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

[bex.livejournal.com]

I agree with this, though I see the hypocrisy in it, too. Where do you draw the line for "suffering"? Should parents be able to avoid autism? Asperger's? What about dyslexia? Our education system caters to one specific way of learning, and children who learn differently are underserved and may struggle - do we select against kids who would suffer in our arbitrarily-created education model? I think there's things we would all agree we would like to select against (say, cystic fibrosis), but it would be difficult to agree on a cut-off. Is physical suffering "worth more" than emotional suffering? Is a physically disabled person with a healthy mind better or worse off than a physically-able but mentally disabled person?

I don't know. Ultimately, on the above poll, I have to say "none of these." I think it's dangerous to mess too much with genetic diversity. Things like hair, eye and skin color, height, athletic prowess - why would you want to limit those things according to very fleeting standards of beauty? This is what proponents of racial eugenics seemed to forget. Genetic diversity protects species from extinction. It provides solutions to small problems before they become species-wide. Bottle-necking our gene pool for short-term interests like "looking pretty" and "being good at sports" is... I don't know, I don't really have words for it. Outrageous? Ridiculous? Sad?

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Since I'm not an expert, of course first I'm going to need a thorough consultation with one, as far as "life-threatening diseases" are concerned. As for the mental illnesses, over the top of my head, I could say neither of the conditions that you listed is "life-threatening"; and I see your point about the various ways of learning.

[bex.livejournal.com]

I raise the mental illness thing just because you mentioned "life-threatening diseases" but also threw "mental retardation" in there, which caught my eye - what is that? I mean, people throw around lots of words like "retarded", "mentally disabled", "mentally ill", but what is the level of "mental retardation" you think should be avoided? I'm not sure there's a solely mental disability that threatens life (in a sense that "if you have this, you will suffer and die") - a lot of times, mental retardation comes along with physical conditions that are life-threatening, but the retardation is not life-threatening itself. It does, however, impact quality of life, which is why I started talking about other mental illnesses - they are also not life-threatening, but do inflict suffering of different degrees.

I don't even know if "mental retardation" is a PC term anymore, so please excuse me if I'm being... ridiculously offensive or something.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

"retard" is not PC. And using "mental retardation" as an insult isn't PC. There are all kinds of mental retardation it can be cause by many things. some come with debilitating physical illness, others don't. Some really limit the quality of life and independence people have. Others live lives that are probably more rewarding than you or I.

The trouble is there a big die toss involved. You don't know how severe it will be.

What I have noticed is that when people with forms of mental retardation choose to have kids they often want to avoid passing it on to their kids. Often, but not always. I think it's right to be supportive of choices that favor and those that avoid selection.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

a lot of times, mental retardation comes along with physical conditions that are life-threatening, but the retardation is not life-threatening itself

Indeed, that is one of those cases when there is no life-threatening condition.

I'm seeing conditions impacting the quality of life every day in my job. It's not a one-answer question, but if we're to assume that the mothers (parents) are the ones who should have the freedom to decide what to do with their bodies, all I'm saying is that I'd understand why they'd think twice if they had the ability to decide in such cases.

I don't care about the PC debate on the term "retardation".

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

I don't care about the PC debate on the term "retardation".

You should. All people have asked is that everyone stop calling people "retards" as an insult. Is that so hard? Not really.

[bex.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes, but this is the great epithet arms race, isn't it? At one point, "mentally retarded" WAS the politically correct term. Until people started using it as an insult. Same with "spastic", "idiot", "moron", "stupid", "imbecile." This happens because people WITH these disabilities are looked down upon. No matter what we call them, that term will end up as an insult, simply because of how people feel about people with disabilities - to compare an able-bodied individual to someone with a disability is considered an insult. Until you correct that attitude and make society more egalitarian, you will never have a "PC" term for long. It will always end up as an insult, and then you'll need a new word... again and again and again.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

Or we could stop thinking that having disabilities something worthy of insult. I mean this is simple to say hard to do. It's a nice first step to just listen to what a large number of people and their families have asked for quite vocally.

I know I have been raised in a culture steeped in prejudice and I will never be perfectly free of it myself, but I can do what's asked of me at least.

I don't know, part of it is that we confuse people being shortsighted/assholes/mean/careless etc. with mental illness. We confuse character flaws that are under an individuals control, with things that are NOT under our control.

But I think we can handel telling these things apart, and find better ways to describe human folly than by analogy to mental illness.

[bex.livejournal.com]

Or we could stop thinking that having disabilities something worthy of insult. I mean this is simple to say hard to do. It's a nice first step to just listen to what a large number of people and their families have asked for quite vocally.

That's exactly what I just said. I said "Until you correct that attitude...".

My point was that it's fine to eradicate "retard" as an insult and try to police speech, but until you correct the underlying problem that people with disabilities are looked down upon, whatever new term you come up with ("different-abled", for example) will eventually become an insult. Then you'll need a new term. Then THAT will become an insult.

So, as I said, you have to change the attitude underneath the speech. The speech itself is dynamic and ever-changing, so if you only focus on correcting speech, you will never catch up.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

It's OK, I won't use that word since it annoys people. But I wouldn't argue for or against it either. That's what "not caring" means in my case.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

But the choice is very personal. There are something about me I'm OK with my kids having, something I WANT then to have, and some things that caused nothing but suffering in my life I wouldn't wish on my worse enemy.

Take the awful teen-aged acene I had. Why would I want to watch my child live with that? All the teasing shame and misery? For what "genetic diversity?" No way.

Eugenics is very scary because the last folks who advocated it were scary destructive people. But, the same can be said for Wagner's operas, the philosophy sucks but it's still nice music.

I don't think we risk losing genetic diversity. The things parents care about are two diverse, and most people still want their kids to look like them and be like them in many ways.

An athletic prowess isn't "superficial" it enhances ones ability to enjoy life. Why would I want to have a kid who's as bad at running (for example) as I am. I've made myself miserable trying to do things that I just don't have the genes for-- (like run marathons) should my child care about such things I want it to be easy for them.

I've had to deal with depression for most of my life , and that's one "negative" trait I don't really care if my kids have depression has huge benefits.

Now if you share my ideas with other people they will agree and disagree with my choices. And THATS what preserves your diversity. We need only protect those things that are often *not* present in the parent like homosexuality.

Many folks think avoid mental retardation would be fine (judging by the poll) but to really know we should talk to people with mental retardation and ask how they feel about it. The few I know are in favor of section for the same reasons I don't want to have a kid with bad acne or one who is very short or tall. On the other hand people with high function dyslexia and Asperger's often relate to their illness as I do to depression. It's has positive parts and negative parts. I think we need depressed people, dyslexia and Asperger's.

[bex.livejournal.com]

An athletic prowess isn't "superficial" it enhances ones ability to enjoy life.

Athletic prowess is not just one thing, though. I suuuuuuck at running - I don't know why, I just do. However, I'm good at dancing. Dancing is an athletic endeavor. There are a few people out there who seem to be good at every sport, but most of us just have one or two we actually enjoy. I'd like to run a marathon, too. If I want to do that, it will take hard work and I'll need to overcome my limitations - isn't that the whole point? Would you deprive your child the character-building experience of doing something that is important to him at which he doesn't immediately excel? I think it's important to have things in life that you struggle with but want to fight through. I think being around a person who has a natural ability for everything they want to do would be ridiculously dull.

I just think, as Meus says below, we don't know nearly enough about this stuff to be selecting for or against it. Maybe struggling with teenage acne has made you a better person in some ways, perhaps more compassionate or understanding - who knows? Besides, eradicate acne and kids will tease about something else. The acne is not the point.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

Maybe struggling with teenage acne has made you a better person in some ways, perhaps more compassionate or understanding - who knows?

It hasn't. Trust me.

I just don't buy this "everything happens for a reason" stuff that seems to be behind people who want to stand in the way of people making these kinds of choices for their kids. Lots of things happen for no good reason and they aren't good, they're just ... bad.

If we can use technology to change that I'm more than happy to get on board. We can always freeze some sperm if we need to dig up old traits later.

I don't think having these choices will change the world but it could make life a little less painful, a little longer, a little more fun. That's worth it.


All we are able to do is select which fertilized egg to use, it's not really tampering with nature or editing it, it's just furthering the natural selection that goes in to how we choose partners and how many kids we have and many other normal choices.

It will be as good and depraved as we are, nothing more nothing less.