Page 1 of 2
#1
What is your opinion on a Human Genetics program?
by that i mean selective breeding within our species in order to breed out unwanted or "negative" traits.

do you think that the moral implications of such a program would outweigh the benefits?

assume that those with "negative" genetic traits were not allowed to produce offspring. Maybe it would require a license to breed or something along those lines.

I believe that it would have to be on a global scale in order to actually affect our species as a whole. Would you be willing to give up your god given right to breed in order to help the entire human species as a whole?

I assuredly believe that most people wouldn't give up that right and would do their best to protest/rebel against their "oppressors".

Though i think it might be possible to take volunteers with specific favorable genetic traits in order to "breed a better human". If you were a carrier of those favorable traits would you be willing to donate sperm/eggs? would you feel morally secure knowing what your genetics were being used for?

also do you think that a Volunteer Genetics Program would affect our species as a whole at all?


P.S. i hope i don't come out of this sounding like Hitler lol


P.P.S. this is my first thread so don't be too harsh if you can restrain yourself
If you do something right, no one will know you've done anything at all

Proud to be called Best Friends with Pastafarian96
#2
I learned about stuff like this in Biology this year. It's okay for dogs and animals but lets just let nature give us are traits and attributes. If nature decides to weed out the weak and make a dominant human and they breed and make more, then lets have natural selection and evolution take place.
#4
If nature decides to weed out the weak and make a dominant human and they breed and make more, then lets have natural selection and evolution take place.


I agree. how ever do you think that because we have the technology (or close to it anyhow) that we should take our fate into our own hands? we could be masters of our own destiny....
or we could f*** up our entire gene pool....
If you do something right, no one will know you've done anything at all

Proud to be called Best Friends with Pastafarian96
#5
Who decides what the "desirable" traits are, and which of those traits take precedence over others? How do you enforce the ban on those with "undesirable" traits breeding? The while concept stinks of fascism if you ask me.
#6
Who decides what the "desirable" traits are, and which of those traits take precedence over others? How do you enforce the ban on those with "undesirable" traits breeding? The while concept stinks of fascism if you ask me.


this is part of the reason i would want it to be a global sort of program. yes i do realize it sounds very fascist which is why i want to know if the benefit would outweigh the moral implications. maybe a global committee of scientists/world leaders/biologists could come upon criteria that everyone could agree upon?
If you do something right, no one will know you've done anything at all

Proud to be called Best Friends with Pastafarian96
#8
The whole idea simplifies natural selection far, far too much. If the genotype was homogenised throughout the human population, all it would take to wipe us out totally would be one virus or bacterium that the whole population was not immune, or able to build immunity to quick enough. Also, if the enivornment changes sufficiently, we could be doing ourselves a dis-service had we bred out characteristics that would have allowed us to survive in the new environment.

Also, morally, it would be wrong to say that a person with a genetic disease is worth less than a person who doesnt have a genetic disease.
Sat in a lab, curing diseases. They actually LET me play with chemicals!
#10
Is this basically not what human breeding practices are at the moment?


yes but in sort of a willy-nilly sort of way based upon attraction/popularity of certain traits. large breasts, colored eyes, etc.

imagine in asia a thousand(or so)years ago it was popular to breed with women with epicanthic (spelling?) folds. today thousands of asians still bear that trait.

its amazing what we as humans are capable of in terms of affecting our genetic history simply based on what is pleasing to our eyes at the time
If you do something right, no one will know you've done anything at all

Proud to be called Best Friends with Pastafarian96
#11
Or how about using IVF "Gattaca" style where they only choose the offspring that has the parents' most favourable genes?
#12
Women have been doing this for millennia, it's called sexual selection.

At this stage in the game, the whole concern with genetics is BS, as it's overwhelmingly environmental factors that produce "better" humans.
Anything extra we need physically will be taken care of by nano-technology, trans-human implants, or regular robots LONG before we could match it with genetic engineering.
#13
It wouldn't work. People would just end up riddled with disease
~Domino?

This life's too good to last
and I'm too young to care.


Musics
Follow me on Twitter, I'm cool.
#14
If the genotype was homogenised throughout the human population, all it would take to wipe us out totally would be one virus or bacterium that the whole population was not immune, or able to build immunity to quick enough.


ah yes that is something i didnt consider. we would sort of be backing ourselves into a corner. could we not breed humans with extremely strong immune systems? or super smart humans that would be able to come up with a vaccine in little to no time?

i see your point though. thank you for the insight. this is why i bring these groundbreaking questions to those great minds of the Pit
If you do something right, no one will know you've done anything at all

Proud to be called Best Friends with Pastafarian96
#15
Or how about using IVF "Gattaca" style where they only choose the offspring that has the parents' most favourable genes?


that might work too (loved that movie BTW) although weren't those
"God Children looked down upon in that movie?

we might create a different social class or completely new species of human altogether
If you do something right, no one will know you've done anything at all

Proud to be called Best Friends with Pastafarian96
#17
At this stage in the game, the whole concern with genetics is BS, as it's overwhelmingly environmental factors that produce "better" humans.


what do you mean about the environmental factors?
could you elaborate a little more please?
dont genetics play any role at all?
or are we getting into the whole "nature vs. nurture" thing?
If you do something right, no one will know you've done anything at all

Proud to be called Best Friends with Pastafarian96
#18
It wouldn't work. People would just end up riddled with disease


regardless if it would work or not i am interested in the moral implications of such a program.

would you feel comfortable never having children if it meant the betterment of the species as a whole?
If you do something right, no one will know you've done anything at all

Proud to be called Best Friends with Pastafarian96
#19
In the perfect world, humans would be 10ft tall so we can take on bears.


yes i agree we need to do something about those bears. although i do believe all Gods creatures have souls i also believe that bears are godless killing machines
If you do something right, no one will know you've done anything at all

Proud to be called Best Friends with Pastafarian96
#20
Quote by Harvey Swick
what do you mean about the environmental factors?
could you elaborate a little more please?
dont genetics play any role at all?
or are we getting into the whole "nature vs. nurture" thing?



It's a Nature V Nurture argument.
#21
I've thought about this, but less in the "forced evolution" vein and more in the "population control" vein.

DoomdEdit: TS, there's an "edit" button. USE IT.
Quote by Butt Rayge
Pretty sure Jesus was decaffeinated.


I'm just a hedonist without happiness
#22
Quote by Guitardude19
The whole idea simplifies natural selection far, far too much. If the genotype was homogenised throughout the human population, all it would take to wipe us out totally would be one virus or bacterium that the whole population was not immune, or able to build immunity to quick enough. Also, if the enivornment changes sufficiently, we could be doing ourselves a dis-service had we bred out characteristics that would have allowed us to survive in the new environment.

Also, morally, it would be wrong to say that a person with a genetic disease is worth less than a person who doesnt have a genetic disease.


This kind of practise would not introduce a monoculture, not by any stretch of the imagination. All this would do is increase the rate at which positive phenotypes become expressed throughout the population.

The problem is not one of developing a monoculture, it's that the factors that influence a person's behaviour and physical attributes are understood so little at the moment that playing around with genomes and eugenics would likely not yield a positive outcome. Almost all of the positive attributes we associate with humanity; intelligence, resourcefulness etc, are all examples of continuous variation. As such, the genotype does not directly influence the phenotype, but rather it sets a minimum expected level and maximum level. Also, most, if not all, of these characteristics are polygenic, which effectively rules out creating a perfect human, as you couldn't alter all of these genes to their 'optimum' before mutations and meiosis completely wrecked your program.

And then there's the moral issues, oh the moral issues!
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#23
DoomdEdit: TS, there's an "edit" button. USE IT.


lol sorry i have been lurking this site for a good five years but like i said i just recently started an account so im still trying to figure all this nonsense out lol.

it doesnt help that i cant type very well and am not very computer friendly


Also, most, if not all, of these characteristics are polygenic, which effectively rules out creating a perfect human, as you couldn't alter all of these genes to their 'optimum' before mutations and meiosis completely wrecked your program.


i see what you are getting at here. maybe our variances (weaknesses) are our strengths

or something like that.....eh?

though again regardless if my program would fail miserably i want to know if you personally would be willing to give up one of the strongest instinctual urges any animal can have for a chance that the entire race might benifit from it.


Thats good and all, but multi-posting can get you in trouble around these parts. Makes it look like you are spamming or bumping for no reason.


sorry about that. is this better?
in other words.....amidoinitrite?
If you do something right, no one will know you've done anything at all

Proud to be called Best Friends with Pastafarian96
Last edited by Harvey Swick at Jun 3, 2011,
#24
Quote by Harvey Swick
lol sorry i have been lurking this site for a good five years but like i said i just recently started an account so im still trying to figure all this nonsense out lol.

it doesnt help that i cant type very well and am not very computer friendly

Thats good and all, but multi-posting can get you in trouble around these parts. Makes it look like you are spamming or bumping for no reason.
Quote by Butt Rayge
Pretty sure Jesus was decaffeinated.


I'm just a hedonist without happiness
#25
You know who else had a eugenics program?

HITLER ಠ_ಠ
~don't finkdinkle when ur supposed to be dimpdickin~
#26
@doomded what did you mean about "population control"?

@Primus2112 lol im am actually native american so im trying to stay away from the whole "Genocide" thing. Did you know that Hitler modeled his concentration camps after native american reservations? (although personally i think he went a little more extreme)



This sounds like the shittest Jurassic Park sequel thus far. Including number 3... shit just got real.


as real as the streets bro.....


Three was better than two.

Just sayin'



i agree the whole "baby T-rex" thing was lame.
plus the Spinosaurus in 3 kicked a**
If you do something right, no one will know you've done anything at all

Proud to be called Best Friends with Pastafarian96
Last edited by Harvey Swick at Jun 3, 2011,
#27
This sounds like the shittest Jurassic Park sequel thus far. Including number 3... shit just got real.

Quote by hazzmatazz
youmakemesmile...

Quote by sebastian_96
Today I stole a girls tampons for being such an annoying bitch.





MUFC


My love for you
Is like a truck
Berserker.
#28
Quote by Zero-Hartman
This sounds like the shittest Jurassic Park sequel thus far. Including number 3... shit just got real.


Three was better than two.

Just sayin'
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#29
Quote by Todd Hart
Three was better than two.

Just sayin'

ಠ_ಠ

Quote by hazzmatazz
youmakemesmile...

Quote by sebastian_96
Today I stole a girls tampons for being such an annoying bitch.





MUFC


My love for you
Is like a truck
Berserker.
#30
Quote by Zero-Hartman
ಠ_ಠ


They were both appalling, but three at least had a story.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#31
Quote by Todd Hart
They were both appalling, but three at least had a story.

2 had like, 3 hundred Tyranosaurs. 3 had one big dinosaur that didn't do much and some flying things that didn't eat the guy I knew from the offest was a sneaky bastard.

Quote by hazzmatazz
youmakemesmile...

Quote by sebastian_96
Today I stole a girls tampons for being such an annoying bitch.





MUFC


My love for you
Is like a truck
Berserker.
#32
Quote by Zero-Hartman
2 had like, 3 hundred Tyranosaurs. 3 had one big dinosaur that didn't do much and some flying things that didn't eat the guy I knew from the offest was a sneaky bastard.



yeah actually the stampede scene in 2 (when they were hunting the dinos) was pretty cool i will admit. although i have been a fan of the first one since i was like 10


There's about 7 billion people and living on this planet. That is the main underlying reason for a vast array of problems around the world that range from pollution to the energy crisis to starvation. With a proper (worldwide) reproduction control system set-up, we could lower the birth rate to just below the death rate for a number of generations, and slowly put ourselves back into a state where we aren't over-taxing the only planet that we have.



yeah i agree that we are overtaxing the planet but how do you propose we go about setting population limit without affecting genetics? in my mind the two kinda go together but maybe im wrong...

do you think it would be better to simply let the weak die out? or do you think that it might be too late for our earth by then?

how long do you think your global population control would actually take effect?
would it be too late by then?

maybe...hmmm....zombie apocalypse?
If you do something right, no one will know you've done anything at all

Proud to be called Best Friends with Pastafarian96
Last edited by Harvey Swick at Jun 3, 2011,
#33
Quote by Harvey Swick
@doomded what did you mean about "population control"?

There's about 7 billion people and living on this planet. That is the main underlying reason for a vast array of problems around the world that range from pollution to the energy crisis to starvation. With a proper (worldwide) reproduction control system set-up, we could lower the birth rate to just below the death rate for a number of generations, and slowly put ourselves back into a state where we aren't over-taxing the only planet that we have.
Quote by Butt Rayge
Pretty sure Jesus was decaffeinated.


I'm just a hedonist without happiness
#34
Jurassic Park 2 is the best one, what the frank are you even talking about?

Edit: ... I lie, the first one is just as awesome.
3 though...
Last edited by Vitor_vdp at Jun 3, 2011,
#35
Quote by Vitor_vdp
Jurassic Park 2 is the best one, what the frank are you even talking about?

Edit: ... I lie, the first one is just as awesome.
3 though...


The Lost World fails for a few reasons;
- The San-Diego scene.
- The fact the raptors had their arse kicked by a 14 year old girl doing gymnastics.
- The fact the 'palaeontologist' guy clearly hadn't the slightest clue what he was on about.
- The San-Diego scene.
- The lack of an actual plot (seriously, they all went to the island despite the fact Sarah had already solved the 'why aren't they dying from lack of Lysine' mystery before they left).
- The San-Diego scene.

oh, and the stupid king-kong SAN-DI-****ING-EGO scene.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#36
Quote by Domino
It wouldn't work. People would just end up riddled with disease

+1
Came here to post this, look at animals that we do selective breeding on, horses etc, they're ****ed up.

Todd Hart is also right in what he's saying.


However, even if we assume that the practical difficulties could be overcome, there are still massive theoretical issues, most notably the fact that the traits you select for today may not be the traits that you want a few hundred years down the road when this kind of programme would take effect. If a couple hundred years ago the genes responsible for Autism had been selected out we would lose some people who are really valuable today as many people on the nicer end of the autism spectrum display the types of thinking that are incredibly useful in a modern technological world but useless years ago.
Once you get rid of traits like that you won't be able to get them back when you need them.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#37
Quote by Cb4rabid
In the perfect world, humans would be 10ft tall so we can take on bears.


I disagree.
In my perfect world, everyone would be a human-bear hybrid.
We would run like bears, be as strong as bears, poop in the woods, eat honey, and hang out with tigers, owls, small pigs, rabbits, etc.
#38
i recently read something in an article about women selling their eggs to surrogate couples for large sums of money. the interesting part was about website brokers selling "Ivy League eggs" for $50,000. this seems like eugenics if you ask me...
If you do something right, no one will know you've done anything at all

Proud to be called Best Friends with Pastafarian96
#39
Quote by Harvey Swick
i recently read something in an article about women selling their eggs to surrogate couples for large sums of money. the interesting part was about website brokers selling "Ivy League eggs" for $50,000. this seems like eugenics if you ask me...

Only in the sense that standard sexual selection is eugenics.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#40
Quote by Ur all $h1t
Only in the sense that standard sexual selection is eugenics.



my point is that the price went up for eggs depending on the "quality" of the donor.
If you do something right, no one will know you've done anything at all

Proud to be called Best Friends with Pastafarian96
Page 1 of 2