A little bug in the system
Once upon a time, I was very, very ill and it led to breaking up with a girlfriend. Even though everything was fine in the relationship and we both cared about each other, I couldn't in good conscience continue the relationship because I knew that one day, she wanted to have children and even though I did too, I wasn't going to run the risk of my child suffering an inheritable disorder. I was 21 at the time.
Well, I have a daughter now and, she has had issues with allergies since before she was born and now, seizures with a cause still yet to determine. In all likelihood, she inherited these things from either myself, or her mother. This is life.
But, what I am interested in is what if I had been able to select an egg/sperm that lowered the chances of certain known genetic diseases, would I? With the suffering that I myself have experienced up until this point, I would be quite cruel to inflict similar upon my child with a a high rate of probability.
Let's say that in some alternate world, my wife and I would have been able to remove the genetic code for these disorders, safely and effectively I think that both she and I might choose to do so. Wouldn't you?
But, would that be where it ends? All traits are essentially inheritable including those of personality and intelligence and we are already altering them, just at a much slower rate than gene splicing. whenever we are choosing our partners we are effectively including some code and excluding other and although far from perfect, it is why we advance the way that we do.
One study I remember from a few years ago was on obesity in ratssource showing that grandchildren of fat grandfathers ended up much fatter than those born to lean lineage. It wasn't straight genetic factors though, it was the environmental effects on genetic expression of the genes. The result is the same though isn't it? Fat parents will inevitably make a higher rate of fat children and fat people in general will likely have partners who are also fat meaning an ongoing skew toward increasing amounts of fat percentage. I used this example on purpose but, there are many more.
Perhaps, it is not all the physical reaction either, perhaps it is the psychologically inherited traits (which are physical also but for ease of differentiation I will pretend they are different). In all likelihood, things such as ability to remember, perhaps work ethic, empathy and attention capabilities are inherited. This would have indications on ones ability to learn and socialize and therefore, take advantage of environmental conditions.
If I could redesign myself to have traits that are fundamentally better for my own and other's well-being, I would be crazy not to take the scalpel and cut away the useless (like high procrastination) and introduce the effective (like memory). If, I could do this for a child that is yet to be born to give her the utmost chance of possessing skills necessary for flourishing, it would be quite a big call to say, no.
Even if all that was extracted was the chance of various diseases, or perhaps resistance to various diseases at the genetic level, wouldn't that be the best course of action?
This is the problem with it all though as we will inevitably overvalue some traits above others and many will be trend based on social norms of the time, like women who decided that the shape they chose for their tattooed eyebrows would always be in. We wouldn't end up changing for our betterment as in mos likelihood, we would be changing for fashion.
Regardless of what we may think about gene editing at the moment, it is going to arrive and people are going to eventually be able to design their children like building an Ikea kitchen. What will be interesting to see is what will be left of the original code from the parents? At what point are the children born to a couple unrecognizable physically and genetically to the parents themselves? Does it matter?
Currently we work on some inherited traits that predispose us to preferring certain partners over others as well as compromising our wants for our more base needs also. We have an inherited desire to socialize and procreate and for the most, who they end up with isn't who they might choose given a free hand in the decision making process. One might prefer Jessica Alba or Scarlett Johansson but unfortunately, they stopped replying to all the creepy tweets.
This means that a lot of our choices are made on an availability bias, not an optimization process and, not many are willing to take themselves out of the genetic pool just because they are not the best of the best. This is also a good thing of course since nature can throw in some random surprises to keep us evolving.
But, we are already evolving ourselves without nature's help (everything in essence is natural since in the universe there is only possibility). We are directing our future genetic pathways through the partners, food, information, resources, contaminants, chemicals and thinking we choose to allow into our experience. It all pushes us in certain directions and the more similar the direction, the more close the genetic code will become. A lack of diversity has its issues too but through our 'human' choice, there is still a long way to go before total homogeneity.
But, intriduce genesplicing and fashion and pretty soon, we are all looking the same, thinking the same, acting the same and living the same. The choices we make will be better as our intelligence grows, our technology will advance in leaps and bounds and Utopia may be found. We will likely be very healthy though and live a very long time but, at what cost?
At this point, I just wish my daughter wasn't suffering. What parent wouldn't want their child to be healthy?
Taraz
[ a Steem original ]
If you were able to select the egg, it would be selecting a different child to be born, if the egg made it that far. I think this is what's missing from the larger discussion, and there are also implications on the question of abortion.
People tend to speak as you do, "I would be quite cruel to inflict similar upon my child with a a high rate of probability." The "child" thus is a container for what becomes of the reproductive process, but really a particular child is their genetic make up. Another genetic combination, another unique child, as in siblings. This is quite simply shown by non-identical twins, who are exactly this experiment run in parallel. Identical twins demonstrate the supporting converse.
This implies that if you select an egg, you necessarily don't select the other eggs, at least the ones you have considered an passed on. So this could be considered pre-abortion. Or stated the other way, abortion (up to a certain point) is doing this selection after the genetic combination has taken place, selecting in the negative. In both cases, to put in context of your own concerns in the piece, you are choosing to not inflict what you consider to be less ideal being on one of your offspring by not having them at all.
This can be an uncomfortable thought. Like most things, though people don't like it, the philosophical arguments here have practical consequences. And so are important. You're bringing a good discussion here.
Yes, this is correct it would essentially be pre-abortion yet, it is done in every single case and menstrual cycle so, if we take it to an extreme, is a women performing pre-abortion by not saving the eggs for potential life? Obviously, that gets a little silly.
The selective process is made each time by nature (randomly) and it seems that no one counts nature liable in a court of law for a miscarriage. Is it practically any different if humans choose to lessen the randomness or, is it just what is palatable to the illusory concepts we limit nature with?
Of course, i have no idea either way but, from a thought perspective it is interesting to think about these things earlier than later.
You've made all the points of the silliness without stringing them together. When a fetus is aborted by "nature", in other words unintentionally, it is called a miscarriage. When it is aborted intentionally by the woman it is called an abortion. The distinction is purely on an an intention based rationale.
These two words have medical and legal meanings, and the distinction can be extremely important for the continued liberty of the woman, depending on jurisdiction and society. More personally, it can also drastically change how a woman feels about the event, as one may be thought of as an "accident" and the other as a "choice".
If you select eggs intentionally you are doing something different than allowing yet another menstrual cycle from completing without ending in pregnancy. But, and this is my point, only from the precedent of our societies.
Animals do not (to the best of my knowledge) intentionally cause abortions in themselves or their companions, and certainly cannot select on the level of the egg, not at least intentionally, because they are in fact devoid of the high level of intention we humans have.
We come back to this again. We are blessed and cursed with foreknowledge, with being able to extrapolate future events from past and current. We can plan, with consciousness, not only in some elementally instinctual way. So we feel the loss of potential so keenly.
What I've attempted to show here is that our sense of potential loss is not adapted for many situations. The knowledge of what could have been in a child for example, definitely in the case of egg selection but I would also argue that in general abortion too. This applies in many areas, we even see it here in Steem with people saying "give me back my money" when you down vote their potential rewards. The cart is put before the horse, the eggs counted (and named, college fund set up, clothes picked out) before hatched.
While understandable, it's ignorant, and that's the real silliness.
But, they do kill the young of other males and produce levels of sperm to give their offspring the best chance of being born.
If we look at it from a universal/natural law order, there really is only possiblity as impossibility can't exist. So humans limit potential based on psychological/emotional concepts that nature would never limit. From nature's perspective, if it can be done, fair play.
This obviously doesn't work well for societies who are bound by the laws of limitation and then gets applied to various other aspects. For example, homosexuality. People can say it is unnatural but, nature allows it through possibility. If it was unnatural, it would be impossible.
Of course, I am not condoning nor condemning things, it is just that people often think through these areas from an emotional or magical view point without considering the limitations they impose on themselves while wanting to be free.
Incorrect. There is possibility, and then there's what exists. Impossibility doesn't come into it, it's theoretical and only of interest to our weird minds.
It's true that there are many forms of reducing possibility of offspring to a very deep level of indirection, which is where killing a potential parent would come into it. Still, we're talking about more direct methods of selection, not that less direct are not of interest generally.
On the use of so-called "natural law order" in human society, I agree that it's not something to model as such. It's a baseline of which to be aware. Some animals eat their young. Should we? Obviously not.
I think you use a definition of "unnatural" that is not commonly held, though the actual one isn't much more useful. It is unnatural for a human to be able to select which egg gets fertilized directly. That does not mean it's not possible. It just means that "in nature" this cannot happen. This is nature as the "state of nature". We look at what is possible in the wild and that is the nature referred to when judging if something is natural or not.
By that definition homosexuality is very natural. Our closest genetic relatives do it. Killing each other is natural, including killing other rivals in mating. Miscarriages are natural, so is widespread death in childbirth. Then, elective abortion is unnatural, as is direct egg selection, or high-tech genetic screening. I only describe the common usage here, in order to explain, not promote.
There is the conclusion made (selectively and only when it suits, in usual usage) that what is natural is moral. This is why some people think that carrying a dead fetus to term is a moral imperative. It is also the grounds on which some will object to genetic therapy, or egg selection.
Arguing over nonsense but, before it existed it was just possibility /potential to exist. This is what I meant by just possibility rather than tie it to a time constraint. And maybe I didn't explain well but, i said the same thing, impossibility can't exist therefore is irrelevant to nature (if nature cared for irrelevancies ;) )
I don't see that that is possible is moral for humans because we are tied to time. This means there is future responsibility of action. Nature doesn't care for future, it ony lives in the immediate moment and has what it has right now. There is no planning, just randomised action that lives or dies with no preference for either.
This means that no matter what happens, nature cannot be harmed, no matter what it experiences, even if the universe was to turn to zero, it doesn't have an awareness of it.
A species however has a goal to survive and therefore must plan its tools to hopefully best suit that purpose but, it must also randomize to some degree for strength through diversity. This means that humanity must have take a moral view to best advance the continued survival of the species. However, not all will survive and not all individual moral stances need be successful or even useful.
Some of the greatest advancements in humanity have come about through the negotiation after atrocity. It is possible that without that harmful (still moral) view and behaviors, we as a species would be weaker as a unit.
Of course, I have no idea about what is right or wrong in all of this and all of my own views are born from experience, observation and self-exploration. The problem I have with most people claiming certain moralities and degrees of correct is that they themselves have rarely done the thinking work necessary making their moral view not theirs at all and therefore, only acting on the programs they have been embedded with.
I see this as a potential for a lot of damage in itself as a low range of moral diversity will inevitably lead to triggers that create moral panics and this will then lead to a lot more harm done as people defend what they think is right without ever question if they even agree with it.
Excellent and controversial text you bring us today, @taraskp. I believe that we are all looking for perfection at this moment and that means "eliminating the faults" that we may have. From a stain to a hereditary disease. I believe that genetic manipulation is already here and some religious groups may be against these procedures because they may think that man is playing God. But if it is for the good of humanity, why judge these advances? Obviously, the environment and the times in which we live can also influence human beings. The medium also shapes. There are studies that show that in Asia the majority are suffering from visual illnesses or the growth of the big toe of the hand due to the use and abuse of computers and cell phones. Not to mention the progress of young people in society as a result of the progress of new forms of communication, and I am particularly in favour of anything that will help to "build" a good and better man. Greetings
Yet, many of the same religious groups will encourage to marry within the sect and not recognize the irony.
Is it controversial? :)
Parenting, the work of a lifetime. (Or longer depending on whether you live 100 or 200 years). It's fun to imagine what the fashion industry would come up with, marketing wise regarding genetics.
Model 820X with blue eyes and blond hair. Very calm temperament, IQ of 200. Asperger's. (Oops Science can't be perfect)
Asperger's 'sufferers' are great as they are refreshingly honest ;)
Yes, I didn't want to insinuate it's a problem per se, but I know of a woman that had an abortion because her fetus had the autism gene. Another subject for debate :P
Why not just sterilize the lesser breeds? Such process is more efficient and less costly than genetically modifying the progeny of the lesser breeds into complying within acceptable parameters.
Of course, the fitness of a genetic trait is environment dependent and subject to arbitrary whims of a sociopolitical policy. So-called "mental" illnesses, such as ADHD, is but a mismatch of character traits with the sedentary monotony of modern academia. In a more physical times, the fools who sit obediently in their cubicles would be the ones with "mental" illness. Cystic Fibrosis gene would be necessary to combat cholera, but in our overly sanitary milieu, such traits are redundant and useless. Sickle Cell anemia and Thalassemia traits are still necessary to combat malarial infections in much of the world, so these genes cannot be excised. From a macroscopic perspective, lack of genetic diversity is the surest path to species extinction, as the adaptability of species to inevitable environmental changes diminishes.
I thought about adding that in somewhere but decided to let it come up organically.
Indeed. So we will decrease diversity (survival potential) while increase the rate of change to the survival band where humans are able to live. Clever folk.
Advanced genetic engineering seems inevitable now. We should be concerned about its most pernicious applications not a lot of babies born with the genes for similar looks in some particular year. Fashion is ever changing so I don't think there is any real danger of humanity ending up having no genetic diversity. And I believe genetic diversity will at some point be a completely moot issue as we might move on to other substrates than our natural biological wetware.
The genetic diversity might slowly be limited by thought diversity. It is hard to imagine in the early stages but it is possible that this process could to lead to a very homogeneous culture which would then limit effective options of individuals within the group.
A lot of us would indeed like to modify us to be naturally better, as well as doing it to help future generations be better.
When you talk about fashion, that will probably be one of the reasons people start to modify genes, but either way, at least the people will have the possibility to help their children have natural advantage in order to have a good life.
The most important aspect is the one related with health, that is the true value of these procedures.
Well I don't see a very considerable cost compared to the potential benefits, I am sure people could start to be more good looking than otherwise, but I don't see anything that could be considered as a cost.
And as you say, this could also allow the new generations to be even smarter, so in my opinion, I am completely happy these procedures are coming :)
The initial cost would be availablity and then oppression trough denial of service to some over others. It would not only create income gaps but massive disparity in all valuable traits as those who could afford would and then, close out the threat of competition.
According to your consistency with your posts, I never would've have guessed you struggle with 'high procrastination'... but maybe mine is beyond high because I struggle with it too. I think we all desire to fix our 'flaws' or what we feel are our 'shortcomings'. Perfection in everything is this thing human beings chase after relentlessly... but I believe with genes it's a little bit harder. I don't think there's anything that leaves a parent feeling helpless than their child is in pain and there's nothing they can do themselves to take it away. It is unimaginably limiting.
I hope your daughter stops suffering soon.
Yes, which means logic steps it onto gene manipulation by human desire. For better or for worse....
Genes are ine very powerful biological elements we have in our bodies. It dictates a whole lot of things. It is quite unfortunate that one cant alter his or her gene to give the unborn child the very best in nature.
One of the problems we often encounter here in Africa is the situation of a sickle cell anaemic patient falling inlove with another of his kind. Doctors often encourage them not to end up having kids but how many of them adhere to that instruction? They end up getting married and putting untold pain upon tge innocent child.
I hear if gene editing and modification but i dont know how effective that could be in eliminating a perticular trait entirely.
Hi Taraz. Gene doctoring will be a thing that happens in the not so distant future. We all want our kids to be healthy and not have to deal with lifes struggle with an ailment. Hopefully your little one will get sorted and will be something simple that she can grow out of. No one can predict the future but we owe it to our children to give them the best we can.
It is going to be an interesting future. It would be nice to be able to alter a few gens on the fly too... most likely the global fat percentage would go down and the average penis size up.
Lol. Maybe they will cock up and have lots of fat penises.
Many times we are so afraid of something and that something appears in our lives, Although everything happens because it must happen, and we still do not have the option to choose or discard the "details" or genes.
And since this is not possible, it is necessary to work to provide the best conditions.
I want health for your daughter and your whole family.