Genes for everything: Question on free will.

No. Why?

I'm not saying Eugenics or "Purging" or anything bullshit like that.

But if we can find a way to give every human the best genes possible to avoid heart disease, mental disorders, and all sorts of nasty things....why not?

Whilst it's a good idea in theory, I can't be the only one here who's seen Gattaca. That stomm can easily get out of hand.

As for the concept of free will, I think that the actions of a population can be predicted: see Psychohistory. Individual, day-to-day actions which have little impact on the population as a whole are... Well, both can only be predicted with massive amounts of data: in Foundation, it's mentioned that Seldon was observing the Galaxy on a scale few even thought possible. Individual actions would require even more data to predict: Genetics, family history, location, background... It honestly isn't feasible.

Direct all enquiries to Jamie B Good

Sometimes people have funny ideas about what mental disorders are. But then I am more a fan of brain plasticity and social influences than of genetically predetermined inclinations, so this might not be that much of a problem.

edited 9th Jun '13 12:45:22 PM by blauregen

All I know is, my gut says maybe.

@Starship: Isn't it, though?

Forget having seen Gattaca. I've read history, particularly the German Socialist party and their overlords, circa mid-1930's.

Mind you Thorn, I don't want cartoonish bad guys and dystopian Science Fiction to scare us from scientific progress. My issues are these.

1) I'm wary of any line of scientific thinking that holds that a man of the sum of genes. The genes, imho, are nothing more than the blank page. A person, and the people and environment around them, write the actual story on those pages.

2) As optimus said, when we get into "custom people", it must follow, what determines an "ideal" person? Does homosexuality get viewed as a dangerous trait to erase. What about things like autism; disorders, we barely understand and constantly mistreat now? Do we classify dark skin and nappy hair as undesirable traits? Do we find a gene for shyness and determine that it's something to breed out.

3) Human beings already have an array of tools to improve their psyches and bodies and they don't use those now. People will spend a few thousand dollars on gastric bypass surgery before setting foot on a treadmill. I can already see if they latched onto an "obesity" gene.

It was an honor

The thing is "desirable traits" are a situational thing. Although most of the groups that advocated Eugenics or stuff like that tended to idealize really pointless things. I mean, blonde hair? What the hell is that supposed to do?

There doesn't necessarily need to be an 'ideal'. In the minimal case, all that is necessary is to identify certain things we really don't want (Huntington's disease, cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, and so on) and figure out how to edit those out. You would still have many different sorts of people; just not the ones who have to suffer a whole lot because they happened to get the awful genes.

It's been pointed out before (including, as I recall, in the Human Enhancement thread that was around for a while) that choosing to select or edit an embryo's genetics will likely fall into the domain of the parents rather than some single organization with a particular set of standards. So it would be up to the parents to decide which of these things they wanted to edit out. Hopefully there would also be government policies to stop parents from deliberately editing bad traits in (that's gotta be, like...preemptive child abuse or something), but that shouldn't be too much of a restriction.

That aside, for a lot of these matters, we need to ask ourselves whether it's actually the babies that warrant fixing, or our own culture that warrants fixing. It's easy to say that a black/gay/autistic baby shouldn't be born into a culture that unfairly discriminates against black/gay/autistic people, but I think we can pretty easily extend that to say that even babies who aren't black/gay/autistic should be born into such cultures. For me, at least, having the traits that I happen to have, I still would not want to have been born into a culture that unfairly discriminates against people with the traits I don't have. No one should be born into those cultures. There shouldn't be those cultures.

Join my forum game!

But that's precisely my point Elfive. It's human nature to trump the superficial over the substantive. I truly worry that if we could start changing things, the first thing most parents would do, totally understandably, is want their children to match society's definition of beauty. It just so happens the Aryan standard is still the standard of beauty for much of the world. Don't believe me? Check the comments regarding Serena Williams beating Maria Sharapova for the French Open Title.

But, that's not even the real worry. The ability to genetically modify people Monsanto style seems a bit of a way off. What if one of us here was told our unborn daughter had a gene to be obese? What would we do? What kind of implications would it have for us? For her?

Would we keep her out of athletics since we "know" she's going to be fat? Even if she was born and turned out to have a healthy frame that anybody would consider attractive, would we worry that the "gene" would kick in any moment and make her fat?

These are real questions to ask if we're going to start down this road.

Wow Meklar, you actually touched on what I was trying to get at, but in a much better way.

edited 9th Jun '13 3:56:15 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

1) But our genes are the building blocks of a human being when you get down to it. A person's genes can determine if they're more likely to have a heart attack at an early age or not. Philosophically speaking I understand you, but scientifically I don't think it holds up.

2) Slippery slope. No one seriously advocating is suggesting we remove personality traits. Just stuff like the likelihood of heart disease, color blindness, or even male pattern baldness.

3) You know how some people have better metabolisms than other which makes it harder for them to become overweight and also just healthier in general? If we can cheaply do that for the entire human race, why not? What does humanity lose by removing objectively negative qualities from our frail systems?

Okay, lets put it this way. Say scientists find out your daughter has a gene that makes it more likely for her to become obese and you can't remove it for whatever reason. Now you are aware and can maybe plan ahead. Perhaps interest your child into activity and such. Saying "Oh she's going to just be fat" is stupid because genes don't work that way. Thats like finding out your family has a history of heart disease and going "Well I may as well smoke like a chimney since I'll die of heart disease anyway!"

Also a gene doesn't "Kick in" its just traits of the human body that are predetermined from birth

edited 9th Jun '13 4:16:16 PM by Thorn14

When you put it that way.....

It was an honor

I think for many its more of a moral / philosophical issue, which many supporters of this stuff are aware of.

No one is suggesting anything drastic like "Removing the homosexuality gene" (If that even exists)

But I honestly see no harm in removing things that are objectively undesired. Unless this whole "ME GO TOO FAR, ME PLAY GOD"◊ thing is going on again.

While the genes are present from birth, many of them code for traits that do not manifest until later in the life cycle.

Well yeah, babies aren't generally born obese.

But you aren't going to find a healthy fit person wake up with 200 pounds on them over night.

Also the image for Science Is Bad is quite relevant.

Epigenetics: for when things are not quite as cut-and-dried as they seem. Various traits can and do kick in at strange intervals, depending on what triggers them — or doesn't. <shrugs>

@Thorn - While discussing this, I've been doing some reading on stuff like the Nuremburg Laws, and (God help me) the history of American eugenics, and of course, the forced sterilizations of black women, and the indiscriminate syphillis testing on black men.

I suppose....I'm just too horrified by what Man does when he seeks to "better Man" to not be paranoid.

"Still" done?? I'm not even going to ask.

edited 9th Jun '13 5:08:24 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor

Don't leave out what was (and, to a horrifying extent, still is) done to those deemed "mentally deficient". Eugenics: why stop at race? <_<

edited 9th Jun '13 5:01:07 PM by Euodiachloris

Well genetic engineering of humans is still science-fiction and will be for the foreseeable future. But genetic testing and counselling however is very much happening now.

Making a rather large leap of faith this is not a con job, should one read their (and their children's) genome to see what path nature 'wants' for them. To know exactly what their children truly are capable (and not) of doing.

I honestly wouldn't want to. But I think I'm probably the minority.

hashtagsarestupid

That's exactly the thing I fear as well joey. Hope is a powerful thing, possibly the most powerful force in human existence; it is also incredibly fragile.

I fear a society of people being told their children lack the "gene" for academic excellence, and thus not pushing their children to excel academically.

It was an honor

Or not having the child.

Or worst.

edited 9th Jun '13 6:05:56 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

If we had exhaustive genetic scans and maps for everyone to a depth, that they could indicate something as volatile as inclinations and talents, it would certainly make for interesting profiles on dating sites.

(Inofficial) Job requirements could become interesting too.

edited 9th Jun '13 7:45:56 PM by blauregen

All I know is, my gut says maybe.

Thing is, some people are given a postage stamp. We're working on methods to give those people proper writing material, and you're just telling them to learn write smaller. Sure people can learn to write smaller, and we need to be careful not to burn their paper, but not handing out bigger papers when you could would be cruel.

"Excuse me, could I please have a pencil?"

"No. I guess you'll just have to use your blood."

edited 15th Jun '13 2:20:27 AM by Qeise

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

That is honestly the worst analogy I ever heard.

Including the ones used on Star Trek

edited 15th Jun '13 2:52:35 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

I tend to take other peoples analogies and work on them, so you'll just have to blame Starship

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

Oh god, this again.

-Facepalms-

We are having difficulties defining "talent". We are having problems even with defining "intelligence" (see the controversy of IQ tests and the talk about "g" and various different types of intelligence). How the heck are we going to genetically modify people to become more "intelligent" or "talented" when we can't define what neither is? That's like saying "genes for souls".

edited 15th Jun '13 5:12:42 PM by IraTheSquire