Page 5 of 6 [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,103
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 Feb 2016, 4:12 am

Aristophanes wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
But that's the point of an obese fertility goddess. Obese women were probably symbols of prosperity; something which the tribe would strive for. Slender women came into vogue mostly in modern western civilization, when starvation was no longer something to dread.


It has nothing to do with weight, it has to do with reproduction-- a pregnant female form is a symbol of renewed life and progress for the tribe, even today it symbolizes that. Now if it were say a fat man depicted in the 14th century I would agree, but I have yet to see a fat male figurine from prehistory. They may exist, I don't know, but I have never seen nor heard of one so I can't claim they exist. That being said, since we only have preggers to go by, I feel 95% certain that the dolls symbolize fertility and renewal and nothing to do with weight, which just happens to be a byproduct of pregnancy.


But sexual fertility is only one aspect of fertility cults. Another aspect is the abundance of food, which obese women were symbolic of.
It's unlikely a male fertility figure would be found, as pregnancy is part of womanhood, and thus fertility was personified as a pregnant woman. Besides, men as hunters of the tribe, had to remain lean and muscular.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,545
Location: USA

20 Feb 2016, 9:52 am

Adamantium wrote:
This is not possible--let's be completely clear about that--without editing germ line cells. The therapy hypothesized as a possible future benefit of this work is based on somatic cell editing, not germ line editing. That is not something that is being contemplated in Dr Feng's "why my fundamental neurology research has a public health benefit" nonsense about a cure in his grant application, so it makes as much sense to fear this as it does to fear werewolves, witches and demons.

Yes and they'll never touch germ line cells, EVER. :roll:

You don't seem to understand the lack of control humans have. As I've said from the start, this isn't even a science issue it's an ethics issue. This is my entire beef with modern science: just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Fact is: you can't predict the future, you don't know with 100% certainty-- but I know, it won't stop you from doing something stupid, because if you don't do it the hominid down the hall will. :roll:



Adamantium
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1020
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,998
Location: Erehwon

20 Feb 2016, 12:09 pm

Ok, so the argument is we shouldn't use any science or technology for any reason because someone might misuse it.

The knowledge that someone somewhere is likely to misuse knowledge is an argument for avoiding any activity that might result in learning about the world.

It is a good thing that if the wicked are using or might use genetic engineering for terrible purposes, at least people of good will will have not the least clue what's going on.

And we should avoid taking any risk at all in the absence of 100% certainty of a positive outcome.

I find it really hard to believe that anyone actually thinks this way. It may be redundant at this point to say that I find these arguments utterly unconvincing and profoundly wrong.

Three good books on related topics:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Demon-Haunted ... 0345409469
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-Candle-Dark ... 0062288431
http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Reality-Kno ... 1451675046


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


btbnnyr
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,458
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago

20 Feb 2016, 1:40 pm

Has any "we reversed the effects of a bad gene in rodents" effect worked in humans so far?
Does anyone know?
I am too lazy to search the literature.


_________________
Drain and plane and grain and blain your brain, and then again,
Propane and butane out of the gas main, your blain shall sustain!


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,742
Location: Long Island, New York

20 Feb 2016, 2:06 pm

Adamantium wrote:
Ok, so the argument is we shouldn't use any science or technology for any reason because someone might misuse it.

The knowledge that someone somewhere is likely to misuse knowledge is an argument for avoiding any activity that might result in learning about the world.

It is a good thing that if the wicked are using or might use genetic engineering for terrible purposes, at least people of good will will have not the least clue what's going on.

And we should avoid taking any risk at all in the absence of 100% certainty of a positive outcome.

I find it really hard to believe that anyone actually thinks this way. It may be redundant at this point to say that I find these arguments utterly unconvincing and profoundly wrong.

Three good books on related topics:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Demon-Haunted ... 0345409469
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-Candle-Dark ... 0062288431
http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Reality-Kno ... 1451675046


Every situation is different. The history and current attitudes strongly suggest that autism gene research will be misused.


_________________
Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person. - Sara Luterman


Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,545
Location: USA

20 Feb 2016, 3:40 pm

Adamantium wrote:
Ok, so the argument is we shouldn't use any science or technology for any reason because someone might misuse it.

The knowledge that someone somewhere is likely to misuse knowledge is an argument for avoiding any activity that might result in learning about the world.

It is a good thing that if the wicked are using or might use genetic engineering for terrible purposes, at least people of good will will have not the least clue what's going on.

And we should avoid taking any risk at all in the absence of 100% certainty of a positive outcome.

I find it really hard to believe that anyone actually thinks this way. It may be redundant at this point to say that I find these arguments utterly unconvincing and profoundly wrong.

Three good books on related topics:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Demon-Haunted ... 0345409469
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-Candle-Dark ... 0062288431
http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Reality-Kno ... 1451675046


Apples and oranges. I'm fine with virtually any scientific research out there, I've stated that multiple times now. Hell you want to research fusion for bombs and not energy, I'm fine with that-- have a blast 8) . But genetics, no I'm sorry, that is Pandora's Box. You have to be completely self-centered and out of your mind to think you know as much as 4 billion years of evolution. The thing about physical sciences is that any kind of destructive force humans create, well the worst we'll do is eliminate ourselves-- the rest of life will survive even if retreats back to single-celled organisms. Genetics on the other hand, the foundation of organic life itself, if you mess that up there's no coming back. It really does boil down to this: you're not god, you really have no clue of the impact 50 years down the line if this research continues. You can name me one positive benefit: 1% of autistics may be helped, yet the downside if you're wrong will have a much larger impact than 1% of a 2% minority.

I understand genetic perfection is a bright shiny box just sitting on the counter begging to be opened, but that's the real test: are you smart enough to walk past it or are you going to let your worst instincts take over and open it.

Again these are just the inherent dangers of generic genetic research (+1 alliteration). Now let's talk about this specific case: this isn't just genetics, this is manipulating genetics of a minority population to eliminate genes the majority sees as having "low value". Just as the Spartans that drowned Helot children, just as the English troops that would breed Scottish women during the 1st Scottish War of Independence, just as the Nazi's that wanted to eliminate the Jews: at the end of the day they despised things different than them and had them eliminated or bred out. Whenever a majority population is granted the opportunity to commit eugenics on a minority population they tend to take the opportunity. I'm not about to support giving them a new technique for their grotesque agenda, especially not when I'm part of a minority-- no need for rhetoric or science, I'll just trust common sense on that one.



HisMom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,271

20 Feb 2016, 5:20 pm

Aristophanes wrote:
You're right, from an emotional standpoint I can't argue with you, but that's why I don't base decisions off of emotion-- they're rarely correct. Take say 9/11-- first emotion: attack back. Also happened to be wrong, especially when one hits the wrong country and the result is a decade long mess because one decision maker didn't keep their emotions in check when making a world impacting decision.

I understand why you have an issue with my position against genetic engineering of any kind, and trust me, even us "high functioners" would be happy to alleviate our symptoms too. That being said, I can't in good conscience support something that I know will have long term negative consequences for the species as a whole. Any individual, me, you, your son, my sister: we're irrelevant, we're only cells of a much larger animal called humanity. If I could save your son but the cost was humanity itself, I'm sorry I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't do it to save myself or a family member. The potential for abuse is too high. This is precisely why I'm against the research: people can't see beyond their own desires to the see the big picture consequences of their actions. For most things that big picture doesn't change much because the decisions are fairly innocuous, but we aren't talking whether you should have one burrito too many, or perhaps swerve a little in the lane to reach your coffee while driving, we're talking the very building blocks of life here. The consequences of genetic alteration are far wider ranging than any one individual or any one group for that matter.

Like I said I do understand your perspective. Autism isn't for the faint of heart, living with it, or living with someone with it. That being said, here's another perspective. You love your son, most likely more than life itself, would you kill to save him and if so how many people? Don't worry I'm not going to morally bait you into a death argument, every parent I've ever talked to usually answers something along the lines of "as many as it takes". I get that, I don't have kids, but I do understand a parent willing to sacrifice anything, life itself even, for the benefit of their children: that's instinct pushing you towards protecting your genetic line. But, that narrow sighted focus on one case is also what prevents someone from seeing the larger picture and all the problems one individual case can cause on the system as a whole. Let's put it this way, if your son caught bubonic plague and was in quarantine you'd argue tooth and nail for his release: you love him and want him back. No arguments there. That being said, the CDC would be correct in keeping the quarantine in place since a single victim could devastate an city's worth of people. In that moment, to you, that cost is worth it to see your son again, but to the millions of other people that decision would effect it's merely a single person's selfish act.

Then let's say we do start altering a variety of genes and low an behold we didn't realize that all those alterations created cells that had off the charts genetic drift (above normal mutation). Your son does the therapy, it works...but come to find out his kids will inherit something worse than autism and their kids something even worse. You don't even need to say it: I can't verify, it's all speculation; yet, no one can refute it either, because that itself would also be speculation. And that is the point, scientists can claim any number of things, but have they done generations of testing to ensure the long term veracity of their research? Nope, they're just like any other worker: get the work done quickly for the investors and let the lawyers deal with any consequences. Sorry, but again we're talking the building block of life itself, creation itself, I doubt lawyers are going to be able to solve the problems if we f**k this one up.


Being quarantined for a contagious disease in order to protect other lives in the here and now is very very different from preventing access to an intervention because such an intervention could - maybe - possibly - perhaps - have devastating effects on an entire species and its future generations ! This is another classic apples to oranges comparison and strawman argument. And even you admit that you are merely speculating here about potential negative ramifications, and you can afford to because you do not live with severe autism or suffer from its consequences.

Me ? Not only do my son and I live and breathe severe autism 24/7, but I would do ANYTHING - ANYTHING - to help reduce the severity of his autism. I am not claiming to be a moral, ethical individual where my child is concerned, if being those lovely things will not benefit my kid. KWIM ? Morals and ethics and worries about future generations are for those who can afford those luxuries. Me, not only can I not afford these, but I would also blatantly refuse to adopt any of those virtues, if my refusal to do so would benefit the only human being I actually care about. Not the species, not even my little herd. Just my son. He's the only thing I care about, and if something would help him while harming every other individual in the species, then my species can go extinct for all I care. You would not sacrifice humanity for your child - and that's mighty benevolent of you - but I would sacrifice humanity for my child.

Regarding your query as to what if my son's kids have even more severe autism than he does ? Well, if they do, we now have the solution, don't we ? Go in and make changes to this protein or turn on that gene and presto ! Autism's gone. Problem solved. We all live happily ever after. EVEN if there was no such cure for my grandchildren, that's OK. My son comes ahead of any grandchildren I might have through him and I will worry about how to help these unborn offspring of my offspring if / when they actually emerge on the Planet.

You see, Aristophanes, the good do not inherit the Earth. Those that will kill to give their kids the best chances in life will. Morality isn't my strong suit where my children are concerned - and even if this research were to actually result in the kind of wicked consequences you speculate here, too bad, so sad. It is what it is, and as long as it benefits my boy, who cares if the rest of the herd goes to hell ?


_________________
O villain, villain, smiling, damnèd villain!
My tables—meet it is I set it down
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.
At least I'm sure it may be so in "Denmark".

-- Hamlet, 1.5.113-116


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,774

21 Feb 2016, 12:54 am

Adamantium wrote:
Yes, all this is eugenics. And none of which has any bearing on the study in question or the work of Dr. Feng.


Yes, infact neither does Feng's work. He's talking about "simply turning on a gene like a light switch". That's not technically eugenics as there is no destruction of genes...



Adamantium
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1020
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,998
Location: Erehwon

21 Feb 2016, 9:05 am

Aristophanes wrote:
You have to be completely self-centered and out of your mind to think you know as much as 4 billion years of evolution.

You have to be a fantasist to believe that evolution "knows" anything.

There is no plan there. No slow acquisition of knowledge. There is a mechanism that leads to iterative change, some of which works, some of which doesn't. The idea that there is some level of knowledge inherent in the extraordinarily complex system of interacting molecules that creates the biosphere and evolves has no basis in reality, as far as I know. So this statement, which is evidently emotionally satisfying to you in some way, has no meaning. It's as if you had said "you can't interfere with biology until you are as wise a nature" or "You can't develop medicines until you are as thoughtful as death." There are category errors, seemingly not evident to you, that make such statements literally meaningless.

Quote:
Genetics on the other hand, the foundation of organic life itself, if you mess that up there's no coming back.

Why is there "no coming back?" Again, your ideas seem based in fantasy. There is no reason why a change to a codon in a somatic cell should have any effect on any organism other than the individual who has had the somatic cell edit. There is no reason not to "change it back" using exactly the same technique you use to change it. The edit will not be passed to any other individual unless the edit is made to their germ line cells.

The code in our DNA is not static. Random and inherently chaotic forces continuously alter or genes throughout our lives. Encounters with viruses, natural mutagens and various forms of electromagnetism constantly cut and splice the DNA in our cells. This is the mechanism by which random mutation occurs, the change that drives evolution.

There is no wise force controlling the behavior of viruses, or deciding which nucleotide gets taken out by a passing highly energetic particle. DNA replication is supported with complicated error correction systems precisely because the process is so imperfect and error prone. Everything changes and there is no reason to look at purposeful change introduced by people as somehow belonging to some different order of change than the massive change constantly introduced by the chaotic and uncaring forces of nature.

Quote:
It really does boil down to this: you're not god, you really have no clue of the impact 50 years down the line if this research continues. You can name me one positive benefit: 1% of autistics may be helped, yet the downside if you're wrong will have a much larger impact than 1% of a 2% minority.
It is more likely that there will be no direct benefit from this research beyond an increase in the collective neurobiological knowledge of our civilization. But you have no reason at all to conclude that there will be some kind of downside that impacts a single person, let alone many. That's a completely bogus assertion. If you can explain how you think this negative impact is supposed to occur, if you have a shred of logic or the least bit of evidence to support this claim, then I will happily admit that you have some kind of point--but as it stands you are just generating empty rubbish with these claims.

Quote:
I understand genetic perfection is a bright shiny box just sitting on the counter begging to be opened...
Genetic perfection? What rot is this? This idea has nothing to do with the understanding of genetics that has emerged from the work of people like Dr. Feng. The only people who harbor such nonsense ideas are racists who understand nothing about science and luddites who understand nothing about science.

Quote:
Again these are just the inherent dangers of generic genetic research (+1 alliteration).
Neither repetition nor alliteration make it any more true. You haven't said anything true or meaningful about genetic research, let alone revealed any inherent dangers in it.

Quote:
Now let's talk about this specific case: this isn't just genetics, this is manipulating genetics of a minority population to eliminate genes the majority sees as having "low value".

No, it is not.
Dr.Feng's research is not about eliminating any gene, but activating a gene already in that person. I'm pretty sure, from what you have written already, that you don't really know what a gene is and have no basis to form any sort of conclusion about what it means to activate or deactivate one. But really what you are saying here is flat out wrong at the most basic level, before you ever get to your nasty fantasies and lies about the motivation of people doing this research.


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,545
Location: USA

21 Feb 2016, 1:05 pm

Adamantium wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
You have to be completely self-centered and out of your mind to think you know as much as 4 billion years of evolution.

You have to be a fantasist to believe that evolution "knows" anything.


That's right 4 billion years of a mathematical process working itself out: that is knowledge in and of itself. That in a nutshell is human arrogance. You think the higgs-bosom didn't exist just because humans didn't think of it? No that knowledge was already self-contained in the universe, humans were merely able to comprehend it. It's the same with the natural processes of life, the answer is self-contained in the algorithm itself. That algorithm has run for 4 billion years creating the entire organic world we know today-- it works, it's not perfect, but it does work. In fact it works so well that the algorithm doesn't need alteration because it has self-correcting sub-routines built in: evolution and extinction. Just because a thing isn't "living" doesn't mean it can't contain knowledge or work on that self-contained knowledge. Besides, consciousness itself is merely a series of complex algorithms-- but those thoughts can't have knowledge, they're just algorithms after all.

Adamantium wrote:
Why is there "no coming back?" Again, your ideas seem based in fantasy. There is no reason why a change to a codon in a somatic cell should have any effect on any organism other than the individual who has had the somatic cell edit. There is no reason not to "change it back" using exactly the same technique you use to change it. The edit will not be passed to any other individual unless the edit is made to their germ line cells.

The code in our DNA is not static. Random and inherently chaotic forces continuously alter or genes throughout our lives. Encounters with viruses, natural mutagens and various forms of electromagnetism constantly cut and splice the DNA in our cells. This is the mechanism by which random mutation occurs, the change that drives evolution.

There is no wise force controlling the behavior of viruses, or deciding which nucleotide gets taken out by a passing highly energetic particle. DNA replication is supported with complicated error correction systems precisely because the process is so imperfect and error prone. Everything changes and there is no reason to look at purposeful change introduced by people as somehow belonging to some different order of change than the massive change constantly introduced by the chaotic and uncaring forces of nature.

I've worked with genetics on a Mendelian level for 20 years now, I know how they work-- hell I've actually made new genetics and refined old, several times over in fact. That's how I know the inherent danger, actual experience. And really, you're proving my point on this one: nature has it's method (thank you for describing it here) and it works, enough said. As for chaotic and unfeeling, yes, the natural world is unfeeling and chaotic: that's what creates evolution itself. If you eliminate every bad force out there, basically domesticate everything, you stop the process of evolution itself: you stop the very process that made you.

Adamantium wrote:
Genetic perfection? What rot is this? This idea has nothing to do with the understanding of genetics that has emerged from the work of people like Dr. Feng. The only people who harbor such nonsense ideas are racists who understand nothing about science and luddites who understand nothing about science.

They also tend to be the ones in power that get to wield control over technology. Let's put it this way: the research you're talking about, let's say it's 1939 Germany. Does that same research still give you the same warm feelings inside about "progress"? Science isn't a bubble. The lab is a bubble, but science itself isn't. Anything that comes out of the lab, the researchers themselves lose control over to the "powers that be". If you know the "powers that be" have had a habit of using similar research to kill off minorities such as yourself you'd be a lot less inclined to support it.

Adamantium wrote:
Dr.Feng's research is not about eliminating any gene, but activating a gene already in that person. I'm pretty sure, from what you have written already, that you don't really know what a gene is and have no basis to form any sort of conclusion about what it means to activate or deactivate one. But really what you are saying here is flat out wrong at the most basic level, before you ever get to your nasty fantasies and lies about the motivation of people doing this research.

Actually you'd be very, very wrong. I've been breeding plants for 20 years, and attempting the same on a few strains of mycelium (fungus is ridiculously hard, it always wants to homogenize). Obviously the fungus has to be done in a lab environment, too easy for the agar to pick up a bacterial contam, but the plants are done in real world settings where the lab results tend to break down.
If you're looking for jargon as the only litmus test, since obvious logic isn't enough, here: homogenized, zygote, alleles, eukaryote, translocation, etc, what-eva.
If you want some regurgitated genetic principles for your litmus test: for plants, an F3 generation plant (Mendel schema) should be self-pollinated from an F2 generation plant to eliminate unwanted phenotypes from cropping up. Furthermore, if one continues down the line of refinement, past say F5 for plants (should be the same for most organisms, but I've only actually worked with plants so I can't claim with certainty on others even though the science says it should be so), then generally genetic drift sweeps in and subsequent generations are unstable. Fungus is damn near impossible to genetically alter because the cell walls (chitin, not cellulose) have openings large enough for an entire nuclei to pass through, thereby making it virtually impossible to separate genetically unique hyphae from one another: the strong hyphae will merely cannibalize the weak and use it's corpse as an incubator by splitting only it's nuclei and transferring it to the weaker cell-- no need for a full cell split, which is a form of energy savings for the organism. Each hyphae is actually it's own individual member of the fungus colony, but because of the aggressive nature of fungus' genetic transfer, the colony itself quickly becomes homogenized and thus it's easier to look at the colony as an individual rather than the parts-- much like jellyfish. Also it should be noted fungus has two forms of reproduction, one is mere asexual cell division (and conquer as mentioned) during the growth phase of the colony, the second is sexual reproduction when the resulting hyphae create spores. As far as I know it is unique in this aspect.

And goddamn, I think I'm off on a long tangent now...

Point being technical jargon is cheap, the underlying logic to the words is what matters. It's just like politics: the words the politician says are worthless, the actions they take are what matters. On an aside, I've been trying really hard to avoid technical terms in this discussion for 2 reasons: 1. people will read a wall of text before they'll read a single sentence with jargon (the ol' eye glossing over effect) and 2. this is a moral debate, not a scientific debate. I'm not arguing anything is impossible, I'm arguing it's not a very smart decision to continue on this path.

edit: quote nightmare clean up...



Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,545
Location: USA

21 Feb 2016, 2:03 pm

HisMom wrote:

You see, Aristophanes, the good do not inherit the Earth. Those that will kill to give their kids the best chances in life will. Morality isn't my strong suit where my children are concerned - and even if this research were to actually result in the kind of wicked consequences you speculate here, too bad, so sad. It is what it is, and as long as it benefits my boy, who cares if the rest of the herd goes to hell ?

As I said, you get no argument from me on that one, but that's precisely why decisions that affect an entire population shouldn't be handed over to a person with a vested personal interest-- too often they'll sacrifice the good of the group for their own narrow goals. In no way am I questioning your love for your son, nor what lengths you'd go to protect him-- but not every end justifies the mean, and that's why there's people like me to be a counter balance.



Adamantium
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1020
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,998
Location: Erehwon

21 Feb 2016, 4:20 pm

Such sophistry! There is a huge difference between Mendelian and molecular genetics. And what irreparable harm have you done in your years of hybridizing plants (or whatever it is that you do)?

You claim that Dr. Feng is talking about removing a gene, when he is talking about repairing the Shank3 gene. What gene has been removed?

I do understand your concern that "the powers that be" are always inevitably bad and always carry out eugenic final solution campaigns against minorities in their control. That's why the US has an entirely white male population and the world was substantially depopulated of human beings during the height of the British Empire.

Or maybe it's just not really like that.

What I'm looking for is some indication that having read about what Feng is doing, you have a clue. Talk of "removing genes" indicates otherwise, whatever you may believe your credentials to be.

Here is that new Dr. Mengele, ready to thrust us into a new dark age made darker and perhaps more protracted by the lights of perverted science:


You can see his entire motivation is to eliminate the people he considers unworthy. Or rather, NOT.

This is a real person, trying to help people who suffer (and some people really do suffer, if you're not one of them, hooray for you, but then, this therapeutic approach isn't for you, so why get bent out of shape over it?)
Scapegoating such people and forcing them into the role of pantomime villains in a cheesy polemic against genetic knowledge is grotesque and insulting.

The argument that even well intentioned research is bad because it could be misused by powerful villains is true of everything else that people do.

Bad men can use passenger aircraft to commit mass murder by flying them into office towers, so we must ban civil aviation. Bad men can use computers to monitor everyone's conversations, so we should stop using computers or any form of digital communication. Bad men can use math and engineering to build death camps, so we must end the study of either. Wise men have pointed out that language is the most powerful weapon and there is nothing more dangerous than an idea, so let's have a moratorium on both.

This reductio ad absurdum follows the logic of your argument exactly. It is unworthy.


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


HisMom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,271

21 Feb 2016, 4:37 pm

This intervention of "turning on a gene" or "removing a protein" or whatever it is that it does to "reverse autism", IMPROVES the quality of lives of those who are otherwise little more than infants, regardless of their chronological age. Furthermore, this change / repair of a singe gene in the individual is not anything that can be inherited by that individual's offspring. So, I actually don't even know where the argument that this will have devastating consequences for "future generations" because these generations will "inherit" the "altered genes" is coming from. It's not like the involves introducing mutations / alterations to eggs or sperms, which are the only mutations / alterations that can inherited by offspring / future generations.

Or maybe I am just too stooopid to get it. Either way, I don't care because if this improves the quality of someone's life - as opposed to preventing that someone from even existing - then this aien't no Eugenics. Except in your wildest imaginations.


_________________
O villain, villain, smiling, damnèd villain!
My tables—meet it is I set it down
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.
At least I'm sure it may be so in "Denmark".

-- Hamlet, 1.5.113-116


Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,545
Location: USA

21 Feb 2016, 4:44 pm

Adamantium wrote:
This reductio ad absurdum follows the logic of your argument exactly. It is unworthy.


And yet, if it's so absurd why do you keep coming back to argue? If you know what the concept means, you'd also know that only a fool engages in a fool's argument-- and we both know you're not a fool.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,742
Location: Long Island, New York

21 Feb 2016, 5:26 pm

Assuming Feng's motivation are good history is replete with good peoples innovations used for bad ends. It must be remembered that American eugenics was as much about disabled as it was race. It became very popular in large part because it was seen as the humanitarian thing to do both for the families and the disabled people themselves who it was believed would be spared a miserable wretched existence. Cost was another justification. The original eugenicists here wanted to use poison gas but realized that would descredit their cause. So such positive fun euphemisms such as better baby contests and fitter family contests were used.

After The Nazi's the whole idea was in disrepute. Now 70 plus years had gone by, American eugenics history has largly been forgotten about. In this Black lives matter era if anybody tried to justify gene editing because bieng black in America greatly increases the chances of your life bieng miserable the reaseach facility would burnt to the ground and the researchers arrested. Similar thing for LBGT and other groups. But if you do it for Autism many rush to your defense.

When I see the pretty much the same humanitarian and cost justifications damm right I am going to be scared.


_________________
Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person. - Sara Luterman