Liberals Eugenics, population control ?

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Lerner, Oct 30, 2020.

Loading...
  1. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Contrary to your previous assertions, this article had nothing to do with any real eugenic studies going on at Berkeley. Thank you for proving the point that this whole thread is a stupid LIE!
     
    Mac Juli likes this.
  2. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Not exactly, but you can have the final word.
     
  3. Mac Juli

    Mac Juli Active Member

    May I? Jesus Sirach 8:3 seems appropriate.
     
    Johann likes this.
  4. SpoonyNix

    SpoonyNix Member

    Not if I can help it :)
     
  5. Mac Juli

    Mac Juli Active Member

    Anything but this QAnon-stuff is fine for me.
     
  6. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Don't like the idea of eugenics - but some people I've met are good candidates for retroactive birth control! :(
    I think it should kick in around age 40, where desirable. The die is pretty well cast, by then.
     
  7. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Say that the scientists came up with a way to eliminate sperm that had some unwanted hereditary disease and do invitro fertilization. I would be okay with that kind of eugenics.
     
  8. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    I think we fix this today, Bill. Aren't ALL the sperm cells of a man who carries gene markers etc. for a hereditary disease, equally affected? If so - and doctors have determined that a man is indeed likely to pass the disease on to his children - that means a sperm donor (or adoption) would be suggested to avoid this. Right? Or am I missing something here? Oh yes - maybe I am. It would be wonderful if we only had to fix a few swimmers for in vitro. I guess that's what you likely meant. That would be ideal.

    The kind of (newer) eugenics I don't care for is the sort of thing suggested - I think - by a rabbi in the UK quite a few years ago: that it seemed perfectly OK to him, that if a gene were found that resulted in homosexuality - to re-program it, if such becomes medically possible - e.g. if a young kid was known to carry the gay gene and his parents wanted grandchildren. That sounds particularly awful - but not surprising to me, from a religious authority of any faith. Or an American Vice-President, perhaps.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2020
  9. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Last edited: Nov 4, 2020
  10. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Not important (to me, anyway) that Lord Jacobovits is a Rabbi. Just that he's a religious leader, period. Perhaps people who become religious leaders have a hereditary tendency to say things like this. Perhaps in the future, it might be possible, genetically, to turn that tendency off at birth - or before. Just sayin'...
     
  11. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Yes, I neglected to say a husband wanted to eliminate a disease related gene from his sperm. There are many such genes that are recessive. The disease itself wouldn't manifest unless that recessive gene is donated by both the mother and father. So if the sperm with this recessive gene could be eliminated then it would still be guaranteed that the offspring wouldn't have this disease even if both the mother and father carried this recessive gene.
     
  12. Mac Juli

    Mac Juli Active Member

    Hello!

    Yes, I guess I would be ok with this, too. But where would we drop the line? What would be an "unwanted hereditary disease"? A painful disease which would lead to a painful death? Down-Syndrome? An IQ below 100? Not having blue eyes and not being blond (as some idiots in my home country thought)?

    Hm. This topic can make one pensive.

    Best regards,
    Mac Juli
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2020
  13. SpoonyNix

    SpoonyNix Member

    Have no idea what that is.
     
  14. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    It would be a nice problem to have - being able to eliminate a whole range of diseases in an individual before birth and just having to decide which conditions ...

    I'd say - stick to eliminating diseases / conditions which seriously affect quality of life and / or are significant risk for early mortality. Not sure about IQ tampering. Everybody would want their kids to be geniuses if such were possible. We'd have an oversupply of quantum physicists, mathematicians, eminent jurists etc. Think-tanks would burst at the seams. Who'd fix your sink or cook you a burger? If you could make an IQ difference between living in an institution and a relatively normal life, that might be OK - fits "quality of life" parameters. But that bar is considerably below 100. There are people who have some challenges but all you have to do is watch out for them and be kind to them. And doing so is a good character builder for the rest of us. Below that level - as I said - quality of life is affected. If we can help individuals with that - yeah, let's do it. Too bad we can't, yet.

    Of course, if they could fix inability to play the concertina, or learn Latin - that might be nice for those kids... :)
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2020
  15. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    It might be an interesting discussion at some point assuming technology ever advances to that point. Not likely in my lifetime and definitely not a decision for me personally, since I'm way past family planning. As a counter example, I'm not sure I'd like the idea of even allowing parents to pick the sex of their child? Maybe I'm just too old fashion though?
     
  16. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Maybe we both are, Bill. I just get worried that if that's ever just an easily-made choice, we could really upset the balance of nature. There has more than one society that, at times, has allowed baby girls to be abandoned so they die - and that's just horrible. I don't know how true it is, but I've heard that in such a case, people (and authorities) would look the other way in China, under the "one child" policy that has (I think) gone by the board now. For many years I've known of books that supposedly tell you ways you might influence the gender of a child (no guarantees) prior to conception - but I can't say to what degree any of the suggestions are effective. Probably more "self-help" that isn't.

    Anyway - I'm agin' it. You get what you get. Be happy and hope for the health of the child. Worked for us.
     
    Maniac Craniac likes this.
  17. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    The slippery slope of just how far we can take human genetic modification, and what motivations and ends come into play, is unnerving. I'd prefer to err on the side of non-intervention whenever any ethical dilemma comes to the fore.

    However, for argument's sake...

    We have the right to decide everything else about the reproductive process. Why make an exception for gamete selection?
     
  18. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Maybe gods of the ancient times experimented with this, this is how they got half man half got.

    upload_2020-11-4_17-38-8.jpeg
     
  19. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    China has 33 million too many bachelors because of social pressures to have a son. Due to this article anyway.
    https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2015/03/14/the-problem-of-too-many-baby-boys-in-china/?gb=true
     
  20. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Good point. If we allow abortion (as many countries do, and I'm not saying we should/shouldn't - not my call) and birth control is easily available (and I'm OK with that completely for several reasons), then why not gamete selection? Probably more emotional than logical with me. I'm easily scared - and the prospect of upsetting the balance of nature - and the possible consequences, give me pause. That's all. If society at large wants it and scientific progress allows it - I wouldn't oppose it. At my age, I likely won't be here for any after-effects anyway, so It's hardly my business. But see the next post for possible consequences, anyway.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2020

Share This Page