I don't think he's a eugenicist.
I'm all for eugenics: I like the idea of engineering out the gene for, say, Huntington's Chorea. We could get rid of diabetes, migraine, and a bunch of other stuff while we're at it, and ensure maximal intelligence, too. I'd go further: parents should be allowed positively to choose characteristics from a genetic catalogue should the technology to do so ever appear.

So I guess you could call me a soft eugenicist. I'd hate to be associated with the OP, though.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 27 Sep 2011, 22:59, 2 replies)

"allowed positively to choose"
Who would decide what constitutes a catalogue of 'positive' attributes?
( Wet-chinned bag shanker Cannot parse Wogan, Wed 28 Sep 2011, 10:20, closed)

"Positive" does not mean "desirable"
"Positive" means just that: that they should be able to add characteristics according to their preference.

That is: choosing negatively would refer to saying things like "I want a child who doesn't have characteristics x, y, and z"; choosing negatively would refer to saying things like "I want a child who does have characteristics p, q, and r".

Obviously, there'd be some constraint at the extreme - if you made a positive request for a harmful trait (eg Huntington's), that could be vetoed. But I don't see any problem with being able to choose for or against most other phenotypes. By and large, though, the criterion of desirability would be the parents' preferences: just about anything that is not harmful could go into the catalogue.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 28 Sep 2011, 11:00, closed)

Ah, I see. Misread the other post.
I can see what traits people would choose not to have (inherited disorders etc), but what kind of things would you choose to have?
My personal wish list would be:
Four arms, á la Goro from Mortal Kombat
A stinging tail
Pleasant smelling feet
A superhuman thirst for justice
( Wet-chinned bag shanker Cannot parse Wogan, Wed 28 Sep 2011, 11:48, closed)

Just had a thought ...
This technology would usher in a whole new era of teenage resentment. They could legitimately blame their parents for being ugly.
"You could have stopped this! I HATE YOU!"
( Wet-chinned bag shanker Cannot parse Wogan, Wed 28 Sep 2011, 11:52, closed)

This is true.
But, then again, teenagers managed to derive a cause from resentment from just about everything anyway, so I'm not sure that the difference would be noticeable...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 28 Sep 2011, 11:58, closed)

I think the problem there would be
that "positive" doesn't mean "good". eg Many cultures would think male or heterosexual are positive, rather than neutral, characteristics.

That said, I agree that (especially with our considerable knowledge of genetics) eugenics could be used for good in terms of getting rid of negative traits such as susceptibility to certain diseases, it's just the idea of giving anyone the power to say what is a negative characteristic is a scary thing.

Also, if someone wants a child with specific characteristics, I'd say they shouldn't be allowed a child in the first place, as that is the wrong reason to want one.

However, I think the major issue with eugenics is not "designer babies", but rather population control.

Ultimately, population control (ie global, rather than immigration) is something that will need to be addressed soon. It would be nice if people cared enough about the future of our species not to sprog so much, but I can't see people willingly stopping at two at any point soon, and so I imagine eugenics may end up an only solution.
( monkeon schmonkeon, Wed 28 Sep 2011, 16:18, closed)

So far as I am aware...
...it hasn't been proved that there is a genetic trigger for diabetes. There may be a whole swathe of factors involved a la Chronn's disease. We simply don't know for sure.

I'll put my pedant hat away for a while now.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 28 Sep 2011, 11:25, closed)

Fair point,
and I'll certainly concede that "the gene for diabetes/ asthma/ whatever" is frequently nothing more than a convenient, simplifying shorthand. And, of course, a gene is not a determinant.

Having said that, susceptibility does - at least sometimes - have a familial dimension, and it's not unreasonable to suppose that there's a genetic or epigenetic factor that could be neutralised.

Crohn's is a good example: we don't yet know what - if anything - is going on genetically; but we do know that it has patterns that run through families. Members of my close family have it; but it's not inconceivable that you need environmental triggers to make the gene do its thing. Still, it would be good if we could home in on the disposition, and get rid of that.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 28 Sep 2011, 11:37, closed)

You do have a perfectly valid point
Eugenics isn't clear cut, a lot of people who would scream a resounding "No!" at the concept would also struggle to deny that they would endorse the eradication of the genes responsible for Huntingdon's or Cystic Fibrosis. I lost a friend from the latter and I certainly wouldn't argue against the application of genetic engineering to consign it to history.

I'll leave the ethical untangling of this to someone far more qualified than me I think.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Wed 28 Sep 2011, 12:11, closed)

Is it not concievable that many
"negative" genes can also have unforseen positive effects, though?

Does every species not need to throw out a reasonable variation - positive and negative - in order to evolve and survive?
( monkeon schmonkeon, Wed 28 Sep 2011, 16:29, closed)