Kerry,

Did you know that nature has been doing this every day for the last 4 billion years? There's a word for it. EVOLUTION. The animals/people with the bad traits (ie mutations) get weeded out, and those with the good ones live on to procreate.

The only difference between what nature does and what man wants to do, is one man wants to speed up the process, but two we also have different goals in mind. People want what they consider the most desirable human beings to be created, where as natures goal is survivability. And the most survivable human being, dog, cat, or horse, doesn't necessarily match our ideal.

"People want what they consider the most desirable human beings to be created..."

The fact that this does not bother you at all chills me to the bone.

"The only difference between what nature does and what man wants to do, is one man wants to speed up the process, but two we also have different goals in mind."

Okay, so let's set aside "playing God." Shouldn't it bother you just as much that ignorant human beings are "playing evolution?" If we aren't supposed to alter the climate, why in the world would it be a good idea for us to muck around with the natural process of genetic progress?

It wasn't "nature's" idea for these people to produce this offspring--it was THEIR idea. How can it be a good idea for nature's clumsiest species to be in charge of directing the future course of evolutionary development?

A couple in Britain recently successfully screened out a genetic predisposition for breast cancer

leads into

The last time the world saw a systematic attempt at eugenics, it was cut short in its first generation, and seems to have had no positive effects and the most horrific negative ones. When young blonde women in Germany and other nations overrun by the Third Reich were impregnated by German soldiers to create a "master race,"

methinks you should try linking smaller "gaps" otherwise, you'll continue to look like you're on medication.

Don't play cute in your response either, you know what I'm talking about.

Only on PME, and only Kerry would link scientific progress in fighting horrible diseases to Nazis. You continue to surprise me.

Never under estimate the crapness of people.

http://www.medindia.com/news/Indian-British-Couple-Dump-IVF-Twin-Girls-in-Hospital-37291-1.htm

SSE,

Perhaps you misread the article. This procedure did not "fight a horrible disease." There was only the POTENTIAL for a horrible disease--a disease more people survive today than ever before. Nevertheless, seven other embryos were created and killed to provide peace of mind for two selfish parents.

It's rather like randomly shooting people in the neighborhood because they look at you funny, before they can actually do something dangerous to you.

I know several people who have had breast cancer. Believe me, they would rather have lived WITH it than never have lived at all.

And the defense that "nature" does this often on its own is a red herring. This wasn't "nature." This was a deliberate choice to create life with the express intent of destroying it, should it prove "imperfect."

Think about the cost that handicapped people represent to the government, particularly once their costs are added to by the cost of insuring everyone via a socialized medicine scheme.

Can you not see how the predisposition to destroy inconvenient life leads to strong pressure on parents to do so--even to the point of threatening not to pay for those whose parents refuse to have the diagnostic procedure, or to take the "proper" action when imperfections are found?

And there IS a direct link between the master race assumptions of the lebensborn program and the hubristic notion that we have the right to kill off our offspring when we find their genetic future to be less than we want it to be. The assumption that individuals with imperfections cannot be important contributors to society, regardless of their genes, would have deprived our culture--probably all cultures--of some of the most productive and influential people ever in our midst.

Melissa Ethridge has a breast cancer gene--kill her as an embryo?

Ty Cobb? Betty Davis? Betty Ford?

President Lincoln was physically a very sick man--would it have been worth the trade-off?

Helen Keller? Stevie Wonder?

How about just eliminating people who MIGHT need GLASSES? How much would that save us all on insurance?

If we do not value EVERY human life, we soon will not value ANY human life.

WB's story proves my point.

"Only on PME, and only Kerry would link scientific progress in fighting horrible diseases to Nazis. You continue to surprise me."

That's because you STILL do not understand waht the worst aspect of the Nazi regime was. It was not what they DID--which were, of course, horrible, inhuman things. It was the fact that they BELIEVED they had the RIGHT to do them. It was not their acts that bred their ideology, but the other way around.

And it starts with the notion that there are some types of people better than others, and that human beings have the right to deliberately suppress the population growth of the "lesser" people and to deliberately manipulate the reproductive process in order to create more of the "better" ones.

Once you accept that notion, killing off the "lesser" ones, born and unborn becomes not just an easy thing to do--but in fact a valiant one. The lesser beings do not have the value of the greater--and therefore they are disposable. The greater are to be bred and pushed into success no matter the cost.

I don't have the right to judge the future of another person. Not based on their genetics. Not based on their circumstances. Not based on their color. Not based on anything.

And neither does anyone else.

Again, it is absolutely true.

Sorry, that didn't get finished.

"Again, it is absolutely true" was supposed to be "Again, it is absolutely true. If we do not value EVERY human life, we soon will not value ANY human life."

Sorry again. Typing too fast.

"Melissa Ethridge has a breast cancer gene--kill her as an embryo?"

Umm, she wouldn't Melissa Ethridge as an embryo, she doesn't know what existing is like, she doesn't yet feel love, pain, desire, she can't sing the song in the credits of a Al Gore movie...

I know you'll disagree, oh well.

I don't like Nazis and I still think the link is a bit of a strech.

stretch I mean.

"Umm, she wouldn't Melissa Ethridge as an embryo, she doesn't know what existing is like, she doesn't yet feel love, pain, desire, she can't sing the song in the credits of a Al Gore movie..."

Two point.

If her talents and abilities are genetically determined, then she would have had those same gifts and talents. How they played out might have been different, but there is no way to tell.

Second, if she had not done all those things, would she have been any less deserving of life?

No, she wouldn't be any less deserving, but you're not killing "Melissa Ethridge" it's an embryo, not a person. You're right, there would be no way to tell what type of person she would be, unless you had a time machine. But saying this person wouldn't exist or that is redundant because like you said it's all about "how it's played out"

If my parents had an abortion, and I never existed, it wouldn't matter to me because I would never have thought I existed or have been upset that I don't exist because..... I wouldn't have existed.

This is also the case with all of those human "possibilities" that could have existed through the centuries; writers more articulate than Shakespeare, painters more talented than Da Vinci, scientists more groundbreaking than Einstein, we'd never know, but those genetic combinations are surely, or were surely out there as possibilities for "persons." They just never came to be.

It's rather like randomly shooting people in the neighborhood because they look at you funny, before they can actually do something dangerous to you.

uhhh, no.

I know several people who have had breast cancer. Believe me, they would rather have lived WITH it than never have lived at all.

That's because they exist, if they had not, they wouldn't have feelings either way. They wouldn't have feelings at all, they wouldn't exist. It doesn't make any sense..

Leaving aside the always STUPID third reich comparisons, I agree with Kerry that this is a slippery slope that could lead us to a society similar to the one depicted in the movie Gattaca. The problem with correcting defects is how we define defects. For instance, let's say we call people with an IQ two standard deviations below mean "retarded", and embryos with this designation can have their intelligence enhanced to the mean. Well, over time, this is going to shift the average upwards, and there's nothing to stop the process. Eventually, you could be considered retarded if your IQ is below 140. This causes us, in essence, to continually redefine disability upwards, and opens the door to routine genetic engineering of embryos in ways we don't currently intend.

Is this a bad thing? It's hard to say for sure, but I think the movie Gattaca does a good job at demonstrating some of the shortcomings. Let's just say that, at the very least, this is cause for concern.

Once again, though, comparisons to Nazi Germany are overwrought and completely unnecessary. Here's a new rule: if you can't make your point without a comparison to Nazis or Hitler, you probably can't make your point.

However, despite the cause for concern, I think this may be inevitable. How are you going to tell some parents that their child is going to be horribly deformed, and although you are technically capable of fixing it, you won't? The emotional stakes are just too high, so this is not the battle to fight.

"No, she wouldn't be any less deserving, but you're not killing "Melissa Ethridge" it's an embryo, not a person."

An embryo is what becomes a person. You are as "finished" genetically as an embryo as you ever will be as a "person."

"If my parents had an abortion, and I never existed, it wouldn't matter to me because I would never have thought I existed or have been upset that I don't exist because..... I wouldn't have existed."

And the world would not have missed you? Would you say the same of Helen Keller? Because that is where this line of logic goes.

"This is also the case with all of those human "possibilities" that could have existed through the centuries; writers more articulate than Shakespeare, painters more talented than Da Vinci, scientists more groundbreaking than Einstein, we'd never know, but those genetic combinations are surely, or were surely out there as possibilities for "persons." They just never came to be."

But isn't there a difference between God or nature deciding those people should not be and YOU doing it?

""I know several people who have had breast cancer. Believe me, they would rather have lived WITH it than never have lived at all.""

"That's because they exist, if they had not, they wouldn't have feelings either way. They wouldn't have feelings at all, they wouldn't exist. It doesn't make any sense.."

But the point is that, had their future been in the hands of this British couple (or, apparently, you), they would never have lived. And--having lived--they are now in position to say that living is better than not living.

sure I guess, but only from looking backwards after already existing. Again, time machine territory.

How are you going to tell some parents that their child is going to be horribly deformed, and although you are technically capable of fixing it, you won't?

How? You naive little man! You tell the child Jesus loves him and that he's special and it doesn't matter because in heaven, we're all normal looking! That's what's important. God needs to give us an elephant man ever now and then, it makes us behold his glory.

An embryo is what becomes a person. You are as "finished" genetically as an embryo as you ever will be as a "person."

The key word here is "genetically". People are a lot more than a basket of genes. A person also entails a set of experiences. Hell, it goes further than nature/nurture; a given genome can express itself as a number of phenotypes, depending on the physical environment. The difference between embryo and person is the difference between genotype and phenotype, bam. Thanks for bringing that into focus, now let's not get into an abortion debate ;)

You tell the child Jesus loves him and that he's special and it doesn't matter because in heaven, we're all normal looking!

Exactly...like I said, it's gonna happen.

If it makes Kerry feel any better, eventually it will be unnecessary to destroy an embryo to obtain the desired results...instead, they will be able to "correct" defects in vitro. This will satisfy those whose concern with bioethics goes no further than hoary old issues like abortion, but for my money, it implies a very different kind of society with some troubling qualities. At least it will render racism quaintly obsolete. People will pine for the good old days where they didn't actually know who was genetically "superior".

""How are you going to tell some parents that their child is going to be horribly deformed, and although you are technically capable of fixing it, you won't?""

"How? You naive little man! You tell the child Jesus loves him and that he's special and it doesn't matter because in heaven, we're all normal looking!"

Good guess, but not quite. You DO tell the child Jesus loves him and that he's special. But it's not because it doesn't matter in Heaven. It doesn't matter HERE either. And you tell the parents that if they wouldn't love a handicapped child as much as a "normal" one, maybe they should re-think that parenting thing again.

"That's what's important. God needs to give us an elephant man ever now and then, it makes us behold his glory."

Please say this to the parents of Down's Syndrome children. But be sure your health insurance is good first.

""An embryo is what becomes a person. You are as "finished" genetically as an embryo as you ever will be as a "person.""

"The key word here is "genetically". People are a lot more than a basket of genes."

Not without God, he's not.

"A person also entails a set of experiences."

No, a person does not "entail" a set of experiences. A person's BEHAVIOR may be shaped by experiences, but who that person is going to be--all that he is CAPABLE of being--is determined by his genes.

"Hell, it goes further than nature/nurture; a given genome can express itself as a number of phenotypes, depending on the physical environment. The difference between embryo and person is the difference between genotype and phenotype, bam. Thanks for bringing that into focus, now let's not get into an abortion debate ;)"

But the environment can't ADD to the genetic possibility. It can only act on it negatively. The CAPABILITIES of the organism are determined from the outset.

"If it makes Kerry feel any better, eventually it will be unnecessary to destroy an embryo to obtain the desired results...instead, they will be able to "correct" defects in vitro."

Actually, I oppose genetic manipulation for any reason.

"This will satisfy those whose concern with bioethics goes no further than hoary old issues like abortion, but for my money, it implies a very different kind of society with some troubling qualities. At least it will render racism quaintly obsolete."

Or raise it to previously unimaginable heights. Who's to say that the "race" in charge won't use its position to breed more of itself--and none of the rest?

"People will pine for the good old days where they didn't actually know who was genetically "superior"."

And I hope at least some of them will know that there is no such thing as genetically "superior." But the way we're going with this, I'm not sure they will.

Kerry,

This may be news to you but we have been playing God for a long time. Ever since the advent of modern medicine. The only difference is that with genetic testing, we are preventing the problems before they happen rather than trying to fix them after they happen with drugs, surgery, and gene therapy.

So if you are really all that concerned about going against God or nature, you should have stopped taking drugs, using anti-bacterial soap, drinking purified water, irradiated foods, and all the other modern conveniences that are preventing all but the healthiest and most genetically superior people from dying.

You might argue that man was given a brain to solve these types of problems, so its not going against nature. Well somebody could say God also let us figure out genetics so we could engineer healthly "perfect" babies to.

So am not here to judge what is right or wrong, or what should be considered evil, etc. What I merely intend is to point out a little bit of hypocrisy. Because I think its debatable whether its any more sinister to genetically engineer babies, than it is to engineer drugs to fight the viruses, bacteria and poisons that God created to kill us....that's right. He's the only one responsible for creating a virus that is specifically designed to kill those with the wrong genetics.

Actually only in your world view is God directly responsible...not in mine. Since you can't fathom despite God's immense power, that he could have created a mindless process that works based on random mutation, and the selfish gene.

And I hope at least some of them will know that there is no such thing as genetically "superior."

Oh yah...you should meet a few of those 100+ year olds who walk, run, lift weights, and out lived their kids, and the doctors that told them 40 years ago when they retired that they should take it easy.

And as to the question, of whether man should be in the business of genetic manipulation. I would say no...but not because of your ethical concerns, but because once we learn a great deal about human genetics, it makes it alot easier to kill billions of people in a hurry if you wanted to.

The Russians have already invented forms of anthrax that are 100% lethal. All that's needed is a real airborne bacterium or virus with the same level of killing potential, and we'd be done.

Of course the world would probably a fabulously better place for the .0001 percent that probably would survive. They might just start over and manage the Earth in a more sustainable and ethical way....how about that for a philosophical can of worms.

"Of course the world would probably a fabulously better place for the .0001 percent that probably would survive. They might just start over and manage the Earth in a more sustainable and ethical way....how about that for a philosophical can of worms."

Then, again, they might be worse. Have you seen "Idiocracy?"

No, a person does not "entail" a set of experiences.

First of all, no need for the quotes around "entail." It's a legitimate, albeit obscure reference; check this page, and scroll down to this definition:

verb 1. have as a logical consequence; "The water shortage means that we have to stop taking long showers" 2. impose, involve, or imply as a necessary accompaniment or result; "What does this move entail?"

Strangely, the first definition doesn't use the word in the example! But this generally obscure usage occurs more frequently in IT "literature". You should be used to this sort of thing but-oh-well...

A person's BEHAVIOR may be shaped by experiences, but who that person is going to be--all that he is CAPABLE of being--is determined by his genes.

Oh, now really, stop talking like you know. This is just Not Your Field. The kinds of crude distinctions you are making are the reason that practitioners of hard science and math chuckle into their sleeves when disciples of the humanities (oh no, I'm sorry....social "sciences" LOL) start talking about real science. To answer your question, there is no bright line between the body and the mind, because all these thoughts are physically encoded into brain. That is not to say there is no distinction, but...oh, what am I doing, here? This isn't the kind of conversation to get into with you. Anyway, whether or not there is a metaphysical dimension exclusive to the mind, thoughts actually change the electrical fields, chemistry and even structure of the brain. That's all for today.

But the environment can't ADD to the genetic possibility. It can only act on it negatively. The CAPABILITIES of the organism are determined from the outset.

I said, THAT IS ALL FOR TODAY. Moving right along...

Or raise it to previously unimaginable heights. Who's to say that the "race" in charge won't use its position to breed more of itself--and none of the rest?

Well, the point is that if one's genome is malleable, your race doesn't make any difference. Even if racists are right, in the future they will be able to give you a black skin and a white mind (you get my drift). A black person's parents will be able to buy the best genes for their kids, and show you a piece of paper that proves they have an IQ of 163 and a civil temperment. Kind of renders the old discussion moot.

Which is not to say that a black person WILL be able to afford the best genes. Who knows? Depending on the economics, people may have full choice, or we may develop a genetic aristocracy, where the rich evolve faster than the rest of us.

But assuming there is genetic stratification, I don't expect it to be on a primarily racial basis. How can a race truly feel superior, if anyone from any race can be tailored to the same general level of excellence? I just feel like the concept of race will have less weight in the face of that reality.

once we learn a great deal about human genetics, it makes it alot easier to kill billions of people in a hurry if you wanted to

This is one of my primary concerns about biotechnology. However, once again, I do not expect people to do anything until it is too late. You know that virus software you have to download periodic updates for? Expect a biological analog someday, closing the loop. This is not a good thing, by the way.

They might just start over and manage the Earth in a more sustainable and ethical way....how about that for a philosophical can of worms.

Or, they might not. Can closed ;)

Then, again, they might be worse. Have you seen "Idiocracy?"

Yeah, excellent movie. However, I can't help but wonder how serious Judge is about his premise. Famous racist Steve Sailor makes very similar claims in all seriousness. That doesn't mean it's wrong; although I disagree with most of what Sailor says, he has also made some very interesting points that changed the way I thought about race.

So is Judge really saying that we are devolving? Are the dumbest people having the most babies? I don't like the idea, but I can't dismiss it entirely.

"I can't help but wonder how serious Judge is about his premise....So is Judge really saying that we are devolving? Are the dumbest people having the most babies? I don't like the idea, but I can't dismiss it entirely."

This is all I could find directly from Judge. You make the call:

"Q: Could you explain a little more about Idiocracy and what the plot is and how the genesis for that came about?

Judge: That started with an idea I had when I was working on the Beavis and Butthead movie and I was thinking about evolution and how since now there's no natural predators and pretty much everybody survives, evolution kind of favors people who don't wear a condom and people who knock up a bunch of baby's mamas and all that kind of stuff. So this is basically kind of one of those movies where a guy's frozen and thawed out in the future, which there have been many. But basically it's 500 years in the future and everybody's gotten a lot dumber. So Luke Wilson plays a guy who's just kind of a dumb-ass average Joe in the army today and in the future he's the smartest guy in the world, because everyone's gotten so dumb. And he ends up having to save the world, is pretty much the plot."

From:

http://tv.ign.com/articles/707/707158p4.html

Did you know that nature has been doing this every day for the last 4 billion years? There's a word for it. EVOLUTION. The animals/people with the bad traits (ie mutations) get weeded out, and those with the good ones live on to procreate.

Like many other subjects you think youknow something about, you don't know squat about evolution. This is about screening and selecting for a gene that will not affect "fitness", the ability to pass on one's genes.

Breast cancer genes do not affect fitness one whit as the vast majority of women pass on their genes to their offspring BEFORE they get breast cancer and potentially die.....so the gene persists.

Ya almost had something to say there....