Artificial Selection and Humans

[NightHawk21]

Yes, I wouldn't mind at all, as long as it was handled humanely and discretely. We wouldbe able to breed out all genetic deformities and diseases, while simultaneously letting genetically superior pass on their traits. We should be cautious, though, as we still need a healthy amount of diversity.

You actually can't breed out most genetic deformities since they are mutations that occur during pregnancy. Down syndrome kids are not only born to people with down syndrome and lactose intolerance may present in a child whose parents both have no problems.

 

[the spud]

Yes, I wouldn't mind at all, as long as it was handled humanely and discretely. We wouldbe able to breed out all genetic deformities and diseases, while simultaneously letting genetically superior pass on their traits. We should be cautious, though, as we still need a healthy amount of diversity.

You actually can't breed out most genetic deformities since they are mutations that occur during pregnancy. Down syndrome kids are not only born to people with down syndrome and lactose intolerance may present in a child whose parents both have no problems.

True, but you could still drastically decrease the number of people afflicted. Only a small percentage of the people who have most of these diseases got them from a completely healthy pedigree.

 

[Plazmatic]

Yes, I wouldn't mind at all, as long as it was handled humanely and discretely. We wouldbe able to breed out all genetic deformities and diseases, while simultaneously letting genetically superior pass on their traits. We should be cautious, though, as we still need a healthy amount of diversity.

this is flawed, simply put

We shouldn't be selecting, even against genetic deformities (though you very VERY rarely see major genetic deformities pass on through sex of those who display the traits, they usually don't have intercourse, and is selected against any way) genetic deformities have been shown to help in odd situations, and for the survival of humanity, it would be better for all of us if we didn't as a society and a species, it restricts our genetic diversity even more than it is now (any two members of the same chimpanzee troop are many times more genetically diverse than two humans from opposite sides of the planet)

an example of genetic deformity with positive traits is sickle cell anemia, it protects against malaria, thus is being selected for in africa.

 

[Thistlehart]

What you're talking about here has a niftier catchphrase (that tends to raise some hackles): Genetic Engineering.

It is something we're already doing to people, just at a more rapid pace and without using multiple generations to achieve. Artificial selection is just a slower, less reliable version.

 

[chaosyoshimage]

If I planned on breeding I'd be mad at you, but well, I'm apathetic towards the whole thing...

 

[Captain_Fantastic]

hmmmm yeah i kind of like that idea i think if people were still allowed to "breed" but the proven genetic "superiors" would be given bonuses for having more offspring nothing major to keep it semi fair but ... well its hard to say. i agree for the most part but i also believe things should be fair and the gene pool is getting wider because of better safety measures and medicine so being selective is a good idea. but you can't treat the weak like second class people

 

[DanDeFool]

No, I'm not for artifical selection. I am, however, for genetic engineering, as long as we keep it to fixing genetic disorders and not cranking out so-called "designer babies".

 

[DanDeFool]

What are these "advanced humanity" traits?
Who decides?
How would it be implemented?

As our understanding of genetics at the moment is rather basic, there are a limited number of things that we could technologically select for, so at present levels it seems unworkable.

In theory YES!!, in practice I think it would be unworkable.
It would be nice if we could for example get rid of inherited diseases, everything from Down Syndrome to short/farsightedness.

You should check out C.S. Lewis's "The Abolition of Man". If you agree with Mr. Lewis, you might begin thinking that we'll never get it right, no matter how advanced technology gets.

I certainly did.

 

[NightHawk21]

Yes, I wouldn't mind at all, as long as it was handled humanely and discretely. We wouldbe able to breed out all genetic deformities and diseases, while simultaneously letting genetically superior pass on their traits. We should be cautious, though, as we still need a healthy amount of diversity.

You actually can't breed out most genetic deformities since they are mutations that occur during pregnancy. Down syndrome kids are not only born to people with down syndrome and lactose intolerance may present in a child whose parents both have no problems.

True, but you could still drastically decrease the number of people afflicted. Only a small percentage of the people who have most of these diseases got them from a completely healthy pedigree.

Actually that wrong. Most of the people afflicted with diseases like down syndrome are the results of late childbirth. I can't remember the name of the study, but there's a strong correlation between the age a woman conceives at and the likely hood of a child with down syndrome.

 

[lovestomooch]

This idea is very interesting albeit inherently flawed at a fundamental level. Simply, what is the point of enhancing our physical attributes only to abandon what actually makes us human. It is our humanity, or our ability to empathise that makes us better than others. If we lose the ability to recognise and respect the dignity in others then we will devolve to a caste based tribal society with clearly defined social boundaries usually reserved for very right wing or very vulnerable civilisations.

Besides this happens already on a far more subtler level than you mention. It's when the pretty girl gets the handsome guy. Symmetrical features, broad chins, wide hips etc. are signs of fertility and strength. It already happens. Good post though

What makes you think we have to abandon our humanity? the goal of artificial selection is to make us healthier and stronger and smarter, not to alter our personalities.

No no no, I'm talking about morals and ethics. Not some change to our brains to make us behave differently, I'm saying that there is no humane way to breed selectively.

Say that we did decide that some woman isn't allowed to be with the man she falls in love with because he is seen as genetically inferior, in one swift movement you have ruined their lives. And say that everyone with perfect genes were entirely happy with the choices made. What of everyone with imperfect genes? Are they allowed to breed? If not you have rendered their lives meaningless, and if yes then we would have a whole other group of people who are seen as inferior by those in charge. Are they then allowed the same rights that the 'better' people are allowed? Why should they? They are slowing down the progress of humanity.

This brings me back to my original point. We may be faster, stronger and more intelligent but at the cost of creating at best a caste of untouchables, or at the worst the indirect destruction and genocide of entire swaths of humanity by disallowing them to breed. Would you want that in Humanity's history? Because genetic mutations would bring it all right back eventually and you'd have to start all over again.

 

[Aizsaule]

This idea is very interesting albeit inherently flawed at a fundamental level. Simply, what is the point of enhancing our physical attributes only to abandon what actually makes us human. It is our humanity, or our ability to empathise that makes us better than others. If we lose the ability to recognise and respect the dignity in others then we will devolve to a caste based tribal society with clearly defined social boundaries usually reserved for very right wing or very vulnerable civilisations.

Besides this happens already on a far more subtler level than you mention. It's when the pretty girl gets the handsome guy. Symmetrical features, broad chins, wide hips etc. are signs of fertility and strength. It already happens. Good post though

What makes you think we have to abandon our humanity? the goal of artificial selection is to make us healthier and stronger and smarter, not to alter our personalities.

No no no, I'm talking about morals and ethics. Not some change to our brains to make us behave differently, I'm saying that there is no humane way to breed selectively.

Say that we did decide that some woman isn't allowed to be with the man she falls in love with because he is seen as genetically inferior, in one swift movement you have ruined their lives. And say that everyone with perfect genes were entirely happy with the choices made. What of everyone with imperfect genes? Are they allowed to breed? If not you have rendered their lives meaningless, and if yes then we would have a whole other group of people who are seen as inferior by those in charge. Are they then allowed the same rights that the 'better' people are allowed? Why should they? They are slowing down the progress of humanity.

This brings me back to my original point. We may be faster, stronger and more intelligent but at the cost of creating at best a caste of untouchables, or at the worst the indirect destruction and genocide of entire swaths of humanity by disallowing them to breed. Would you want that in Humanity's history? Because genetic mutations would bring it all right back eventually and you'd have to start all over again.

I think the best we can do is promote healthy genes by giving people with them tax breaks (which everyone would profit off due to lower medical expense on the children) and fine people with genetic diseases who choose to have children. this way we can improve the quality of our genes which would be in everyone's interest. preventing people from breeding would be more efficient but morality doesn't allow it.

 

[Vault101]

not this eugenics shit again....

ok are we ONLY talking about JUST whos screwing and having kids with who? because doesnt that take a long time to have any effect?

what about say genetic screening pre-brith? fix peopel up that way? or augmentations?

 

[Astoria]

It's an interesting idea but the problem is diseases mutate and evolve too. They would eventually become stronger and be able to beat stronger immune systems.

 

[the spud]

Mr. Snippers

That is true of Down Syndrome (I think you are thinking of the study where almost all kids born with down syndrome come from mothers over 45), but other genetic diseases (such as Huntington's diisease, for example) could be essentially "bred out". There will still be some cases, but nowhere near as many as there once were.

 

[NightHawk21]

Mr. Snippers

That is true of Down Syndrome (I think you are thinking of the study where almost all kids born with down syndrome come from mothers over 45), but other genetic diseases (such as Huntington's diisease, for example) could be essentially "bred out". There will still be some cases, but nowhere near as many as there once were.

Ya some diseases can be significantly reduced but most of the major more sever ones are almost impossible to eliminate since they're random.

Also Mr.Snippers sound like a really cool name for a pet.

 

[lovestomooch]

This idea is very interesting albeit inherently flawed at a fundamental level. Simply, what is the point of enhancing our physical attributes only to abandon what actually makes us human. It is our humanity, or our ability to empathise that makes us better than others. If we lose the ability to recognise and respect the dignity in others then we will devolve to a caste based tribal society with clearly defined social boundaries usually reserved for very right wing or very vulnerable civilisations.

Besides this happens already on a far more subtler level than you mention. It's when the pretty girl gets the handsome guy. Symmetrical features, broad chins, wide hips etc. are signs of fertility and strength. It already happens. Good post though

What makes you think we have to abandon our humanity? the goal of artificial selection is to make us healthier and stronger and smarter, not to alter our personalities.

No no no, I'm talking about morals and ethics. Not some change to our brains to make us behave differently, I'm saying that there is no humane way to breed selectively.

Say that we did decide that some woman isn't allowed to be with the man she falls in love with because he is seen as genetically inferior, in one swift movement you have ruined their lives. And say that everyone with perfect genes were entirely happy with the choices made. What of everyone with imperfect genes? Are they allowed to breed? If not you have rendered their lives meaningless, and if yes then we would have a whole other group of people who are seen as inferior by those in charge. Are they then allowed the same rights that the 'better' people are allowed? Why should they? They are slowing down the progress of humanity.

This brings me back to my original point. We may be faster, stronger and more intelligent but at the cost of creating at best a caste of untouchables, or at the worst the indirect destruction and genocide of entire swaths of humanity by disallowing them to breed. Would you want that in Humanity's history? Because genetic mutations would bring it all right back eventually and you'd have to start all over again.

I think the best we can do is promote healthy genes by giving people with them tax breaks (which everyone would profit off due to lower medical expense on the children) and fine people with genetic diseases who choose to have children. this way we can improve the quality of our genes which would be in everyone's interest. preventing people from breeding would be more efficient but morality doesn't allow it.

To be fair Aizsaule, morality doesn't really allow for tax breaks either. It is wrong to punish people who have no control over their own condition. Besides, what you are proposing would fast become a bureaucracy of staggering size, far dwarfing any benefits that can be gained from reduced medical care. Everyone in the country would need to be vetted to make this work, and it would need to be repeated every 5 years to keep it viable. By the time you finish you would have to start again, before even, if you were thorough.

 

[SweXShadow]

im all for genetic engineering. however selective breeding is weird to me and takes to long.

while if you go into the source code (the DNA) and fix it from the start it will make it better in the long run as it wouldnt have any errors in it. now this is when we do know what everything does. but you have to start sometime.

and selective breeding is something humanity has done a long long long time.

most Royal familys in europe where related and it didnt do much good. tons of genetic diseases and such. also remember that Humanity atm can be devide into three sub species, Those Humans whom do not posses Neanderthal genetics South of Sahara. Those whom do, pretty much the rest of the world. the third is only an ide that i have but its not to far-fetched the thing is that east asians such as chinese and japanese could supposedly also be hybrids with another human species, plus Japanese are kinda inbreed. and the Chinese and Koreans are not far behind.

 

[Jonluw]

Sure, why not.
I dislike the notion that it's a human right to have children.

It's no longer your undisputed right when you're seriously affecting other people.

 

[Aizsaule]

To be fair Aizsaule, morality doesn't really allow for tax breaks either. It is wrong to punish people who have no control over their own condition. Besides, what you are proposing would fast become a bureaucracy of staggering size, far dwarfing any benefits that can be gained from reduced medical care. Everyone in the country would need to be vetted to make this work, and it would need to be repeated every 5 years to keep it viable. By the time you finish you would have to start again, before even, if you were thorough.

I think the only thing that is realistically achievable is giving money to those who get good genes at a sperm bank and preventing people with bad genes from donating, this would leave nobody cheated and still would gradually improve our genetic quality.

You are right that checking everyone's genes in not realistic, however i think it would be fair to tax/fine those who have expansive genetic diseases and CHOOSE to have children regardless.

the only real factor in natural selection is how many children one decides to get, this will cause a constant increase in genetic disease due to random mutation, it seems impractical not to promote healthier genes.

 

[lovestomooch]

To be fair Aizsaule, morality doesn't really allow for tax breaks either. It is wrong to punish people who have no control over their own condition. Besides, what you are proposing would fast become a bureaucracy of staggering size, far dwarfing any benefits that can be gained from reduced medical care. Everyone in the country would need to be vetted to make this work, and it would need to be repeated every 5 years to keep it viable. By the time you finish you would have to start again, before even, if you were thorough.

I think the only thing that is realistically achievable is giving money to those who get good genes at a sperm bank and preventing people with bad genes from donating, this would leave nobody cheated and still would gradually improve our genetic quality.

You are right that checking everyone's genes in not realistic, however i think it would be fair to tax/fine those who have expansive genetic diseases and CHOOSE to have children regardless.

the only real factor in natural selection is how many children one decides to get, this will cause a constant increase in genetic disease due to random mutation, it seems impractical not to promote healthier genes.

Yes, I agree with you on the sperm bank issue. It wouldn't make sense to have donors who would produce poor offspring. And the issue with children does also make sense (but you wouldn't be able to do any more than talk about it with them). Though most parents with moderate to severe underlying conditions who are willing and able to produce, freely recognise that any children they have are likely to have a lower quality of life and so refrain from having a lot of kids.

I still believe however, that in all cases the rights of the individual must come first. Also, our understanding of Human Biology and advancements in Medical treatment are gradually rendering the likelihood of ever having to do this more and more distant so hopefully we won't have to make the choice. Anyway's, good discussion dude.