Genetic Discrimination

[JDP]

I recently wrote a short story, DISASSEMBLY OF A COMPLEX SYSTEM, about a (far?) future in which the general population are genetically crafted to particular roles by an elite ruling class. The protagonist is a member of an underground movement dubbed 'The Eloi', subversives amongst the elite who seek to redress the balance.

Science has historically focussed a lot more on 'could we do that...' than 'should we...'. Genetics raises a huge number of ethical questions. If you're interested in the topic, the RSA is running a project called Ethical Futures, which covers this topic amongst others.

RSA - Ethical Futures

[Creator]

Trend in this case does not meant become fashion like that article I post earlier, but trend as in like in reality, more and more such people are born....

I noticed that about 10 yrs ago, siamese twins were pretty rare or even unknown but now they are like well you could get something like that if you are unlucky. So fast forward a few decades.... well Orcs or Elves anyone?

And beside the main character in The Goddess had been influenced by Norman Mailer and her situation living in dysgenic times kinda bolstered her urge to save the human race.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Creator

I noticed that about 10 yrs ago, siamese twins were pretty rare or even unknown but now they are like well you could get something like that if you are unlucky.

I don't think that is because more are being born. I could be wrong, maybe the mutation rate has increased due to our exposure to radiation fall-out and pollutant chemicals, but I seriously doubt that. It is rather because medical science has reduced child mortality and allowed more babies to survive.

[Creator]

Originally Posted by Dave

I don't think that is because more are being born. I could be wrong, maybe the mutation rate has increased due to our exposure to radiation fall-out and pollutant chemicals, but I seriously doubt that. It is rather because medical science has reduced child mortality and allowed more babies to survive.

and allow more of these genetic mutations to pass on their genes right?. So can I assume that without eugenics to control the spread, more and more of these things are going to pop up and multiply until the human races is cluttered with mutations?

[Dave]

But by "cluttered" you are implying that all mutations are necessarily bad - they aren't, either in a medical sense or any other. Mutations happen naturally anyway, most of our genetic code is just junk with no use that can be seen, so a single point mutation makes little difference. Of those that do result in a developmental change, or change to a protein synthesis, it is unlikely to be life-threatening. Yes, we will see more diversity. Yes, we might see more blood and hormonal disorders, but some of those will probably be cured with gene-therapy.

[Creator]

But if genetic therapy cannot be reached by commonfolk? And by the way genetic therapy may not be able to remove that defective gene & stop it from passing it down right?

Oh ok what would the world be like if humans are evolving dysgenically.
I have a thread on this but no one bothering to reply.

Living in a world with lots of dysgenic people.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Creator

and allow more of these genetic mutations to pass on their genes right?

That's only true of conditions that are genetic in origin and inheritable, and only if the people who have them end up reproducing. Most things don't fit both of those descriptions. They're either not inheritable or likely to prevent reproduction even by a survivor. I believe twin coinjoinedness fails both tests: I don't think it's caused by an inheritable mutated gene, and I do think most who survive with it don't reproduce.

[Creator]

Right but well if they survive via operations. and they grow up and mate so they will pass down... you get it the point: Technology allowing some mutations to survive longer and even long enough to make babies so the cycle continues.

Well they say siamese twins are a problem with cell division they say but can I say that it could be a genetic disposition.

I am now thinking on the line that my villainess probably had a grudge with these poor unlucky people. Maybe rape or a loss of a good friend, or both.

[Deathpool]

Originally Posted by kyektulu

Sadly i think that it is only a matter of time before genetic discrimination occurs.
It is very disturbing as I honestly dont know how far they will go to eradicate physical and mental disability.
As for me, if genetic discrimination was around now would I of been permitted to exist with my condition?
Having a disability does not make a person any less human, they have the right to exist, mankind should not play god.

Selecting the sex in a child is so wrong, and could lead to serious implications, look at China for example, killing female children in the relentless pursuit of a male child to carry on the family name...

I totally agree 100%. Each person should have equal right to live. I believe in looking at the person's mind and their thoughts. Not on their looks.

[Creator]

Me too, but I think there can be a balance between eugenics and human rights? Right?

Well as far as I delve into history, I can see that some human rights infringing solutions to some problems like HIV had bad names because I think the people who first used them were corrupted by discrimination, racism or sexist or homophobic, you name it.......etc

Hitler embraced eugenics which could have been fine who getting rid of bad genes in the population but too bad he had to let his childhood grudge cloud his judgement and so eugenics was associated with racism and Nazis, thanks to him. My dad said that Hitler was bullied as a kid by Jews. I always knew that childhood bully victims are dangerous.....

[ManTimeForgot]

Should I think that much of the views espoused against genetic discrimination are steeped in religious ideology? (This is not a rhetorical question; I am curious...)


We make discriminating choices all the time. Do we assume that all cultural beliefs are equally valid? Should we for instance: call for equal protection of Aztec practice of human sacrifice? Discrimination by itself is NOT immoral. It is quite the opposite in fact. There can and will come a time when a failure to discriminate would result in immorality (sin by omission so to speak). Some choices are in fact clearly inferior to another. And refusing to recognize the optimal choice in a given circumstance because it is politically correct to assume that all choices are equal or that philosophically it is impossible to always determine which option is the better because life is so complicated are specious reasons at best.


So the only remaining option is to object to genetic manipulation on account of sanctity of life or some other similar reason. I count those reasons as being a matter of personal belief (akin to religious reasons) and those should not be allowed to dictate national or world policy. If personal beliefs were allowed to dictate national policy slavery would still be allowable in every nation on the planet (if any of you for even one moment think that social elites in every nation on earth would hesitate for even a moment turning you into a wage slave (or worse in some places), then you are wrong). Religion is a useful tool for guiding individual behavior and reinforcing communal bonds, but should not be forced onto anyone who does not wish to adopt its tenets. So while I agree that certain aspects of human life should remain undisturbed I am not willing to assume that just because I believe such that all should adopt similar tenets.


The latter view seems (at least at first glance) to be in opposition to my former argument. I grant that a balance needs to be struck between adopting societally useful ideologies and restricting ideological freedom. But I will posit that humans (possessed of reasoning faculties) are generally capable of recognizing when something would be a bad behavior to be adopted in a wide-spread manner.



So the question that should be asked is one of safety and survival, not of applicability or morality. Will genetic discrimination enhance the safety and survival of the species? The answer is almost certainly yes. What part of eliminating trisomy 13 would decrease survivability of the species? And for the opponents: What part of forcing a parent to choose to have a child with trisomy 13 when they could have one without or forcing a child to be born with trisomy 13 is the moral option?

Discrimination as a scientific discipline will eventually (and assuming the trend of doubling the body of scientific knowledge every 10 years continues unabated, quite quickly) give way to superior and alternative means of manipulation (pre-conception manipulation, not requiring abortion for terminal inutero illnesses, etc). Exactly how is it a bad thing to give the option to prevent terminal or severely detrimental quality of life changes to parents or to a person?


Genetic discrimination is not required to be mandated. In fact governments, if they are wise, will stay away from mandating genetic discrimination for the simple reason that family and morality are things that governments have throughout history had bad results in attempting to legislate or enforce changes to (people who feel differently quite simply won't listen to government in those areas, and will tend to fight to uphold their family or conciences). So claiming that choice is removed is a false dichotomy. No one is saying that allowing for the option to prevent certain genetic combinations is going to mean that it will mean that law is going to require such discrimination.

In point of fact there will probably always be people who feel as you all do: that human life should not be interfered with and allowed to take its course with the "randomness" of sperm and egg. There will probably be some people who will choose to have children born with "handicaps" just so they can run against the grain (so to speak) in a future where doctors recommend preventing genetic diseases or disabilities (which they almost certainly will). So there will not be a government mandate so long as a lot of people will do as the above. But there will almost certainly be doctors whose hospitals refuse to allow children to be born with major disabilities no matter what the views of the parents, and that is their prerogative. If you don't agree with the views of a hospital, then don't go there. No one seriously entertains the idea that pro-life parents should be forced to utilize an abortion clinic; why should this change in a future with genetic discrimination?

MTF