Eugenics, genetics, your kids and mine...

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

An important question looming on the horizon is: "to what extent can couples determine the genetic make-up of their kids."

I have a simple answer: "It's not evil eugenics if a majority of those with the genetic trait advocate helping future children avoid it. "


For example, I'm quite short, this has not really had a positive impact on my life my husband is tall and I'd be quite happy to let his genes take over the whole height thing. I'd have a similar feeling were I abnormally tall. On the other hand it'd make me angry if someone ruled out darker skin for our child, that'd be cowing to the pressure of racism, I think ... and creepy. (dark skin also protects one from skin cancers and painful sunburns) I don't envy the lengths my husband must go to avoid getting burned. My husband has often been quite cheerful about the prospect of his kids not having a hard time with the sun as he has.

So, I think the solution is to ask people who have these traits if they *want* them passed on or not. In that sense, maybe the "looming question" isn't so big-- most couples will naturally want persevere human diversity, but will not have much interest in saving traits that just make life more difficult.

But of course things are not that simple. Many black folks (for example) might have chosen lighter skin (and some might do so today) to protect their child from racism. I find this depressing and my instinct is to find a way to prevent it. But, should the state have any place in such choices?

There are lots of people who would quickly choose to reduce the chance of their child being gay (I doubt being gay is as simple as a single gene, so mercifully it may not be possible to tamper with this without tampering with other traits) --on the one hand, maybe it's good that gay kids don't end up being born to intolerant people, on the other, there are enough intolerant people that, if the genetics of sexuality were simple enough, we'd probably see a sharp decine in the gay population. I think this is really depressing.

Now I treated the height issue like it was simple, but there are probably some short people who feel differently.

I think we could come up with reasonable laws by asking those who have a given gene what they think about people selecting for it or against it.

And now for a incomplete poll:


[Poll #1768916]

PS. Here is a great documentary that relates to these questions.

Comments

Re: For what it's worth, the issue may be moot

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

The hapsburgs were not "bread" to optimise strength or heath, but rather they married for purely political reasons ignoring genetics.

I'm not concerned about super-humans either. I don't think we'll be able to make very dramatic changes, but we will be able to select from the existing genetic materials.

This isn't about making monsters it's about if parents should be able to select an embryo that represents their idea of the "best" of both partners.

Re: For what it's worth, the issue may be moot

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That idea over time will lead to Charles IIs. In theory, there is nothing wrong with it, but if theory were everything reality would be a completely different and better place.

Re: For what it's worth, the issue may be moot

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

Did I miss a joke in your comment? Why did you spell it "bread" and put it in quotation marks? underlankers used the proper spelling for the concept. "Bred" is the proper past tense of the verb "to breed."

Re: For what it's worth, the issue may be moot

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Grammar cops on the loose, run for cover!

Re: For what it's worth, the issue may be moot

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

I was wondering why he put the emphasis on the word. I thought he might have been making some obscure reference to something funny. If I wanted to play grammar cop in this forum I would hardly have time to eat or sleep, so eggregious is behavior of the scofflaws. As it is, I have my own idiosyncracies of grammar, punctuation, and spelling that crop up occasionally, despite my efforts to restrain them.

Re: For what it's worth, the issue may be moot

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

OK ;)

Re: For what it's worth, the issue may be moot

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

she...

Re: For what it's worth, the issue may be moot

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

Ah, I beg your pardon. That will teach me to pay even more attention. I didn't know, and used "he" in the generic sense even though I was referring to a specific individual.