[Schrödinger's Kitty]

@ Einhärjar

The human being will largely overpopulate, negatively affecting the environment. Eugenics can be applied if and only if humans begin to colonize space or by applying some sort of birth control.

Actually this statement is negating an option of eugenics, which I have already outlined, i.e., sterilization or extermination. These don't have to be impliment, but it is an option which must be taken into account, especially when the population is growing exponentially, as it is now. A simple (I use it roughly) solution would be to eliminate a sizable chunk of the population, or eliminate their ability to reproduce. People scream ethical concerns about that now, but imagine how people would change their minds when the planet is packed with 10 billion people or more.

There will be no natural evolution; the genetic modification of the human may not be compatible with the genetic adaptation required by nature.

I define 'natural' as anything physical or allowed by natural laws (physics/science) So by my point-of-view, eugenics is only a natural step on the evolution of an intellegent species.

This knowledge would be in the hands of the few scientists and those who can finance them, possibly creating abuses unless eugenics is totally normalized within society.

You make the assumption that only a few scientists will have it, why? I would have it 'open source', among other things.

I believe that the human's emotional character will be negatively changed. For example, physical self-discipline will disappear (since one can just change his physique genetically).

Perhaps that will strengthen emotional character. People could be physically how they want to be, it would improve self-esteem. It has a possiblity of eliminating clinical depression, or at least isolating the cause of the chemical inbalance. Besides, I dont imagine people going to a clinic for injections to change their appearance. First I would imagine it would be on par with things seen in the movie "Gattaca" - children will be engineered a certain way from birth.

[jdlech]

I skipped over several posts to start writing this. If I missed something important, I apologise.

Eugenics has been unequivocally proven wrong.

Let's start with malaria and sickle cell anemia: A story of mutation

A gene known as HbS was the center of a medical and evolutionary detective story that began in the middle 1940s in Africa. Doctors noticed that patients who had sickle cell anemia, a serious hereditary blood disease, were more likely to survive malaria, a disease which kills some 1.2 million people every year. What was puzzling was why sickle cell anemia was so prevalent in some African populations.

How could a "bad" gene -- the mutation that causes the sometimes lethal sickle cell disease -- also be beneficial? On the other hand, if it didn't provide some survival advantage, why had the sickle gene persisted in such a high frequency in the populations that had it?

Common knowledge had it that the sickle cell mutation is like a typographical error in the DNA code of the gene that tells the body how to make a form of hemoglobin (Hb), the oxygen-carrying molecule in our blood. Every person has two copies of the hemoglobin gene. Usually, both genes make a normal hemoglobin protein. When someone inherits two mutant copies of the hemoglobin gene, the abnormal form of the hemoglobin protein causes the red blood cells to lose oxygen and warp into a sickle shape during periods of high activity. These sickled cells become stuck in small blood vessels, causing a "crisis" of pain, fever, swelling, and tissue damage that can lead to death. This is sickle cell anemia.

But it takes two copies of the mutant gene, one from each parent, to give someone the full-blown disease. Many people have just one copy, the other being normal. Those who carry the sickle cell trait do not suffer nearly as severely from the disease.

Researchers found that the sickle cell gene is especially prevalent in areas of Africa hard-hit by malaria. In some regions, as much as 40 percent of the population carries at least one HbS gene.

It turns out that, in these areas, HbS carriers have been naturally selected, because the trait confers resistance to malaria. Their red blood cells, containing some abnormal hemoglobin, tend to sickle when they are infected by the malaria parasite. Those infected cells flow through the spleen, which culls them out because of their sickle shape -- and the parasite is eliminated along with them. Thus, a genetic "defect" confers almost total immunity to malaria.

Scientists believe the sickle cell gene appeared and disappeared in the population several times, but became permanently established after a particularly vicious form of malaria jumped from animals to humans in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

In areas where the sickle cell gene is common, the immunity conferred has become a selective advantage. Unfortunately, it is also a disadvantage because the chances of being born with sickle cell anemia are relatively high.

For parents who each carry the sickle cell trait, the chance that their child will also have the trait -- and be immune to malaria -- is 50 percent. There is a 25 percent chance that the child will have neither sickle cell anemia nor the trait which enables immunity to malaria. Finally, the chances that their child will have two copies of the gene, and therefore sickle cell anemia, is also 25 percent. This situation is a stark example of genetic compromise, or an evolutionary "trade-off."

And then there's the story of blood types.
You know there's blood type A, B, AB, and O. What was not clearly understood until recently is that, according to natrual selection, only one blood type should survive. But that is clearly not the case. The answer lied once again with a scourge of our past, cholera. Blood type O is believed to be the orignal blood type. A confers some resistance to cholera. B confers a bit more. But blood type AB confers over twice the resistance of either. O survives in places that cholera has never visited, but it still is a mystery why O also survives in the far east even in the presence of cholera. Not all mysteries are solved. But the only way for bood type AB to survive is if natural selection tolerates a statistical occurrence of A and B separately. Consider, if both parents are AB, then the children naturally have a statistical chance of 25% of having blood type A or B alone. So in this case, blood types A and B are genetic consequences of nature selecting for the "stronger" AB. You can't eliminate any one of the three blood types without making us more suseptible to cholera - which would be considered a 'weakness' by advocates of eugenics.

Now let's move on to skin color. As you know the shade of the skin is determined by the amount of keratin in the skin cells. And we all know that this is genetically determined. But studies have proven that darker skin is more resistant to the damage caused by ultraviolet light. Light skin, on the other hand, produces more vitamin D. So in northern climes, where there is fewer hours of sunlight and those hours have less intensity (having passed through more ultraviolet light absorbing atmosphere due to it's greater angle), people of lighter skin color are more acclimated while darker skin can have difficulty producing enough vitamin D. However, in the southern climes, where there is more hours and more intense sunlight, darker skin is more tolerant while lighter skin burns and eventually becomes suseptible to cancer causing genetic damage. So here we have a case where the 'strength' of one set of genetics or another entirely depend upon the environment in which they exist. What is 'strong' in one environment becomes a 'weakness' in another.

And these are only the ones we know about for certain. I'm sure there are dozens more stories like these that we have not yet discovered.

So as you can see, any eugenics program you may institute might genetically weaken the human race. Quite the opposite of the purpose for instituting any eugenics program. Now knowing this, on what form of eugenics would you be willing to risk the human race? And what genetic 'defects' would you risk eliminating first?

[Korimyr the Rat]

So as you can see, any eugenics program you may institute might genetically weaken the human race. Quite the opposite of the purpose for instituting any eugenics program.

Well, I can't speak for SK, but that's why I only advocate voluntary programs-- and then, I prefer voluntary self-directed programs.

Having one or two or ten eugenics programs might screw up the human race pretty bad if we made a misstep-- but if we have hundreds or thousands of unique programs, we'll avoid consigning the entire human race to the consequences of one error, and we're more likely to discover some universally beneficial modification.

Now knowing this, on what form of eugenics would you be willing to risk the human race? And what genetic 'defects' would you risk eliminating first?

You know, there are other ways to develop a resistance or immunity to malaria than sickle-cell. We've abolished other diseases-- even if only within the First World.

And I can certainly think of a few genetic defects I'd like to stamp out-- or at least avoid passing on to my own children.

[jdlech]

You know, there are other ways to develop a resistance or immunity to malaria than sickle-cell.

We've been trying, all attempts so far have failed. Malaria has proven to be a most flexible parasite. Those living in areas where malaria is endemic have a much higher tolerance to the parasite's effects. But if you take a person out of a malaria infested area for just a couple of years, that person returns virtually as vulnerable as anyone who has never been exposed. The reason is that malaria mutates about as fast as the flu virus. That person may have resistance to past mutations, but not the current or next one. Our own immune system establishes the natural selection neccessary for the evolution of malaria.

Another case in point is chicken pox. Anthropologists believe that a disease that wiped out entire villages during the Egyptian empire was the chicken pox virus. But today, it's considered a simple childhood illness that threatens the lives of only 2 in 100 - less dangerous than the common cold. Scientists believe this is due to Varicella Zoster virus mutating and also incorporating itself into our own DNA. Most people have some variant version of varicella zoster embedded in our dna. So it changed us, and we changed it. If one were to remove all trace of it from our dna, we should likely be as vulnerable as the first human who encountered it.

There is a well established link between creative genius, and schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is linked to a genetic cause. However, if you were to 'stamp out' these genes you may very well be stamping out creativity - at least in part.

We were able to eradicate one bug from the earth - smallpox. And the people responsible for doing it had violated almost every constraint given them to do it. The rest constantly threaten to reintroduce themselves into the first world nations. Eliminating whatever genes that conferred immunity before first wiping out the threat would be unwise. Under a Technocracy, it wold be easier to eliminate te threats, but even when we do, then we need to know exactly what genetic changes it's presnece did to us. Otherwise, we would not know what genetic material to eliminate.

We have reason to believe that these 'genetic defects' exist for some reason. We may not yet know what this reason is; but that does not neccessarily mean that there is none. These people that you consider 'defective' are really victims of the consequences of a war against all the bacteria, mold, viruses, fungii, toxic chemicals, and allergens that are out there. Keeping healthy is no small task and often involves some less than perfect solutions. Unfortunately, we lose a few people to these solutions rather than to the environmental assaults. Whenever I see someone with downs syndrome or autism or schizophrenia, etc., I often wonder what would his condition allow him to survive that I could not? Or how much of his condition do I have to thank for my own intelligence? There's a lot to investigate.

When we know enough to unequivocally say why a particular gene sequence exists, how it got there, and what it will do if we remove it, then I will agree with you. When we know a particular gene sequence confers immunity to something that no longer exists, I will agree with you - we can safely remove it. But we are a long way away from then.

In the meantime, the best course of action is to accept a certain level of attrition in favor of diversity. Which is my argument against any form of eugenics.

[Cato]

Why has he named the thread "Grunder för Rashygien"?

And, well, is it not possible that this selection and tampering with genes affects the long term evolution of mankind? Interfering with nature´s own evolution?

[Cato]

"The failure of an organism to develop properly".
What is properly according to you? Are there any proper human beings living today? This depends on how pedantic you are. Maybe, you would have been condemned as not proper if this system you are talking about was active at this very moment.

[snake321]

Has anyone considered maybe autism is the next stage of evolution? Our mating chances are slim, but so were nuero typicals mating chances, I mean they must have looked like a total freak to the neanderthals that walked the earth at that time. Consider that many of our greatest minds had Asperger Syndrome. Autistic people are alot more likely to evolve out of tribal dominance genes, without societal ladders, and without prejudice. Some might say this is bad, but where will it take us? It could potentially be a heaven-on-earth, a world without hunger, sickness, disease, wars, and a world of peace, freedom, individuality, compassion, equality...

Take a look at this link:
http://www.autismtheory.org/

This is why people shouldn't interfere with evolution, some of these "defects" might not be a defect at all, it might just seem that way because of sub-conscious dominance issues of NT society.

[snake321]

And of coarse I'm not speaking of Kanner's autism as evolution, I'm talking Asperger. The lower functioning Kanners could be an evolutionary sacrifice in the gene pools.

[snake321]

I'm just saying, evolution only requires the individual of the higher breed to pass their seed on once, it's never been an easy task for them. You can't tell me a cro magnon would usually find a neanderthal intimately attractive.