# Genetic Discrimination



## Creator (Apr 25, 2006)

How will this affect our lives should this happen. Since I cannot post the Url
Google Genetic discrimination for info on the subject

I am currently writing a sci fi tale about genetic discrimination. Alpha Omega


----------



## Creator (Apr 25, 2006)

I just want to know what do you guys think of the subject


----------



## jackokent (Apr 25, 2006)

I guess it sounds pretty scarey cause it's new. 

I read an article once about this written by somone with a psyical disability and they were concerned that life is the rich tabestry it is because so so called imperfections which should, in fact be called differences.  If such differences were eradicated at birth mankind would lose a lot by way of understanding and learning.  There is also a view that such differences are the way in which a species evolves so stamping them out is very dangerous and short sighted.

If genetic engineneering had been around at the start they might have wiped out all those little fish that developed lumps on thier bodies, later developing into legs.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Apr 25, 2006)

Well, Gattaca is a great movie for those just coming into this topic.

Genetic discrimination will happen. Certainly there was a furore over here last year when insurance companies were trying to get legal access to their employee's health records so that they could analyse which of them were 'bad risks' and could have their premiums raised accordingly.


----------



## Creator (Apr 25, 2006)

I heard of Gattaca and read it's synopsis and of course my Alpha Omega is a lot different from Gattaca but only the genetic discrimination is the similarity. 

In Alpha Omega the problem is a lot more serious than in Gattaca. The conflict escalates to a full scale war. And We will see the differences between the Designer Humans and Non-Designer Humans


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Apr 25, 2006)

Sounds like "Space Seed" in Star Trek as well


----------



## chrispenycate (Apr 25, 2006)

Genetic discrimination has been going on as long as… no,much longer than mankind; it's an essentialpart of natural selection. Mankind is now its own only serious predator, so if we wish to prevent species degeneration, there must be a pressure to improve (the definition of "improve" varies from person to person, the only common characteristic being that each one includes himself) If this can be done prenatally, by editing out genes that would otherwise be detrimental to the organism (in particular, several genetic diseases) then I, personally, consider this an improvement over culling after birth, the more traditional technique. While this would reduce our genetic diversity, I can't see in what circumstance haemophilia (as a random example)  could be a useful trait
.
Selecting or editing for a desirable characteristic is another question, both morally and technically. Breeding for life in space, or underwater, could be done by purely traditional techniques (like developing a new breed of dog, wasteful but a mature technology) or gene splicing (with the problem that we can't estimate for a generation or two all the interelated changes, genes not being simple "this codes for blood oxygen transfer" units) Either has disagreeable side effects, particularly socially, but worse than "all blacks are animals" or trying for a final solution to Europe's jewry?

So, personal opinion? I don't think they'll be able to select for increased intelligence (a very complex question) before society has advanced far enough to absorb the change, even religions bending to the pressure from their more financially successful members. Though one or two of the simpler ones, like sex selection, might come up and bite us sooner than we think.


----------



## jackokent (Apr 26, 2006)

I guess I was only thinking about deliberate or man made genetic selection, not the stuff that's been going on naturally.

With the random example of haemophilia, in the same way as with the original fish growing legs, we may not realise it as a useful trait yet. To a fish in the water legs would have appeared to be a disability and a hinderance. That is why I think it could be dangerous to eradicate genes. If nature tries to adjust, as it does, and we overcome any such adjustment by this type of eradication, we may be halting progress instead of aiding it. 

Just because man has no natural preditors does not mean that nature may not be getting us ready for another climate or stage, or anthing else that requires fundamental natural selection. The interim stages of developement could look like nature's mistakes, but how would we know.

I also agree that gene culling is a lot nicer than culling after birth, but something being nicer than something quite abhorant isn't a good argument for doing it. It might just be an argument for not doing the former.

So saying I am probably taking absolute rubbish, it's late and I've been drinking and I think I could probably fit everything I know about genetics on to the back of a postage stamp... twice.


----------



## Creator (Apr 26, 2006)

For a bad spoiler in Alpha Omega the designer humans have shown a weakness. I am not going to reveal it until later......

I will do up the character designs of it.


----------



## Locksmith (Apr 30, 2006)

jackokent said:
			
		

> I guess I was only thinking about deliberate or man made genetic selection, not the stuff that's been going on naturally.


 
As Chris hinted at above, the problem of deliberate genetic discrimination is that it has the rather poor PR of being very close to genocide! Whilst I can see there could be health benefits, there are certainly some pretty complex moral issues to be sorted out before this idea gets anywhere. In the UK we have enough problems accepting GM crops (Frankenstein food to the tabloids), let alone people.


----------



## Creator (Apr 30, 2006)

What is PR? Locksmith?


----------



## cornelius (Apr 30, 2006)

public relation?


----------



## Locksmith (May 1, 2006)

cornelius said:
			
		

> public relation?


 
Bingo!

Sorry for the shorthand!


----------



## kyektulu (May 1, 2006)

*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...*


----------



## Creator (May 2, 2006)

I am with kyektulu here. I think it's a sad future so stay tuned to Alpha Omega coming soon.


----------



## CarlottaVonUberwald (Jun 21, 2006)

hang on....FOP... if i could use either gentic methods to cure it... or to not have a child with it... i would...same with Huntingtons ( sp?) and similar diseases.


----------



## Creator (Jun 22, 2006)

you have a point
maybe the only way to prevent genetic discrimination is to control genetic therapy into such a way where you can remove genes that are fatal but not add genes like the designer babies. And also we have to ensure that genetic data is kept private to the patient and not publicised except to the authorities like the police...etc


----------



## chrispenycate (Jun 22, 2006)

You’re oversimplifying the problem ; if the records exist (in hospital files, police files, government files) then corporations, hackers, those rich enough to bribe technicians would obtain access to them.
And the majority of gene splices used would not be “designer jeans, sorry, genes“ but proven human gene complexes. As an example, suppose the pattern that prevented HIV infection from developing into AIDS could be isolated. (statistical analysis strongly indicates this pattern exists) What more normal than that a rich and caring parent have this incorporated into offspring ? After all, it will be increasing in the population naturally, anyway. And what more normal than that someone equipped with this  advantage would be somewhat less careful about spreading the virus ?( although « careful » is not really the norm even without the treatment)
Even assuming that all that was done was to splice out known death-causing factors, can you imagine a world where the rich (and this could mean countries or individuals) had a life expectancy of 150 years, without neural degradation, while the poor are happy to reach 80, and, worst of all this is a birthright ; no opportunity to work yourself up to superior status (personally I find the “all humans are born equal“ democratic ideal misleading, even dangerous, but there’s no doubt that both it and the “natural human rights“ fallacy permeate modern society)
The problem, as I see it, is that the potential benefits of genetic technology are so great, that its possible dark side is correspondingly powerful.


----------



## Creator (Jun 22, 2006)

Hmm chris has got a point, maybe the problem cannot be solved overnight. but one thing is for sure is that it's evry person's right to have privacy especially genetic privacy.

http://www.gene-watch.org/programs/privacy.html


----------



## CarlottaVonUberwald (Jun 22, 2006)

i would never claim its simple but i heard about someone today who lost to daughters to ms and i cant help but think that either genetic screening or engineering could stop his pain as well as that of his past or future children..


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 22, 2006)

I think genetic screening definitely has its advantages. Yes, there are also all sorts of abuses waiting in the wings. That's the case with just about anything you can mention: the more complex life becomes, the more things can go wrong; but there's no turning back that clock, and to think we can is simply wearing blinders, however well-intentioned. That's why it's increasingly important for people to be educated, and not to simply formulate opinions based on emotional reaction (again, however well-intended, or even seemingly reasonable as these reactions may be). If we're to make anything approaching a "democratic" ideal work, with any attempt at justice, or even simply humane behavior, the responsibility for such really does lie on the people; and its success lies on their willingness to educate themselves and be involved. It may be a pipe dream, but without such commitment, we're going to see an increasing gap between those who have the power and those without; and this includes the issue of genetic discrimination in a very big way....


----------



## Creator (Jun 23, 2006)

I agree in one tale I am writing Alpha Omega. The only advantage seen with this genetic discrimination is the fact that many bad mutations are gone from the designer baby population and the natural borns. There is a invisible villian who hates natural borns, pulling the strings of the world government to do things that cause genetic discrimination. 

But however there are some genes that are beneficial but are regarded as bad genes in the story.

But the designer humans have a big weakness. I will not spoil things so.... no details except a SARS and avian flu comeback.


----------



## CarlottaVonUberwald (Jun 23, 2006)

i would slso like to make a point that ( and tyhis doenst apply to people o nthis forum really) but many of the designer baby attributes aren't even proven to HAVE genes let alone have they been isolated..


----------



## manephelien (Oct 18, 2006)

It's a tricky issue. We should sort out the ethical problems involving stem cell research, which could provide genetic therapies for several debilitating diseases.

I support trying to eradicate severely debilitating diseases, as long as the consequences are fully known. Sickle-cell anemia is prevalent in many African and Asian countries, because the gene that causes sickle-cell anemia also protects from malaria, if you carry just one allele. SCA requires two.

Designer babies, though, are a different story. Babies are individuals in their own right, not mini-parents. I abhor parents who try to live vicariously through their children, such as buying them a piano at 5 and forcing them to practice for hours on end, just because all they wanted at 8 was a chance to play, and their parents couldn't provide the opportunity. In many cases, parents should be banned from the audience at sports events where their children perform. Who knows where this would go if parents got to pick, say, athletic talent for their kids? What if the kid hates sports in spite of being so talented, or isn't quite good enough in spite of the genetic therapy? Should GM kids be allowed to participate in the same events as unmodified ones? What about kids who naturally have the mutation others have added through genetic therapy? Assuming there even is any gene you can use for improving athletic talent.

Intelligence is another matter. I have a sneaking suspicion that extremely intelligent children often face a lot of trouble, in part because less intelligent people treat them with suspicion, and in part because their emotional development is no faster than that of other children. Just imagine a 13 year old with the emotions of a 13 year old and the brain of a 25 year old.


----------



## Dave (Oct 18, 2006)

A number of different points raised here. And I just saw some news this morning that is relevant and I'll quote it.

Firstly, most human characteristics are the result of groups of many genes, that is true, but once they have mapped the human genome, and with increases in computer number crunching power, I would think they could easily isolate the complexities enough to have 'designer babies' made to order. I don't think that is a good idea, but it is coming anyway.

The same goes for the insurance aspect. The economics of the cost of health care will drive that scenario. In the same way that societies atttitudes are changing towards heavy smokers who damage their lungs, or heavy drinkers who damage their livers, or towards the overweight, then I think it will change towards people who have a genetically high risk of having a disabled child yet go ahead anyway. It will be seen as an 'own goal' and with rising health care costs people are going to ask "why should I pay for them?"

On the subject of diluting the gene pool, I think the road of 'designer babies' is a dangerous one, and a road leading ultimately to our own extinction. For a start, who says if someone is beautiful or not? Who decided what is the correct height to be? Many tastes in beauty are just fashions and they change with time. Have you ever seen portraits of beauties from the Tudor period? If this was possible say 7 years ago, wouldn't all our children now be in the image of 'Posh and Becks'?

Sickle Cell Anaemia shows how seemingly disadvantageous mutations can actually have advantages. The sufferers of the illness have a reduced life span, a maximum of forty years. However, it is believed that carriers (sickle cell trait) are relatively resistant to malaria. Since the gene is incompletely recessive, carriers have a few sickle red blood cells at all times, not enough to cause symptoms, but enough to give resistance to malaria. In parts of the world where Malaria is rife, people don't live to forty anyway.

I don't think we yet know enough about some diseases to try to eliminate them completely from the gene pool. Autism is something that comes to mind here. People with Asperger's Syndrome, a mild form of Autism, often have extreme difficulty interacting socially, preferring to focus on narrow fields of interest. But often they're able to pursue those interests with great intensity.  Geniuses throughout history, including Albert Einstein, Andy Warhol and Emily Dickinson, have all been suggested to have had Asperger's. And  Nobel Laureate Vernon Smith has spoken openly about what he calls the deficiencies and the selective advantages of Asperger's.

I read this this morning, it says that HG Wells was spot on:





> _from the Daily Mail_
> *Haves and Chavs - how man will look in the year 102,000*
> 
> Social division might split humans into two sub-species 100,000 years from now - just as HG Wells predicted.
> ...


 I'm not so sure of that myself. I do think the species will diversify though. When we colonise Space and have people living in zero-G, legs will become a useless appendage. The muscles waste away and blood pools in them leaving less available for the rest of the body. Under such circumstances, wouldn't a paraplegic have a distinct advantage?

I don't see the kind of diversity seen in the 'Ringworld' novels, where hominids have evolved to live in every different ecological niché - with carnivores, herbivores and scavengers. I do think we will get differences between HeavyWorlders and Belters though.


----------



## manephelien (Oct 18, 2006)

Blood doesn't pool in the legs in zero-g. In fact, it tries to escape the legs, being used to fighting gravity normally. In any case, legs aren't useless in zero-g. They help center the center of gravity near the pelvis, which has a convenient joint/bending point, and are useful as counterweights (counter-inertias?) in zero-g movements. If we stay long enough in purely zero-g environments, though, I could envisage a retrogression to apelike feet, i. e. the return of an opposable big toe to grab objects.


----------



## Dave (Oct 18, 2006)

Sorry I was wrong about the blood. You're correct. Due to the absence of gravity, blood from the lower body shifts to the upper body. The heart adapts to this by swelling to accomodate the extra flow of blood. The body adjusts to this by reducing the amount of fluid in the body. But skeletal muscles still lose mass, strength, and endurance. If someone is actually spending their life in space, then muscles will have atrophied so much that they would be unable to support the body in the presence of gravity. In addition to that bone marrow loss can be as high as a 1.5% loss per month in the legs.


----------



## Saltheart (Oct 18, 2006)

Gene therapy should only be used to cure critical diseases not for cosmetic changes and augmentation.


----------



## jackokent (Oct 18, 2006)

But as others and I have said, by eliminating a gene, that at first to us looks like an illness or useless, we could be halting a necessary evolutionary developement.

Of course if I could cure a myself or a loved one through this method I would, without hesiation, but that doesn't mean it would be a good thing for society as a whole.


----------



## Saltheart (Oct 19, 2006)

jackokent said:
			
		

> But as others and I have said, by eliminating a gene, that at first to us looks like an illness or useless, we could be halting a necessary evolutionary developement.
> 
> Of course if I could cure a myself or a loved one through this method I would, without hesiation, but that doesn't mean it would be a good thing for society as a whole.



Then consider this: if a person had no will to live because the disorder is critical enough to make the said genuinely suicidal, it would be best to just cure the disorder: Leprosy, Huntington's, etc.

Not for mere changes like curing a cold, but actual ones that leave a person not only crippled physically, but emotionally too due to alienation and futility.


----------



## Creator (Oct 19, 2006)

Whoa! AFter weeks of absence and this thread returns to life! Nice info guys.....!

But the question is that does this genetic discrimination problem stem from workplace discrimination in the first place or did it originate from something more.....?

I have an article in my local Singapore newspaper about pregnant women and age discrimination.... and it made it clear to me that this genetic discrimination may stem from such simple and small beginnings as well as setting the right settings for Alpha Omega

comments?


----------



## jackokent (Oct 19, 2006)

Saltheart said:
			
		

> Then consider this: if a person had no will to live because the disorder is critical enough to make the said genuinely suicidal, it would be best to just cure the disorder: Leprosy, Huntington's, etc.
> 
> Not for mere changes like curing a cold, but actual ones that leave a person not only crippled physically, but emotionally too due to alienation and futility.


 
On an individual basis yes, of course anyone would be crazy not to seek a cure, but as for the long term benefits to society as a whole, whilst it seems obviously one sided, by destroying a gene are we potentially destroying a developement that will eventually do us good.  I am not saying we are, I am say we don't know yet and that could be dangerous.


----------



## Creator (Mar 25, 2007)

BUt I also wish to know...... how do the people discriminate others via genes? if it's qualifications, racial, sexual discrimination, obesity discrimination. Tt's very obvious right? But how do these people get discriminated via genes? They have genetic detectors or something?


----------



## Dave (Mar 26, 2007)

Creator said:


> [Do] they have genetic detectors or something?


You can have DNA tests done now. It costs as little as $250. All that is required for your scenario is to make them compulsory. They don't test every gene though, for that we'd need to map every gene and the cost would be prohibitive at the moment.

Don't you ever watch those TV shows shown at a certain time in the mornings when they give people free paternity tests because the mother has slept with so many men that her boyfriend doesn't know if the child is his or not?

Have you never watched a police or crime drama when they take DNA samples from hairs, blood and semen to match with the murderer?

I have actually just had my DNA tested for family history research purposes. 37 Y chromosome markers are tested (there is a more expensive 64 marker test too) and they can tell me from that which Haplogroup and Subclade I belong to (basically where my very ancient ancestors came from), and also how closely I match to others with the same surname. Because the Y chromosome is passed down from grandfather to father to son and surnames are also passed down from grandfather to father to son then people with the same surname share the same Y chromosome. There are subtle variations that occur due to mutation over time, and this is what the tests test. From the number of differences you can tell how many generations ago you shared the same ancestor.

This is leading to some extreme family history research. Where one used to be able to find your ancestors to about 1800, maybe if you are lucky with parish records back to 1600, now people are finding cousins with the same surname who are many centuries apart. 

Daily Herald - Internet, DNA testing make modern genealogy an extreme pursuit

That article explains how all of British Royal family, 18 U.S. presidents, 14 first ladies, Walt Disney, Colin Powell and Brooke Shields are all descendents of Charlemagne.

What it doesn't say is that new research shows that most of Asia has been found to be the descendents of a single man. After some research they believe that man can only be Genghis Khan.

As you can see, genetic testing is a subject that interests me. I don't like the idea of genetic discrimination though. 


Creator said:


> But I also wish to know...... how do the people discriminate others via genes? if it's qualifications, racial, sexual discrimination, obesity discrimination. Tt's very obvious right? But how do these people get discriminated via genes?


Have you never seen _Gattaca_ a film from 1997 and out on DVD? The *Valids* and the *Invalids*.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 26, 2007)

Dave said:


> That article explains how all of British Royal family, 18 U.S. presidents, 14 first ladies, Walt Disney, Colin Powell and Brooke Shields are all ancestors of Charlemagne.


 
Errr, Dave... don't you mean "descendants"?  But you raise some good points here. And it really isn't difficult at all to have these tests run... though they're running into some interesting problems with the subject of the chimeras; we're going to have to refine this process considerably yet. But it's enough as it stands to begin genetic discrimination. In fact, that's going on now, to some degree, with preferences being named for physical characteristics when people are looking to adopt children, or even with some attempting to find ways to get genetic manipulation going...


----------



## Dave (Mar 26, 2007)

Thanks for pointing that out, it didn't make much sense so I edited it.

I was just thinking about Creators last question more:





Creator said:


> how do the people discriminate others via genes? if it's qualifications, racial, sexual discrimination, obesity discrimination. Tt's very obvious right?


Those things can all be genetic - sex is obviously, skin colouring, intelligence and certain skills, even obesity!

So, in that respect we already do have genetic discrimination and always have done.


----------



## Creator (Mar 26, 2007)

ok since it ain't compulsory...... but if it's complusory. Gattaca might become reality. I am now looking for the movie but it's not available in Singapore.... I will find a way to obtain it.

But how would job employers or insurance agents, etc get access to this information in the first place?? If it's the police, it's the forensics but job employers and insurance agents?


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 26, 2007)

You'd be surprised how much of that information is accessible to them already. And, frankly, it wouldn't take much to get that sort of thing rolling so that any genetic material gathered with a simple physical examination would be accessible to them, under any number of rubrics, from "national security" to "protecting the economy" to "preventing a disruptive influence". It all depends on how invasive and totalitarian any government is willing to be... and on that one, I don't trust any of them any further than I can throw this whole ball of mud with a broken pinkie....


----------



## Creator (Mar 26, 2007)

I am still in the blur...... but by right this info is classified, r you saying that they hired hackers?


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 26, 2007)

Creator said:


> I am still in the blur...... but by right this info is classified, r you saying that they hired hackers?


 
It isn't necessarily classified. Depends on what the paperwork you fill out says. And, of course, under some of the new laws (anti-terrorism, as well as some of the other things that are surfacing) it's easy for things to be in a "gray area", and therefore not necessarily illegal to collect the information.

We've recently had cases of police getting glasses and silverware from restaurants to get that kind of information on suspects, after all. And hacking for such things isn't unheard of... just darned difficult to prove.

Another interesting aspect of this is that there are now cases in the courts to decide whether or not you actually own your own DNA information, from what I understand. If I remember correctly, these involve such things as firms that have collected things for aiding in reproductive purposes, but also from various other medical tests people have signed up for, etc. In other words... right now it's being decided whether you have the right to restrict the selling of your genetic information by a third party, once you give that party permission to gather such. I've a feeling that one is going to be a very prolonged and heated battle, with major sociological repercussions....


----------



## Creator (Mar 26, 2007)

OH.... I see no wonder I am so blur about this subject. So much repercussions and complications. but still I am puzzled as how the employers get the information in first place. A DNA database or IC with genetic info encrypted into them?


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 26, 2007)

So far as I know, employers aren't yet doing that sort of thing ... though there's talk about going that way (to save on insurance: discrimination against people whose family has a history of high risk for cancer, heart disease, etc.); but I wouldn't be that surprised if some of this information were to be exchanging hands; though the logistics of it would seem pretty insuperable at this point. Insurance companies, on the other hand, are another matter; they have access to an awful lot of information about a person health-wise, and any healthcare where they are contacted, they may have access to more information than you realize. At this point, again, it's unlikely that the money's being spent to get that kind of information yet... but it may be just a matter of them figuring out a way to make it cost effective (quite possible, by looking at how much they'd save in payments to those who are genetically predisposed to high risk conditions, for instance)....


----------



## Creator (Mar 26, 2007)

I oh so insurance agents have access to this infomation...... so the employer can just check or something like that. 

So for a GATTACA or Alpha Omega scenerio, genetic privacy is completely invaded such that we have insurance agents, employers and the like having easy access to a person's records. 

Right?


----------



## Creator (Mar 26, 2007)

So what do we need or should I say what factor are needed for something like GATTACA to become a reality and what is needed to prevent this disaster.....

but I think if a government decides to collect everyone's genetic info and makes this a compulsory law.... this is one of the things that could lead to GATTACA.... but what else?


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 26, 2007)

Creator said:


> So what do we need or should I say what factor are needed for something like GATTACA to become a reality and what is needed to prevent this disaster.....
> 
> but I think if a government decides to collect everyone's genetic info and makes this a compulsory law.... this is one of the things that could lead to GATTACA.... but what else?


 
I'm not quite sure I follow you there... Are you asking what other sorts of scenarios can develop? It may sound extreme, but it is quite possible: criminalization of someone who doesn't match up with approved genetic standards. That's likely to be a very long time coming, as it will mean establishing an "approved" genetic model and making a fair chunk of the populace fit that mold, but it is a possibility. Anyone who thinks it isn't, look at the human race's penchant for genocide on the slenderest of excuses. Ethnic cleansing, anyone? And the U.S. is no less prone to this sort of thing than any other country... it just takes a bit more finagling to get it in place. Joe McCarthy and the Red Scare ring a bell?

As for what it takes to prevent such... well, it's been summed up long ago: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." (Actually, I think Len Deighton's Bernard Samson put it best: "The price of freedom ... is eternal paranoia. Vigilance is not enough.") That means watching those in power as if you were a hungry hawk intent on dinner. Questioning authority. Accept nothing on anyone's say-so; look up the facts for yourself. Fight tooth and nail to hold onto what liberties you have. And make yourself a hairy nuisance when they start treading over the line, and in as many ways as possible. In other words, do all you can to keep them honest. It's no guarantee... but trusting _any_ government is _never_ a good idea. Government is, at best, a necessary evil... it is never a good thing; simply better than the alternative.

Frankly, considering so many people are using up all their energy simply to stay afloat... I'm none too sanguine on the outcome....


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 26, 2007)

Creator said:


> I oh so insurance agents have access to this infomation...... so the employer can just check or something like that.
> 
> So for a GATTACA or Alpha Omega scenerio, genetic privacy is completely invaded such that we have insurance agents, employers and the like having easy access to a person's records.
> 
> Right?


 
And no, I don't think insurance people have that access in full yet. But there are cases going through the court system that indicates that they may have at least some access to it, and it's been caught early. As to whether it will have the kibosh put on it through this... I doubt it. They'll always be looking for a way around it, to save money. And, yes, eventually at least, employers will have access to that via the insurance agencies and the medicos they pay for. However honest a doctor is, most hospitals these days are _businesses_, and will not be above selling information or access to information if it is legal ... even barely so.


----------



## Creator (Mar 26, 2007)

I was asking apart of a government that made genetic recording compulsory, what other factor could lead to widespread genetic discrimination.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 26, 2007)

Hmmm. Well, one possibility is increased pressure to provide genetic information before marriage. Didn't use to have to have blood tests, but in most places that's compulsory now, for health reasons, if nothing else. But if you have a populace where people want to know what sort of genetic material their mate has, to gauge what kind of offspring might be produced (or if they're looking at someone who may outlive them or will keel over early...)

The possibility that employers will indeed get things pushed through allowing them to discriminate for purposes of economic advantages. Research linking certain types of genetic makeup with certain mental disorders predisposing to criminal behavior.... Alcoholism has a large genetic component, as does most substance abuse, so I can see any number of factors that would play in there.

The thing is, eventually, this sort of information will be as easy of access as numbers and addresses, or the information encoded on your drivers' licenses, are now. That's almost inevitable. And that means that anyone who has machinery to read that encoded information has access to it, from the police, to employers, to dating services, to credit card companies, in time....


----------



## Creator (Mar 26, 2007)

like putting this info into identity cards?


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 26, 2007)

Creator said:


> like putting this info into identity cards?


 
Oh, that one is almost certain to happen.


----------



## Creator (Mar 26, 2007)

oh dear..... :[ Soon GATTACA or Alpha Omega might happen

Nvm thank you j. d. worthington for this wonderful session..... look out for Alpha Omega soon... IN the meantime I will look into Gundam Seed and GATTACA and see what can be improved.... thanks a lot for enlightening me....


----------



## Dave (Mar 26, 2007)

Creator, just do a search with Google for "Eugenics". I just did this and was shocked. The first hit is a Wikipeadia article. Eugenics as a philosophy is much older than the Nazis party, it also had much scientific backing, but I assumed that that was now discredited. I was wrong, the rest of the page are people actively promoting Eugenics. There looks like a huge movement for this among fundamentalist religious groups, especially in the USA. When you consider how quickly these kinds of groups are growing today, this is quite worrying to me. (It certainly puts the Mormon's (LDS) odd behaviour of baptising all their dead ancestors into the shade.)


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 26, 2007)

Dave, was this part of the article you cite?

Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That bit about Graham's project... my gawd!


----------



## Creator (Mar 26, 2007)

Omg!!!!!


----------



## Creator (Mar 26, 2007)

NOw will have another factor in this whirlpool of terror.


----------



## Creator (Mar 26, 2007)

And kinda explains that the rebellion in Alpha Omega has advanced technology, well cause 45% of its population had Autism or Autism/Normal Hybrids.... or geniuses.


----------



## Creator (Mar 26, 2007)

ok ..... Looks like this problem was actually very very old...... I believe we all still have a lot to learn


----------



## Creator (Mar 26, 2007)

But how is this related to genetic discrimination?


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 26, 2007)

Creator said:


> But how is this related to genetic discrimination?


 
Eh? Eugenics? Simple. You pick for desired traits, you encourage the breeding (or even enforce by law or government programs as happened with the Nazis, for instance) according to those traits you desire, and discourage (including enforced sterilization) those you don't consider "desirable" ... whether that be a physical or mental trait. I'd call that genetic discrimination of a high order... wouldn't you?


----------



## Creator (Mar 26, 2007)

Understand now...... Thank you very much. Looks like it will take everyone to control this power or completely eradicate this desire to make designer babies.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 26, 2007)

Creator said:


> Understand now...... Thank you very much. Looks like it will take everyone to control this power or completely eradicate this desire to make designer babies.


 
Pretty much. However, considering how well we work together... I don't hold too sanguine hopes on this. More likely, we'll have to learn by being burned... and that could be one very nasty burn we've got coming....


----------



## Creator (Mar 26, 2007)

Then GATTACA is probably a movie I would want to watch!


----------



## Dave (Mar 26, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Dave, was this part of the article you cite?
> 
> Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> That bit about Graham's project... my gawd!


Yes that, but also if you do Google "Eugenics" like I mentioned you will find pages of modern-day organisations promoting Eugenics. I don't wish to promote them, but for instance this:
Future Generations

Then there is Eugenics by stealth, through the back door - sterilisation as a condition of parole from prison, contraceptive implants free to women on medicare, gene therapy.

There is more reading on that here:
Eugenics

This all comes as a surprise to me, I thought that Eugenics as a concept was buried long ago - the coffin lid sealed with it's association with genocide, human experimentation, racism, and the Nazi Party - but it seems to be alive and well.

The thing most concerning to me was that many of those websites appeared to be associated with religious cults. Because Christian and Islamic fundamentalist churches are those expanding the fastest in the USA, it would not be beyond a little speculation to see a future where a government there was lobbied to introduce some kind of Eugenic measures.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 27, 2007)

Dave said:


> Then there is Eugenics by stealth, through the back door - sterilisation as a condition of parole from prison, contraceptive implants free to women on medicare, gene therapy.


 
Yes, I've heard of cases of this, especially dealing with sexual offendors ... which in the States is an awfully broad umbrella term that I've seen applied to everything from someone who kidnapped, raped, and mutilated, to someone who was basically drunk and disorderly and relieved themselves behind a dumpster and was seen by an adolescent (I kid you not -- some of those people are labeled as sex offendors for life, because of the way the case went).

Frankly, I don't give a damn what you've done, this is _*NOT*_ something the state should be doing to people, period! Under _*NO*_ circumstances should this be in their purview. Other methods of controlling someone who's a genuine danger, yes (though anything like this must be carefully considered and never a "one-size-fits-all" sort of thing... which is exactly what we have, a frightening amount of the time.



> This all comes as a surprise to me, I thought that Eugenics as a concept was buried long ago - the coffin lid sealed with it's association with genocide, human experimentation, racism, and the Nazi Party - but it seems to be alive and well.
> 
> The thing most concerning to me was that many of those websites appeared to be associated with religious cults. Because Christian and Islamic fundamentalist churches are those expanding the fastest in the USA, it would not be beyond a little speculation to see a future where a government there was lobbied to introduce some kind of Eugenic measures.


 
Dave -- first, thanks for the clarification. I'll look at those a bit later. Second: I learned a long time ago to never count anything out. In fact, the more barbaric, the more inhumane, and the more disturbing... you can almost guarantee it will make a resurgence periodically, like a monster out of a nightmare. We've only made surface changes, really, since the dawn of civilization; our fundamental nature has changed very little. We may bemoan this but, frankly, that's an awfully short time, when you think about it... and human beings qua human beings haven't even been around all that long to begin with. This does not, however, prevent me from wishing we'd stop making the same damned mistakes over and over again. _That_ gets depressing.

As I said, I'm not surprised that anything like this crops up again ... look at the various other things we thought we'd long ago outgrown: the odd sorts of neo-mysticism, and witch-hunts; prosecution and prison time (or stoning) for adultery; torture of political prisoners -- not even necessarily violent ones, but those who nonetheless get the rhino's attention in one way or another ... I recall a study done in the 1980s where there were prisons here where political prisoners were tortured via use of cigarette burns, cattle-prods (sometimes inserted)... etc. And, as you say, with the upsurge in the barbarism of so many of the branches of fundamentalism (religious or otherwise), which tends to condone such views of people who are "other"... well, what do we expect?

We've abdicated the use of reason and logic and genuine understanding for muddle-headedness, and this is the result. If anyone wants to know why it's important to learn to reason, to think critically, to examine and question authority, to discard any sort of party-line in favor of a genuinely humanistic and humanitarian approach... things like this should be inarguable. But people in general don't listen, don't think for themselves, and certainly don't take the time and effort to think critically. As long as that remains the case, we'll continue to see such things crop up, over and over again.


----------



## Creator (Mar 27, 2007)

Thanks guys I am enjoying myself talking with you..... You just made my fic Alpha Omega a little bit more challenging and mysterious and "real". so it's time to remove some fantasy elements.


----------



## Creator (Aug 30, 2007)

Whoa! It has been 6 months since I last stepped into this topic.... So let revive it..........

After all the research and all, I am still rather confused how genetic discrimination works, I don't think we have genetic information that is accessible to the public right?


----------



## chrispenycate (Aug 30, 2007)

For the time being, no-one can map any gene groups to any particular characteristics (well, apart from some pretty blatant diseases) When they start remarking correlations between gene groups and behavioural patterns, the scene is set for a phrenology-type frenzy (and who will bet that certain "racial" types will turn out to have a criminal predisposition?)

We are some way from that, and a long way from "tailor-making" genetic structures, but with the detection of various faults, genetic surgery to repair potential diseases, the statistical probability of others (cancers and the like, that arrive later in life) the tendency is definitely in that direction.

Apparently, in the UK, every newborn baby's gene scan is now recorded. For medical reasons, of course, but it also gives the authorities thirty years down the line a database to find out wherever one of their citizens have been. And, if ever a correlation is found between work habits and some gene patterns, corporations will be able to choose the most genetically apt… Very "Bave new world"

Of course the information will be encoded, relyably secret – these are government departments, bureaucracies, we're talking about. 

I'd get your story written relatively fast, while it's still SF.

But, modern technology apart, almost all discrimination has genetic roots. The further from your immediate family group he falls, the more suspect an individual is, and when this is made obvious by skin colour or "little slitty eyes" discrimination is a given. These characteristics are genetically controlled, and the reactions aren't calculated, they are hard wired into us (by our own genetic heritage) Certainly, as a society we can learn to overide these primitive hangovers, and should, but that does not mean they cease to exist. Females? they're almost another species. You can never truly understand them, they need constant surveillance (please feel free to invert or modify as befits your gender or social group – it makes little if any difference)


----------



## Creator (Aug 30, 2007)

Errr.... still a bit blur... I meant how do we known if someone, like an employee has defective genes from one who has desirable ones?


----------



## Dave (Aug 30, 2007)

Creator said:


> Errr.... still a bit blur... I meant how do we known if someone, like an employee has defective genes from one who has desirable ones?


Well, this story was in the news a few weeks ago:
FOXNews.com - Study: Blue-Eyed People 'Smarter' than Brown-Eyed - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News
_Study: Blue-Eyed People 'Smarter' than Brown-Eyed_

While chrispenycate is right that it will be quite a while before they map the whole human genome, they are working hard at it, and they should be able to associate some characteristics with others i.e. intelligence with eye colour, concentration with hair colour maybe?? Haven't they found some correlation between heart disease and plaque growth on teeth?

Wouldn't employers only like to hire only the most intelligent people, who won't get distracted and won't die early?

I think it is more an issue with life assurance and health insurance than with employment though. If you can't get those because you are a bad genetic risk then you have no future, even if you can get a job.

You could envisage whole sections of society being excluded - imagine, ginger haired people completely ostracized.

Apart from the obvious discrimination or racism that leads too, it leads to social inequality - haves and have nots - the valids and invalids.

Social inequality leads to social unrest - people with no hope, no future except poverty and an early death, have nothing to loose but to revolt.

Although it sounds like a future where diseases are banished and everyone is a perfect human specimen, it is not somewhere I would like to live.

And your point - how do we determine a perfect human specimen - I think we covered that already as Eugenics - who has the right to determine this?


----------



## Creator (Aug 30, 2007)

Well then our genetic codes would have to be on our ID cards for "real" genetic discrimination to happen right? I watched GATTACA again... and did some thinking... Our genetic data would have to be exposed so often like in our ID cards in the form of barcodes then...... well I am outta words to say.

But then why would a govt do something like this to its people??


----------



## j d worthington (Aug 30, 2007)

Creator said:


> Well then our genetic codes would have to be on our ID cards for "real" genetic discrimination to happen right? I watched GATTACA again... and did some thinking... Our genetic data would have to be exposed so often like in our ID cards in the form of barcodes then...... well I am outta words to say.
> 
> But then why would a govt do something like this to its people??


 
Have you forgotten your recent history? Ethnic cleansing? Concentration camps? _Death camps?_ _Hell, yes_, they would, under the right circumstances -- _any_ government has the potential to do so. This is a lesson history teaches again and again... especially if things get rocky, and you need a scapegoat....

And no, you wouldn't need it to be on your ID cards... "sharing" programs that are in a gray zone (after all, it's to improve the economy!); hackers, illegal as they may be, can still sell that sort of information on the black market and, in places where it's an "at will" proposition (as with many states here), an employer can fire you without giving any particular reason -- and if they feel you're of a group that's a risk economically.... Let's face it, hackers have got into government computers before, and will do so again. How much information they'll get is problematic. Perhaps all they'll end up with is gobbledygook; but then I'm minded of a recent little fiasco here where tons of personal information got lifted from the government, and they're still scrabbling to clean up _that_ mess....

As noted, the information itself is by no means a bad thing... but we human beings have a very nasty tendency -- at least, _en masse_, as in countries -- to turn any advance in knowledge into at least a _potential _weapon against others of our species... even if they are "our own".....


----------



## Creator (Aug 31, 2007)

Ok... there's got to be a valid reason for a "good" govt to incorperate such a law.

The only reason is that there is some sort of "genetic disease" going around and the govt want to cull it at its tracks. Or maybe to eradicate or reduce diseases.


----------



## j d worthington (Aug 31, 2007)

Nice of you to use quotation marks there... I'm afraid I tend to agree with a lot of the older philosophers -- and no few of the founding fathers here, for that matter: there is no such thing as "good government"... it is at best a necessary evil, and never to be trusted any further than a toddler can throw a skyscraper.....

Well, okay... that last bit is a modern restatement.....


----------



## iansales (Aug 31, 2007)

A cynic might point out that your founding fathers' definition of bad government was one that didn't include themselves. And their attitude has created an expectation of bad government, which has only resulted to a self-fulfilling propecy 

British attitudes are different, possibly because government here was traditionally the perquisite of the land-owning class.


----------



## Allegra (Aug 31, 2007)

chrispenycate said:


> Females? they're almost another species. You can never truly understand them, they need constant surveillance (please feel free to invert or modify as befits your gender or social group – it makes little if any difference)


 
LOL Chris, don't you think it's better if we _don't _truly understand each other? 

Ah, sorry, off topic.


----------



## j d worthington (Aug 31, 2007)

iansales said:


> A cynic might point out that your founding fathers' definition of bad government was one that didn't include themselves. And their attitude has created an expectation of bad government, which has only resulted to a self-fulfilling propecy
> 
> British attitudes are different, possibly because government here was traditionally the perquisite of the land-owning class.


 
I'd argue against that, Ian, as such a definition of government (as I noted) reaches back at least to the ancient Greeks, who formed a considerable influence on the model the founding fathers designed. The problem is that governments are run by people, and are prey to the same venalities and determination to maintain power as one sees in individuals as well as groups. The only thing that makes a government work even moderately well is when they have built-in safeguards to prevent them from running amuck.

And I'm not so sure that British attitudes (overall) are/have been all that different, at least historically, perhaps for the very reason you cite.....

Point being... _any_ such technology is open to abuse and will almost certainly be abused by _any_ government, _anywhere_, _anytime_. The most we can hope for is that there will be enough scrutiny to make such abuses more difficult, and less pervasive....


----------



## Creator (Sep 4, 2007)

Err aren't we going a little out of my question? Well so far the only reason why a government good or bad would do a eugenics programme would be the eradication of genetic diseases but what disease could prompt any govt to do so? Cancer is widespread enough to wipe out our species, Obesity? Hmm....

What do ya guys think?


----------



## Dave (Sep 5, 2007)

You forget Aryanism! That had a wide following, and not just in Germany.

We are all of us, naturally tribal in our instinctive behaviour. That's what Chrispenycake was saying:





> almost all discrimination has genetic roots. The further from your immediate family group he falls, the more suspect an individual is, and when this is made obvious by skin colour or "little slitty eyes" discrimination is a given.


But I say again, who gives anyone the right to determine what the perfect human specimen is? And isn't such a concept false anyway?

Take autism as an example - characterized by impairments in social interaction and communication, and restricted and repetitive behavior - that makes them unable to have "normal" social interactions - and our society likes people to conform otherwise they don't fit into the "normal" work and play patterns. But is it a disorder or a condition? And what about autistic savants who can perform mind-boggling mathematical gymnastics? It seems that we are all of us somewhere on the autistic spectrum, and although research is on-going, it appears that the same connections in the right hemisphere of the brain that cause savants, may also lead to autistic behaviour.

If we are able to pick the genetic make-up of our children, or to alter it with gene-therapy, I expect most people would not choose an autistic child. If there were no autistic children anymore, who could say how many maths geniuses would also be lost?

Now apply the same thing to other genetic disorders. Who knows yet what conditions are associated with which genes, and which genes are associated with other genes, but my example earlier about blue eyes and intelligence would naturally lead to people choosing blue-eyed children. What happens if brown eyes are found to be associated with poise and balance? No more dancers and gymnasts anymore?

There is a massive, and I mean really huge, market in skin-whitening products for people with dark skins. The reality of discrimination means that these people would choose to have white children if a choice was possible. Can that ever be considered right? 

Having a choice in your genetic make-up, or having governments making rules governing it, will only lead to one thing for certain, and that is the reduction in the overall gene pool of the human race. I think I said in an earlier post that if it had been possible a few years ago, all the 6 years olds would now look like "Posh and Becks". This can never be a good thing to happen.


----------



## Creator (Sep 5, 2007)

What Dave described about Autism is quite true I shared your sentiments.


----------



## Delvo (Sep 5, 2007)

Dave said:


> If we are able to pick the genetic make-up of our children, or to alter it with gene-therapy, I expect most people would not choose an autistic child. If there were no autistic children anymore, who could say how many maths geniuses would also be lost?


Zero. Autism is not savantism, nor even particularly connected to it; it affects people of "normal" intelligence or "regardless" of intelligence. People have just come to expect savantism to apply to mental/neurological conditions in general because of the inordinate amount of attention that is given to the few exceptions to the rule (and perhaps because it appeals to a somewhat denialistic sense of cosmic fairness). But the reason those few cases get the attention is precisely that they are so exceptional and far from normal.



Dave said:


> Who knows yet what conditions are associated with which genes, and which genes are associated with other genes, but my example earlier about blue eyes and intelligence would naturally lead to people choosing blue-eyed children. What happens if brown eyes are found to be associated with poise and balance? No more dancers and gymnasts anymore?


The more we learn about genetics, the more we'll not only be able to answer the "who knows" questions, but also be able to identify which things are and aren't linked to each other like that. For example, some brain development genes have already been identified and some certain alleles of those genes have been found which must confer an advantage to their bearers because evolution's been selecting in favor of them, making them more widespread in less time than random drift would have. So there are definite, inarguable "advantageous brain genes", even if one chooses to resist calling them "intelligence genes". And they do not influence eye color. Meanwhile, the eye color genes have been known for a while, and they don't influence brain development or function. So precautions based on speculation of hypothetical possibilities aren't needed in that case, and are progressively being eliminated from other cases as we speak; knowledge of genetic facts replaces such speculations.



Dave said:


> There is a massive, and I mean really huge, market in skin-whitening products for people with dark skins. The reality of discrimination means that these people would choose to have white children if a choice was possible. Can that ever be considered right?


How about if they had children that were not made to be of another race (which would require altering/replacing hundreds of genes, most of which don't have visible effects), but were of the same race with just somewhat lighter skin? (All races have some variation in that anyway.)



Dave said:


> Having a choice in your genetic make-up, or having governments making rules governing it, will only lead to one thing for certain, and that is the reduction in the overall gene pool of the human race.


In some cases it will reduce it by getting rid of gross genetic defects. In other cases it will increase it by leading to new ones and/or increasing the commonness of relatively uncommon traits.

And neither an increase nor a decrease is necessarily good or bad based on that alone anyway. To go with your expectation of racially-motivated engineering, for example, making lighter hair & eye colors more common or coming up with new genes for new kinds of hair/eye lightness would actually increase diversity, but it would do so in a way that you presumably would find bad because of the racial issue.

And that's not the only racial issue waiting in this field. Remember those "advantageous brian genes" I mentioned earlier? They're far more common in Eurasian lineages than in African or Australian ones. And future genetic engineers didn't make it that way. There are a lot more genes out there that are more common in one race than another or even absent from one or more races, many still with unknown effects, and only a few of them can be for the obvious undeniable visible differences. The more of them whose effects we identify, the more of them will turn out to be for things we don't want to think of as racial differences.


----------



## Dave (Sep 5, 2007)

Delvo said:


> Zero. Autism is not savantism, nor even particularly connected to it.


I didn't mean to (nor do I think I actually did) give the impression that all autistic individuals were also savants. But there IS a connection, and one which has been noted for centuries. It may not be a genetic connection, I was merely saying 'what if it was?' Maybe it wasn't a good example to use. There is currently research into this and as you rightly say we will learn more about what alleles are connected to each other.

It could be that the inability of autistic individuals to alter the focus of their attention is also related to their ability to selectively direct all of their attention onto one activity. As savant abilities tend to be related to the five primary senses (visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, and taste), it can be hypothesized that these senses are developed in the right cerebral hemisphere at the expense of the left cerebral hemisphere. 


Delvo said:


> So there are definite, inarguable "advantageous brain genes", even if one chooses to resist calling them "intelligence genes". And they do not influence eye color. Meanwhile, the eye color genes have been known for a while, and they don't influence brain development or function.


I don't profess to know anything about it other that what was reported in the press two weeks ago. All the major newspapers and online sources were reporting the opposite: that there is a link.


Delvo said:


> How about if they had children that were not made to be of another race but were of the same race with just somewhat lighter skin?


No doubt that would happen, yes.



Delvo said:


> In other cases it will increase it by leading to new ones and/or increasing the commonness of relatively uncommon traits...
> 
> ...coming up with new genes for new kinds of hair/eye lightness would actually increase diversity, but it would do so in a way that you presumably would find bad because of the racial issue.


I hadn't even considered that, but you are completely right. While many people will want their kids to conform and look just like everyone else's kids, there will be just as many people who will want to give them a more unconventional look. Try adding Jellyfish fluorescence as has been done to mice and pigs for the ultimate punk hairstyle!


Delvo said:


> "advantageous brian genes"


 You flatter Brian too much. 


Delvo said:


> They're far more common in Eurasian lineages than in African or Australian ones.


The is what was being hinted at by the reports I read on blue-eyes and intelligence. You obviously know more about that subject than me, so tell me, is that statement a proven one, or just an attempt at a modern day Ayrianism by some people with an agenda?

I do know a little about human migrations, enough to know that there were several different migrations from Africa to Asia, and Asia to Europe. There were many different migrations into Europe followed by clustering due to climate changes. But the migrants who colonised Africa and Australia were the first and have the oldest clades.

If it is true that the "advantageous brain genes" are more common amongst the migrants who were naturally selected to survive under the difficult conditions resulting from Ice Age expansion and retreat, then it doesn't really matter if it not Politically Correct to say so.


----------



## Delvo (Sep 6, 2007)

Dave said:


> I don't profess to know anything about it other that what was reported in the press two weeks ago. All the major newspapers and online sources were reporting the opposite: that there is a link.


They reported a link between two phenotypes, not genotypes. A phenotype is the final result: the body and behavior. Genotype is just the DNA. Phenotype can be affected by genotype and by other factors in the environment.

For example, kids of all races start out lighter in the eyes, hair, and skin than adults of the same race, then darken up. How much an individual darkens up over the long term, especially in the eyes more so than in the skin (because skin darkness fluctuates more quickly in an individual's life) is already known to be influenced by how much sunlight (s)he is exposed to in the early years. How much exposure a kid gets to sunlight could be based on his/her personality or on how the parents raised him/her, and both of those things are known to affect behaviors that influence success later on.

General quality of diet, such as plentiful protein and carbohydrates, is another environmental factor that is known to help intelligence, and it might have some effect on appearance of darkness/lightness.

Another possible factor some people are sure to believe in is cultural: that there's a prejudice in favor of light coloring and against dark coloring, even within the narrowed spectrum of just the white race or even a particular white nationality, and not even considering other races. Then the successful people they're talking about were given an easier time, better education, more credit for their accomplishments, and such because of the way they looked. Plenty of people already believe that and would jump on these recent reports as "just yet another example", and if they're right, then that's another non-genetic explanation for the observed link.

Here's another one: light eyes are associated with light skin and hair because they all have the same cause, that being low melanin... and light skin is better than dark skin at producing vitamin D, so generally people with lighter pigmentation can get more vitamin D when all else is equal. (In high-sunlight environments, dark skin doesn't lead to deficiency because the skin gets so much more sunlight anyway; this is a problem they face when they move to low-sunlight environments.) Vitamin D regulates the utilization of calcium, so a shortage of D, which darker people are more likely to be short of, means you aren't able to make proper use of the calcium you're getting. Severe cases of D deficiency are normally associated with bone and tooth problems, but brains use calcium too, so this could be a previously unmeasured effect of D deficiency, especialy at early stages or in mild cases (before bone/tooth problems call attention to the deficiency).

Is there an either causative or coincidental tendency for lighter people to live near coasts or for any other reason eat more fish? Our brains are high in fatty acids, which fish are the best source of.

An explanation I saw being given in comments to the stories online was that blue eyes are common in northern white people and rare in non-white and even in some southern white people, so this reveals nothing more than differences in the success rates of the races, which was a fact sociologists were already aware of as a racial issue by itself rather than really an eye-color issue; thus the eye color is incidental, just an irrelevant indicator of the real cause, which is race. This presumes that the "researchers" were dumb enough not to cancel that factor out by only comparing people of the same race/nationality to each other, but I can't say they weren't, since there's no description of what their "study" was like.

I could probably name a few other possible non-genetic causes for the phenotype connection, but the point is that, as they say in some of the online articles about it, it's an observation, not an explanation, and genes aren't a part of the observation.

And I'm doubtful of even the observation. Just saying "Look at all of these successful people of this eye color" isn't a study; it's a set of anecdotes, and those are so prone to overextrapolation and selection bias (the observer thinking a pattern is there that isn't, or picking only examples that fit it and ignoring the ones that don't) as to be worthless. For example, one of their few examples is Stephen Hawking. He's famous among laypeople, but not a very big deal in the world of theoretical physics. Yes, he was good enough to get in to an exclusive profession, but so were hundreds of other people whose eye color distribution isn't mentioned, nor are the eye colors of that profession's true stand-outs who aren't as famous as Hawking despite having contributed more to their field. If there was a true study of IQ distribution or something like that behind these articles, then there should have been at least some kind of description of the methods and some numerical details about the results. The absence of both makes me suspect that there isn't even a real observation here to need to explain at all, with a genetic explanation or any other kind.



Dave said:


> No doubt that would happen, yes.


Well, then, since you seemed negative about darker people's alleged preference for white babies, what would you say about dark parents having a baby modified in just the skin color gene and leaving the other hundreds of racially-distinct genes alone? Is that still a race-relations (sociological/psychological) problem?



Dave said:


> The is what was being hinted at by the reports I read on blue-eyes and intelligence.


No, that was an unexplained report of a phenotype connection where a genetic issue is no more than implied at best, and I'm talking about cases in which the genotype is the reported observation itself. Here and here are two copies of an article that came out more than two years ago about a couple of the first cases of "brain genes" with uneven racial distributions; here is a thread I started at another forum about them and two other different articles about the same thing which are now gone, but which are still quoted in my first post.

That was followed up more recently with another article I can't find at the moment, describing how humans are actually separated into genetic groups with very little overlap which match conventional concepts of the races, each of which has dozens to over a hundred of alleles that are common in that race but rare or completely absent in others. That article was talking about any genes, coding for any traits, including obvious things like skin color and lactose tolerance, not just brain genes. It also said that the exact traits that most of the other racially-distinguished alleles code for are not yet known. But it did mention one or two more "brain genes" in addition to the first two I mentioned in the above paragraph, and those again had the same pattern of distribution between races as the first two (with the added twist that, within Eurasia, at least one of them isn't equally common in easterners and westerners). I don't know where that article was for now, but I'll try to find it tomorrow.



Dave said:


> is that statement a proven one, or just an attempt at a modern day Ayrianism by some people with an agenda?


The fact is a fact; even those who argue against the "politically incorrect" interpretation don't deny the fact itself; it's just a matter of how they interpret it. Interpretation is where agendas come in, and the articles I've seen about the brain genes seem to be straining to emphasize that they are NOT concluding racial intellectual inequality. (But you could say it's hollow, because such a disclaimer is essentially an obvious requirement for anyone to be taken seriously today even if they were racists. I've seen opponents of other authors in other cases with racially sensitive implications lambaste them as racists trying to hide behind cheap obligatory disclaimers of non-racism and reluctance which they didn't really mean.)


----------



## dustinzgirl (Sep 6, 2007)

I don't care which "race" (I don't believe in "race") is smarter, stronger, faster, or can make the better latte. I really don't. What I care about, and what you should all be caring about, is not so much genetic discrimination (esp in America, right? LOL) but GENETIC CONTROL.

Nature has her ways. I am of firm belief that screwing with them will piss mother nature off. Thats probably a bad idea. 

Not to mention the ability of governments and corporations (which are ever becoming one and the same) to create genetic markers, retainers, and sleepers, which will be able to function in a employable (for lack of a better term) sector of the gov/corp specifically for the gov/corp without betrayal or care for what is right. 

You all know as well as me that the gov/corps will use genetic control to create thier own race of followers, new police/mercs with no ties to anything but the gov/corps.

Now beyond that, I think if we start MAKING people anything but what they are supposed to be, we will create a world that will destroy itself. Why? Because to create, we, as humans, need discontent and malady. To be passionate about something, we need to feel the pain of loss. How many people do you know took up a fight against something after one of their family members, or themselves, fought and won/lost? Damn near every charity and medical research facility began this way. 

If we are all the same there will be no passion, no love, and nothing will become better. 

And aren't diseases in place as part of mother nature to keep down an ever rising and earth destroying population as it is? Seriously, how many people are there on earth? More than there are trees, almost! Diseases and illness and death are there for a reason. Yes it hurts the individual persons but it protects the whole. If we eradicate diseases combined with our current rate of growth we will over populate and starve to death on a global scale. Then where will your aryian blue eyes be? Hungry and dead.

Also, the next time I hear someone say that blue eyed people are more intelligent than others I will freaking scream. 

Look, I know science, somewhere, had tried to show that. But when you take people of a different culture and give them tests of the other culture, do you expect them to pass? Could any blue eyed aryian dude survive in the wilds of Africa for a month? No, and the opposite, forcing a test for aryians onto non aryians is biased, regardless of if it is in school or over time or whatever, even just counting up how many blue eyed geniuses there are compared to non aryian, because you would only be counting in the western world, completely ignoring how intelligent the members of another culture are in their culture. 

And Delvo, anytime someone publishes something that says a certain "race" is genetically different and therefore not as worthy as another I would take offense, because they are only looking for their own similar characteristics, only judging based on what they currently know within their "race" and not even looking at other markers that would be important to further the world. 

It takes all kinds, not just biased smart people, to make a world go around.


----------



## Delvo (Sep 6, 2007)

Here's either the other article I couldn't find before, or at least one that's pretty close to it and uses some of the same references and the same big image:

Humans Have Spread Globally, and Evolved Locally - New York Times


----------



## Dave (Sep 6, 2007)

Puting aside the race issue for one moment, I was wondering today why I feel so strongly about genetic modification in humans anyway. I mean, it's already commonplace in farm animals and crop plants. I seem to see moral and ethical issues that others don't think are so important. Human-animal chimeras were green-lighted in the UK only yesterday, something I thought I would never see. It seems that if it is possible, then someone will do it.

I decided that it was to do with the fact that you are making the choice for another person -namely your children and your children's children. If I went out and had my genes changed so I had fluorescent blue hair, then there is little difference to dyeing it, or getting a tattoo. But if I choose a child with fluorescent blue hair then that is completely different.

I feel the say way about people naming their kids Fiffi Trixibelle Peaches Apple Banana, or after the entire Liverpool Football Squad. It's just wrong.

On Dustinzgirl's point about governments and corporations - she could have added genetic weapons. The genetic bomb that can kill everyone in one race but leave another - what kind of fun could they have in ethnic cleansing with one of those?


----------



## dustinzgirl (Sep 6, 2007)

Dave said:


> On Dustinzgirl's point about governments and corporations - she could have added genetic weapons. The genetic bomb that can kill everyone in one race but leave another - what kind of fun could they have in ethnic cleansing with one of those?



Sadly all too possible. Governments have (as far as I believe, anyways) used viruses to diminish a population, or provided weapons for one faction to destroy another (as I believe is true in Darfur, I mean seriously--where did they get all those GUNS?) So a genetic weapon is not too far off. It will be a sad, sick day, but its coming.

Our world is spiraling into insanity because we, as the human race, have turned away from what is natural and right in the name of greed.


----------



## Creator (Sep 8, 2007)

dustinzgirl said:


> Our world is spiraling into insanity because we, as the human race, have turned away from what is natural and right in the name of greed.



Ah Dustingirl..... nice to see you on this thread... I created this thread with Alpha Omega in mind actually.....  Well I had to agree on the world insanity part..... I think I should mix that insanity you describe with normal life.... hmm intrigueing.....


----------



## Dave (Dec 4, 2007)

I never answered this before but I think that now I know why I feel like I do.





Delvo said:


> Well, then, since you seemed negative about darker people's alleged preference for white babies, what would you say about dark parents having a baby modified in just the skin color gene and leaving the other hundreds of racially-distinct genes alone? Is that still a race-relations (sociological/psychological) problem?


There is a difference between having your own baby with a partner, and adopting a baby. I haven't adopted a child, but I've heard this from people who have, and it gives an explanation for those many people to want IVF treatments rather than adopting. When your children are genetically similar to yourself, your see parallels in them from your own childhood, you see yourself, your partner, your siblings, your mother or your father in them. This is even more poignant if you have lost one of those to an early death. You excuse things they do, because you did them yourself or your siblings did them and got away with it.

I think for someone to feel forced not to have a child with their own genetics, but some other genetic make-up, purely because of the discrimination it will feel, and that you felt yourself in your own childhood, is a terrible indictment of our society. I don't see it as any special race-relations (sociological/psychological) problem, just evidence that our society has some way further to go before everyone is equal (but you knew that!)

It isn't going to be long before some of the tests we've talked about, and these ethical and philosophical implications on our society are no longer science fiction:



> (from Lost Cousins.com December2007 Newsletter)
> 
> DNA TESTING REACHES THE NEXT LEVEL
> 
> ...


----------



## Creator (Dec 4, 2007)

Whoa..! I thought this thread has been forgotten! Anyway to the topic, I wonder if the opposite of eugenics can happen? As in if people are so "merciful" and allow genetically unfit to breed and multiply. What kind of world will it be like.

IN my upcoming fic, The Goddess, humans got too merciful and allowed more and more genetically unfit people to multiply. This was the reason why the main character in Goddess decided to start a campaign to curb the spread of bad genes. 

Babies with made-to-order defects? - Pregnancy - MSNBC.com

But will this become a trend?


----------



## Dave (Dec 4, 2007)

Creator said:


> But will this become a trend?


My first impression was that I would hope not, and I will skip over the ethical considerations expressed by the woman who said "You cannot tell me that I cannot have a child who’s going to look like me," and explain why.

There are costs to society. It is more expensive to educate deaf children. You need more highly trained teachers and a lower pupil-teacher ratio. Their are health care costs, Dwarfs do not have as high a life expectancy. 

Whether she has a right or not is irrelevant to that. Just as I don't want my taxes and insurance to pay for the children of single mothers on benefits, I don't want to pay more for the education and health care of her children which she created through her own choice. I would feel different if they occurred naturally.

But now I see that contradicts comments I made earlier and I'm in a real dilemma. Am I really saying that only because I feel pity for the Deaf and for Dwarfs? That is something they would really not wish, and probably the very reason they want this, is so that it should be considered perfectly normal. In reality, I can't have it both ways, if I want a society where I don't want people forced by eugenics and insurance companies to have children with 'better' genes, then I have to accept one where we provide much more for those remaining people, however they came about. Thanks for the challenging ideas.


----------



## JDP (Dec 4, 2007)

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 (Dec 5, 2007)

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 (Dec 5, 2007)

Creator said:


> 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 (Dec 5, 2007)

Dave said:


> 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 (Dec 5, 2007)

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 (Dec 5, 2007)

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.

http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/42337-living-in-a-world-with-lots-of-dysgenic.html


----------



## Delvo (Dec 6, 2007)

Creator said:


> 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 (Dec 7, 2007)

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 (Dec 20, 2007)

kyektulu said:


> *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.*
> ...


 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 (Jan 10, 2009)

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 (Jan 10, 2009)

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


----------

