone is entitled to the joy of having children. It is a basic right. To say eugenics (or selective breeding of humans) is a good thing and that some people should not be able to have children is very, very distrubing.
Eugenics doesn't necessarily mean saying that a given subset of people cannot or should not have children (known as negative eugenics). Any attempt to improve the natural stock of humanity is eugenic. It could be entirely a matter of encouraging "the right sort" of people to have more children than they otherwise would (positive eugenics); most eugenicists advocate a mix of the two approaches, but neither is required.
It could also be a matter of genetically manipulating foetuses so that they have desirable traits that they would otherwise lack; the basic idea behind this thread is eugenics even without any central authority deciding who should or should not have children. This is especially so if there is a central authority deciding which traits should be eliminated or encouraged (which makes sense for things like susceptibility to disease), rather than everything being in the hands of the parents; in the latter case, I'm not sure that it would exactly count as eugenics (can society as a whole be an agent?), but the result would be much the same.
-
I don't know how one could give eugenics a good name. Everyone is entitled to the joy of having children. It is a basic right. To say eugenics (or selective breeding of humans) is a good thing and that some people should not be able to have children is very, very distrubing.
Eugenics doesn't necessarily mean saying that a given subset of people cannot or should not have children (known as negative eugenics). Any attempt to improve the natural stock of humanity is eugenic. It could be entirely a matter of encouraging "the right sort" of people to have more children than they otherwise would (positive eugenics); most eugenicists advocate a mix of the two approaches, but neither is required.
It could also be a matter of genetically manipulating foetuses so that they have desirable traits that they would otherwise lack; the basic idea behind this thread is eugenics even without any central authority deciding who should or should not have children. This is especially so if there is a central authority deciding which traits should be eliminated or encouraged (which makes sense for things like susceptibility to disease), rather than everything being in the hands of the parents; in the latter case, I'm not sure that it would exactly count as eugenics (can society as a whole be an agent?), but the result would be much the same.
When I look for a definition of eugenics (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-18,GGLJ:en&q=define%3a+eugenics) there is wide range out there. Most of them seem to deal with selective breeding, which is what I found so shocking about his comment. I guess I would have to hear stePH's definition of eugenics. If it is "some people shouldn't be allowed to breed" then I have a serious issue with it for several reasons. If stePH's take on eugenics is, as you pose, reducing susceptibility to disease through genetic manupulation of fetuses that's a different matter.
-
If eyesight problems (to use a previous example) were eliminated, sure, the industry would gradually collapse. But you have to remember that things like this go both ways. The people working for the eye industry would also benefit from the advance made, and they would have the option of eliminating eyesight problems in their children just like everyone else.
Speaking as someone who can't see half a foot clearly without contacts or glasses, I can only view the possibility as miraculous.
Another note, the story seems to point out a very important and relevant fact. We wouldn't necessarily know for sure what the child would have, it would most likely be measured in percents and likelihoods. So what do you do if your child has a 48 % chance of something?
Referencing the discussion of preserving life, possibly eliminating natural selection, etc, the strongest, most difficult example I can think of is the Robert Latimer case.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/latimer/ (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/latimer/)
I don't know how big this was world-wide, but here in Canada it was huge.
-
I don't know how one could give eugenics a good name. Everyone is entitled to the joy of having children. It is a basic right. To say eugenics (or selective breeding of humans) is a good thing and that some people should not be able to have children is very, very distrubing.
Eugenics doesn't necessarily mean saying that a given subset of people cannot or should not have children (known as negative eugenics). Any attempt to improve the natural stock of humanity is eugenic. It could be entirely a matter of encouraging "the right sort" of people to have more children than they otherwise would (positive eugenics); most eugenicists advocate a mix of the two approaches, but neither is required.
It could also be a matter of genetically manipulating foetuses so that they have desirable traits that they would otherwise lack; the basic idea behind this thread is eugenics even without any central authority deciding who should or should not have children. This is especially so if there is a central authority deciding which traits should be eliminated or encouraged (which makes sense for things like susceptibility to disease), rather than everything being in the hands of the parents; in the latter case, I'm not sure that it would exactly count as eugenics (can society as a whole be an agent?), but the result would be much the same.
When I look for a definition of eugenics (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-18,GGLJ:en&q=define%3a+eugenics) there is wide range out there. Most of them seem to deal with selective breeding, which is what I found so shocking about his comment. I guess I would have to hear stePH's definition of eugenics. If it is "some people shouldn't be allowed to breed" then I have a serious issue with it for several reasons. If stePH's take on eugenics is, as you pose, reducing susceptibility to disease through genetic manupulation of fetuses that's a different matter.
Okay, I knew I wouldn't be winning many friends by posting to this thread, but I ignored my better judgment and did it anyway. At risk of digging myself in further:
It does bother me that people have children at high risk of birth defects or congenital debilitating diseases. Too often the family is ill-equipped to provide the extra care these children require, and society at large (i.e., taxpayers) has to pick up the slack. This also goes for infertile couples who have Frankenlitters (like the McCaugheys in Iowa) that they can't really afford to raise. I think their publicity-and-charity gravy train pulled out of station some time ago ... I haven't been hearing about them in the news lately.
But voicing my (admittedly irrelevant) disapproval is about as far as I can go. Disallowing these people to breed is a small step away from discussions about slippery ropes or whatever that lead to saying "if you're in poverty you can't have children, even if they're healthy." If there were a way to correct congenital defects or at least minimize their risks, it would be a better solution than simply forbidding these people to breed.
As for the "basic right" of the "joy of having children", another thing that bothers me is people who bear children that they neglect or abuse to the point that the state has to intervene and take the children away from the parents (and incidentally placing a further burden on society). Nothing prevents these people from having more children to neglect or abuse, while those who want to adopt a child have to jump through all kinds of hoops to even be considered. I don't expect to be understood or sympathized with on this, but I consider such people prime candidates for mandatory and permanent sterilization.
I don't like children -- I think I've made that point already. Still, I also don't think they're any more or less undeserving of needless suffering than adults or animals are, and I have a low opinion of people who inflict such suffering upon them.
-
When I look for a definition of eugenics (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-18,GGLJ:en&q=define%3a+eugenics) there is wide range out there. Most of them seem to deal with selective breeding, which is what I found so shocking about his comment. I guess I would have to hear stePH's definition of eugenics. If it is "some people shouldn't be allowed to breed" then I have a serious issue with it for several reasons. If stePH's take on eugenics is, as you pose, reducing susceptibility to disease through genetic manupulation of fetuses that's a different matter.
First, with regard to eugenics, I find it a rather dubious notion. The "success" of breeding programs for plants and animals comes largly from a very narrow definition of success. A North American wild turkey is clever (for a bird), adaptable, quick, strong for its size, and tenacious. It's domesticated cousin can't fly, can't reproduce without human help, can get lost in a farmyard, and is generally acknowledged as the dumbest of the common North American domestic animals. (Barely beating out sheep, another intensively-bred species.) However, it's considered "successful" because it will generate more white breast meat per pound of grain in a shorter time than its predicessors.
I like Thanksgiving dinner as much as the next guy -- maybe more -- so score that as a "win." But I can't imagine applying a similarly narrow definition of "superior" to humans, and in the absence of such a narrow definition, I can't see eugenics doing much in the way of "improvement." One of the Iron Laws of Genetics is that improvements in a selected-for trait come at the expense of non-selected traits -- like our friend the turkey, who's good for producing breast meat, but not much else. And the more traits you try to select for, the longer it takes to reach a goal, and the harder it is to overcome the "friction" of regression to the mean.
When you consider a propostion as complex as what it takes to create a "good human" -- I believe that's been debated in the West at least back to the time of Plato, and probably much further -- I have trouble with the notion that eugenics offers much hope in that direction. Especially when you consider that the genetic component of important traits like empathy, intelligence, emotional flexibility, etc. is largely unknown.
For these reasons, I think "eugenics" in the sense of trying to control the traits in a population via conventional breeding is a dead end, and always was.
All that being said, I'm sure we'll deploy some of the newer, non-conventional genetic tools as soon as we think we're ready. Which will probably be way sooner than we actually are. Since there is probably going to be widespread acceptence of the idea we should "fix" or prevent disease and disability, that's probably where we'll start. Over time, as capability improves, the definitions of "disease" and "disability" will become increasingly elastic. I'm sure that something like my total inability to carry a tune will eventually be defined as a "disability" in need of correction -- at least if it has a genetic component and a fix is available. We're certainly seeing that today with things like height, with some parents seeking drugs originally intended for people with severe disorders to boost the height of their kids from say the upper 5-foot range to over six, because they think it will improve their prospects in life.
-
I think windup expressed my thoughts on eugenics better than I ever could. Bravo!
The only real black and white of genetic manipulation (for me) would be for the treatment of genetic disorders: Downs Syndrome, Cystic Fibrosis, etc.
Okay, I knew I wouldn't be winning many friends by posting to this thread, but I ignored my better judgment and did it anyway. At risk of digging myself in further:
It does bother me that people have children at high risk of birth defects or congenital debilitating diseases. Too often the family is ill-equipped to provide the extra care these children require, and society at large (i.e., taxpayers) has to pick up the slack. This also goes for infertile couples who have Frankenlitters (like the McCaugheys in Iowa) that they can't really afford to raise. I think their publicity-and-charity gravy train pulled out of station some time ago ... I haven't been hearing about them in the news lately.
But voicing my (admittedly irrelevant) disapproval is about as far as I can go. Disallowing these people to breed is a small step away from discussions about slippery ropes or whatever that lead to saying "if you're in poverty you can't have children, even if they're healthy." If there were a way to correct congenital defects or at least minimize their risks, it would be a better solution than simply forbidding these people to breed.
As for the "basic right" of the "joy of having children", another thing that bothers me is people who bear children that they neglect or abuse to the point that the state has to intervene and take the children away from the parents (and incidentally placing a further burden on society). Nothing prevents these people from having more children to neglect or abuse, while those who want to adopt a child have to jump through all kinds of hoops to even be considered. I don't expect to be understood or sympathized with on this, but I consider such people prime candidates for mandatory and permanent sterilization.
I don't like children -- I think I've made that point already. Still, I also don't think they're any more or less undeserving of needless suffering than adults or animals are, and I have a low opinion of people who inflict such suffering upon them.
Thanks for explaining your position, stePH. I would be lying if I said I never thought the same thing about sterilization of negligent parents. I can totally see how you could get to that position and I really think it adds a lot of weight to your argument that you are living your beliefs by never planning on having children. However, I think the cost of forced sterilization is too high. It assumes people will never change and will always continue to be negligent parents. Sure, the vast amount of information out there says they are going to keep doing it, but if just one person who would have been sterilized turns out to be a good parent, it's not worth it. Not to mention the fact that it would be impossible to enforce a policy like this fairly. Race, income, and social status would always be factors in the decision and then there's the slippery slope you mentioned. What is the right income to be able to have children? When can they be taken care of? Should one parent have to stay home?
You will be hard-pressed to find someone more against taxes than I am. However, educating and caring for children is one thing I do not mind supporting through taxes, and I volunteer my own time to support also. It's become cliche, but children really are our future. We have to leave this place to them sometime and I think we should do everything we can to prepare them for that responsibility. I'm mostly speaking of picking up the slack if some parents can't shoulder the responsibility. What alternative do we have? If we don't do eveything we can for our children then all this awesome stuff we listen to on EP is never going to happen (in fact, things could very well turn out like a PP story!).
-
This is one of those threads that are intensely interesting to me, but hard for me to post in. I think i pretty much hold with everything Windup posted, but it does puzzle me that in a nation where we are required to register to vote, licenses to drive, etc., there are no requirements to meet to have children. Now, I am in no way suggesting that there should be, but these wretches who abuse and neglect their children... it just makes me so angry that nothing can be done to prevent it!
-
This is one of those threads that are intensely interesting to me, but hard for me to post in. I think i pretty much hold with everything Windup posted, but it does puzzle me that in a nation where we are required to register to vote, licenses to drive, etc., there are no requirements to meet to have children. Now, I am in no way suggesting that there should be, but these wretches who abuse and neglect their children... it just makes me so angry that nothing can be done to prevent it!
To start with better sex-ed would help. Many of the people who abuse their kids never meant to have them when they did. Helping these people to not have kidds until they want them is probably the biggest thing we can do.
-
To start with better sex-ed would help. Many of the people who abuse their kids never meant to have them when they did. Helping these people to not have kidds until they want them is probably the biggest thing we can do.
I've never looked for any facts and statistics on sex ed, but it's just hard for me to understand how or why better sex ed would make a significant difference (I assume you mean in schools). I mean, it's not rocket science. What am i missing?
-
To start with better sex-ed would help. Many of the people who abuse their kids never meant to have them when they did. Helping these people to not have kidds until they want them is probably the biggest thing we can do.
I've never looked for any facts and statistics on sex ed, but it's just hard for me to understand how or why better sex ed would make a significant difference (I assume you mean in schools). I mean, it's not rocket science. What am i missing?
Should we be talking more about birth control? I know it is controversial - with the Catholic anti-birth control stance and all - but people are horney and are going to to it eventually. I would think some family planning classes should be taught along with family finances - how to balance a check book, budget, how not to use credit cards, etc.
-
To start with better sex-ed would help. Many of the people who abuse their kids never meant to have them when they did. Helping these people to not have kidds until they want them is probably the biggest thing we can do.
but but but ... sex-ed and availability of birth control will just promote irresponsible promiscuity, and grade-school kids will start fucking like rabbits! You don't want that, do you?
Also, condoms just don't work either as a contraceptive nor in preventing the transmission of disease! It says so on government health websites, and they wouldn't lie, right?
-
To start with better sex-ed would help. Many of the people who abuse their kids never meant to have them when they did. Helping these people to not have kidds until they want them is probably the biggest thing we can do.
I've never looked for any facts and statistics on sex ed, but it's just hard for me to understand how or why better sex ed would make a significant difference (I assume you mean in schools). I mean, it's not rocket science. What am i missing?
Sex-Ed means teaching birth control. California told Bush to screw his Abstinence only sex-ed funding. They taught "everything" and within four years the teenage prenancy rate in CA had dropped around 40%. Those teens with the knowledge become twenty-somethings and still have the knowledge.
-
Sex-Ed means teaching birth control. California told Bush to screw his Abstinence only sex-ed funding. They taught "everything" and within four years the teenage prenancy rate in CA had dropped around 40%. Those teens with the knowledge become twenty-somethings and still have the knowledge.
Yeah, i realize sex-ed encompasses birth control (oh, maybe that was more for Dar's comment). But, again... I'm just failing to see how complicated it is to understand how a condom works and what it does. I'm not trying to be snarky... I'm honestly just a little befuddled. And I know that condoms aren't the only form of birth control, I'm just picking that one as an example.
Side question: And why is teaching abstinence so "wrong"? I remained abstinent until I got married at 25. Or is it that some people have issues with "abstinence only 'sex ed'"?
-
Side question: And why is teaching abstinence so "wrong"? I remained abstinent until I got married at 25. Or is it that some people have issues with "abstinence only 'sex ed'"?
II think it's the latter. "Abstinence-only sex-education" is a contradiction in terms. The point of education is to inform people, not keep them ignorant.
-
Because, if you don't tell teenagers about sex, they'll never find out about it until they get married.
Or, alternatively, they might just learn "you can't get pregnant if you're standing up" as well as they learn "you're unlikely to get pregnant if you use a condom".
-
Side question: And why is teaching abstinence so "wrong"? I remained abstinent until I got married at 25. Or is it that some people have issues with "abstinence only 'sex ed'"?
II think it's the latter. "Abstinence-only sex-education" is a contradiction in terms. The point of education is to inform people, not keep them ignorant.
Exactly. I have no problems - indeed, I welcome - any sex ed system that includes abstience, and explains that it is the best method for avoiding STDs and unwanted pregnancies, as long as it also explains that if you have sex, you need to make sure it's safe sex, and explain how to make sure of that.
Abstinence-only sex-"education" means - in both practice and design - that people are told not to have sex, and no provision is made for explaining the difference between safe and unsafe sex. In many actual cases, it means that people are explicitly told that all sex is equally unsafe. Which means that once someone brought up on that system chooses to have sex, they will not avoid the risks as they will believe that there is no point in doing so.
As to the question of how complicated it is to figure out how to use a condom - A - it's far harder than it sounds. Did you know that there are people who will re-use condoms? Or people that will use a condom on a flaccid penis (or worse, allow their condom to grow flaccid inside a woman while still wearing a condom), not realizing that it is not effective if there isn't a full erection? and more importantly, B - the basic use of a condom is pretty simple to figure out once you've seen a condom. Abstinence-only programs mean that many teenagers never see one until long after they start having sex.
-
For the record, I don't think anyone has a problem with teenagers staying abstinent. But everything we know says that absinence-only sex-ed simply doesn't work. Honestly teaching kids about sex massively decreases the number of teen pregnancies and STDs. A certain percentage of teenagers are going to have sex, regardless of policy, and they should be able to make a properly informed decision about it.
-
Exactly. I have no problems - indeed, I welcome - any sex ed system that includes abstience, and explains that it is the best method for avoiding STDs and unwanted pregnancies, as long as it also explains that if you have sex, you need to make sure it's safe sex, and explain how to make sure of that.
Abstinence-only sex-"education" means - in both practice and design - that people are told not to have sex, and no provision is made for explaining the difference between safe and unsafe sex. In many actual cases, it means that people are explicitly told that all sex is equally unsafe. Which means that once someone brought up on that system chooses to have sex, they will not avoid the risks as they will believe that there is no point in doing so.
As to the question of how complicated it is to figure out how to use a condom - A - it's far harder than it sounds. Did you know that there are people who will re-use condoms? Or people that will use a condom on a flaccid penis (or worse, allow their condom to grow flaccid inside a woman while still wearing a condom), not realizing that it is not effective if there isn't a full erection? and more importantly, B - the basic use of a condom is pretty simple to figure out once you've seen a condom. Abstinence-only programs mean that many teenagers never see one until long after they start having sex.
Ah, okay. I support what you said. And I honestly didn't realize that there would be so much ignorance in regards to a condom.