
Eugenics, Ready or Not - yummyfajitas
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/05/eugenics-ready/
======
cpfohl
I never read to the end of the article, because as soon as the 'critics warn
about designer babies' line came up I stopped reading.

It's a _long_ , _long_ way between "preventing disease by manipulating
someone's genes" and "deciding you really wanted a blonde baby".

As someone who lost his brother to a genetic disease it sort of pisses me off
to hear people try and tell people in my family's shoes that we're on a
slippery slope to 'designer babies' when all we want is to keep our family
member from slowly dying of a disease with symptoms like Alzheimer's at age
20.

If "designer babies" is the price for cures like that, we should gladly pay
it. This from a pretty conservative guy, esp. on life issues.

~~~
matthewmacleod
You should have continued reading in that case, because it's not like that's
the sole point of discussion.

Dismissing that argument out of hand is disingenuous. I absolutely, fully
support no-holds-barred consideration of all the viewpoints involved here –
'designer babies' is a very real issue that we absolutely must think about in
the scientific, social and ethical sense (like basically every bit of science
fiction touches on).

~~~
Taek
Designer babies represent the potential to step forward as a human race.
Genetic manipulation can lead to stronger hearts, better immune systems,
bigger working memory, etc, etc. In the nature vs. nurture debate, surely
people can at least admit that genetics form an absolutely critical
foundation.

We can stop disease, and we can create children who will be better equipped to
tackle tomorrows problems. The education system has very similar goals. It's
not a sin for a wealthy family to drop tons of money on private schools,
tutoring, and other expensive methods of getting their child ahead. But as
soon as genetics are involved, it's a problem that invokes images of nazi's
and irrecoverably widening income gaps.

~~~
matthewmacleod
Hang on – that's rather putting the cart before the horse. I'm not arguing
that genetic manipulation is wrong, but rather that out-of-hand discarding one
of the key discussion points around it is a bit short-sighted.

For example:

 _It 's not a sin for a wealthy family to drop tons of money on private
schools, tutoring, and other expensive methods of getting their child ahead._

I'm pretty sure there are quite a few who would argue otherwise. Entrenched
privilege and the resultant increase in inequality is quite a divisive issue
already; a putative future in which this aspect of society is further extended
such that children of the wealthy are unassailably genetically superior will
be unacceptable to many.

My point is not that genetic manipulation is wrong – in fact, I'm pretty sure
it's inevitable and essentially the next stage in human evolution. But it's an
outstandingly complex concept that can't be waved away with what amount to
fairly reductive comparisons.

~~~
cpfohl
I don't think the genetic manipulation in the near future is going to be
powerful enough to create the situation you describe. If only because of the
legal structure we've set up around it, but also because right now out
capacities are far more limited, we know a few single genes that control for
diseases or other invisible properties. The genetics of things like height,
strength, and intelligence are many orders of magnitude more complex. We
hardly understand how the brain even works. I realize we'll be making
exponential strides, but we're still _way_ early in that curve.

------
SCHiM
While I understand the problems that one might have with induced genetic
differences between classes (that would be inevitable given a capitalists
approach to consumer eugenics) I've never understood the moral problem with
tinkering with DNA itself (as opposed to the consequences of tinkering, as
stated above).

The fact that one might have personal reasons to dislike or abstain from
genetic editing does not mean that eugenics are immoral for the rest of the
population.

Perhaps it's because of how people identify themselves. Most of my friends
identify themselves with the 'voice' they hear in their heads, their thoughts
and personalities, as do I. My body is more of a vessel and while it's part of
me it's not 'me' in any way that matters for my identity. I wouldn't mind
tuning a few bits and pieces here and there...

~~~
VLM
> I wouldn't mind tuning a few bits and pieces

Your employer will be able to afford it before you can. I don't mean your
boss, I mean corporate policy. People already tolerate all kinds of
ridiculousness for "culture fit" and drug testing and semi-stealthy political
tests. You can follow corporate's genetic fine tuning policy, or not work
here, its not like we're forcing you to do anything...

~~~
caskance
You mean I can get all kinds of sweet augs and not even have to pay for them?
Where do I sign?]

Also, military will do it WAY before private corps if they are still using
human soldiers at the time. If you can give people enhanced strength and
eyesight, with less sleep required and resistance to all kinds of diseases,
you'd be a fool not to.

~~~
VLM
The assumption is always that only individually positive mods will happen.
Also "give" sounds a little optimistic, in a culture where some stitches and a
band aid at an emergency room is like $3500.

Obviously someone anxious and timid would make a better underling WRT primate
dominance rituals, correct? So lets lower the testosterone level to nil, mess
with the brain biochemistry to make them extremely anxious all the time ...

This is before we get started on short vs long term. So we got 100 applicants
for every warehouse job, well, we'll only hire applicants with the Arnie S.
muscle mod. Oh you say in five years they'll all be crippled for life due to
skeletal and ligament problems, well, hey, manual labor has always been a
tough life and we still got 99 applicants left for every job, so tough luck
...

Then there's morally questionable stuff... you can guess the genetic mods that
will be mandatory at strip clubs and breasturants, but for women in corporate
sales positions, things will be morally ambiguous. Of course things happen
already with plastic surgery, and its assumed genetic engineering would be
cheaper and more convenient... anyway people (well, men, mostly) make some
hiring decisions for somewhat questionable physical characteristic reasons,
and the situation will only get worse.

~~~
caskance
If your point is that people rarely evaluate the long term consequences of
their life choices, you've failed to engender any sympathy from me.

------
RodericDay
Funny, I just started a re-read of "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley last
night.

 _" Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because
they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfuly glad I'm a Beta, because I
don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas.
Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no,
I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse.
They're too stupid to be able …" _

------
trey-jones
As a parent of a child that was born with a "genetic defect" I feel qualified
to express myself on this issue. Ethical and moral questions aside, the only
question that I need to answer seems to be, "If there were a treatment
available that could have spared my daughter the medical issues that she has
experienced and will experience in the future (without introducing others),
would we have done it?" Of course we would have. Parents want their children
to be able to experience life as a "normal" person, and without the distress
that lifelong medical conditions bring.

If the risks and side-effects are as small as this article seems to suggest,
then it's a no brainer.

------
copsarebastards
It's worth noting that there's a huge difference between the eugenics of the
past and the eugenics enabled by modern IVF and other genetic technologies.
Eugenics of the past primarily _reduced_ the capabilities and rights of
people, while the technologies described in the article _increase_
capabilities. Eugenics in the past resulted in discrimination and genocide,
but modern eugenics is simply allowing parents to choose their child's genes.
I don't see any issue with this.

Others have pointed out that this technology will be available to the rich
first, but this is a problem with economics, not with the technologies.
Economic inequality has gigantic, far-reaching concerns, many of which have
nothing to do with genetics. We should fix economic inequality, not its
symptoms. Hampering genetic research because it exacerbates a symptom of
economic inequality doesn't fix economic inequality, it just creates a
separate problem.

Of course, there are some places where giving some people capabilities allows
them to harm the capabilities of others. Genetic testing for jobs, for
example. But these concerns are largely off-base because the science doesn't
actually back up that genetic testing for jobs would help the employer. It's a
problem without an incentive to cause it.

------
legulere
Isn't screening sperm donors for inheritable diseases already eugenics?

~~~
caskance
If you want to be pedantic, having sex with people you find attractive is
already eugenics.

------
gglitch
What's with the weird righteous indignation on behalf of "moral
conservatives?" Has no conservative ever advanced a eugenic cause?

~~~
yummyfajitas
Promotion of eugenics has primarily been a liberal cause, historically.
Supporters include progressives like Roosevelt and Hoover, opponents were
conservatives like Chesterton and the Catholic church. "Building a better man"
was a major tool of socialists, and it wasn't restricted to education.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Supporters_and_critic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Supporters_and_critics)

In fact, the legacy of this exists today - note that the Communist party of
China is the main practitioner of eugenics today (see Yao Ming).

It's only in the modern era of identity politics, inequality as a real
concern, and racial spoils systems that liberals have come to oppose it. If we
acknowledge that intelligence is genetically determined, then we might be
forced to recognize the tradeoff between individual fairness and statistically
equal distribution of spoils. We might also be forced to acknowledge that
inequality is a result of inborn meritorious traits (intelligence,
conscientiousness) rather than some external unfairness.

------
Gatsky
There are some pretty big assumptions leading to the hypothesis that
increasing mutation burden will render us all dullards in a few generations
('dysgenic fertility'). Reading the latest paper by the guy the author keeps
citing, Michael Woodley, I'm astounded at the ad hoc nature of the arguments
[1]. Eg - Woodley cites a study that did an analysis showing visual reaction
time has been increasing over time [2]. This study compared measurements
performed in in 1800, to 1941. Woodley has been citing this article over and
over again [3], to the point where the author of the original article wrote a
letter to the journal 'Intelligence' saying that Woodley is over interpreting
his data [4]. Woodley's conclusions have also been criticised elsewhere [5].
Woodley also tries to justify his 'dysgenic fertility' theory by saying that
there are now fewer geniuses in the world because we aren't discovering
amazing things like quantum mechanics as frequently - which is clearly
complete nonsense. I would be highly sceptical of this based on the evidence
presented.

[1]
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4404736/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4404736/)
[2]
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20377125/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20377125/)
[3]
[http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?es_sm=93&um=1&ie=UTF-8&...](http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?es_sm=93&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=12752224765467895864)
[4]
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613001256)
[5]
[http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yury_Dodonov/publication...](http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yury_Dodonov/publication/257310948_Is_there_any_evidence_of_historical_slowing_of_reaction_time_No_unless_we_compare_apples_and_oranges/links/0a85e52d77fa6040b1000000.pdf)

------
crusso
It's a bit confusing that the term "eugenics" is overloaded. The classic
eugenics was about forced breeding or sterilization of individuals or races to
produce a "better" society. It was involuntary and racist.

The "eugenics" of this article is about rewriting our own programming in a
voluntary and targeted way.

It seems that a new term would be helpful in avoiding the negative
connotations of the word "eugenics".

------
gyardley
We need to worry about 'designer babies' about as much as we need to worry
about 'hostile AI' and other far-removed science-fiction concepts.

In reality, in-vitro fertilization is a lengthy, complicated, painful,
expensive and emotionally wrenching slog that often fails. The idea of
choosing between embryos is laughable when so often you're hoping for one,
just one, that actually has a viable shot. Anyone who would object to a little
screening that helps prevent a woman from finally getting pregnant only to go
through a miscarriage a few months later is a monster.

------
mapt
Part 2: [https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/06/eugenics-ready-
part...](https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/06/eugenics-ready-part-ii/)

------
logfromblammo
All we need to do is modify an entire generation of kids to enhance their
ethical development, and then grant them exclusive control over the technology
when they grow up. It's a foolproof plan. What could possibly go wrong? ~

------
guard-of-terra
I think we should be aiming for major positive scenario.

We don't have much choice, otherwise genetic malfunctions will get us sooner
or later. The way we're having children now (few, low child mortality) is a
way to breed genetic defects.

~~~
Ygg2
On the other hand, genetic malfunctions:

A) Can lead to interesting discoveries

B) Can have paradoxical effects - e.g. muscle degeneration in our ancestors
lead to our weaker bit and consequently bigger brains, since skull could
expand more because the muscles were weaker.

[http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040322/full/news040322-9.htm...](http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040322/full/news040322-9.html)

Imagine if you don't want your child to have ADHD, and you screen for it. But
it turns out that people with ADHD hold a mutation to even higher IQ.

~~~
guard-of-terra
You're talking about human evolution. Human evolution won't work if we have
almost zero child mortality and roughly two children per women. All we can do
in this configuration is damage control.

UPD: This configuration is also prone to splitting humanity into several casts
just by biased marriage practices.

------
ilaksh
I think we can have the idea of improving genetics in a high-tech way without
all of the Nazi baggage like Social Darwinism, racism, etc. that comes with
'eugenics'.

~~~
amelius
Well, at least the term "Übermensch" has lost its original meaning, and now
seems mostly reserved for a taxi driver.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Sadly, because the original Übermensch was much better than both what Nazis
did to it and the taxi drivers.

