Deterioration of the human race

[PhysicsMafia]

As medical advancements are made and lives are prolonged does the gene pool of the human race become poluted with poor quality genes. Those who would have died previously from their diseases or disabilities can now go on to reproduce and infect a new generation with their tarnished genes.

Will modern medice be the downfall of our civilisation, watering down a once strong gene pool to a festering swamp of deformity?

[Leeloo-Minai]

7 billion people will have deformities in their gene pool. The variances might be necessary, they might not. Is it humanity's place to decide who gets to breed with who?

[PhysicsMafia]

At 2/27/06 10:33 AM, Leeloo_Minai wrote: 7 billion people will have deformities in their gene pool. The variances might be necessary, they might not. Is it humanity's place to decide who gets to breed with who?

it was natures choice in the past, only the stronger survived to "breeding age" and this ensured a strong, healthy population.

Diseases such as AIDS (i know its a virus), down's syndrome, hemophilia and sickle-cell disease could be all but eradicated from the gene pool with selective culling of the population.

[LegendaryLukus]

That sounds life creating a master race, what with the 'selective culling'. And I don't believe that is necessary.

If our gene pool is to destabilise, then so be it. Its the circle of life

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 2/27/06 10:40 AM, PhysicsMafia wrote:

At 2/27/06 10:33 AM, Leeloo_Minai wrote: 7 billion people will have deformities in their gene pool. The variances might be necessary, they might not. Is it humanity's place to decide who gets to breed with who?

it was natures choice in the past, only the stronger survived to "breeding age" and this ensured a strong, healthy population.

Until humans realized they could manipulate nature to their own will. At that point, evolution and the survival of the fittest became a matter of free will and greed.

Diseases such as AIDS (i know its a virus), down's syndrome, hemophilia and sickle-cell disease could be all but eradicated from the gene pool with selective culling of the population.

What about psychosis and autism? Which gene-specific disabilities do you want to cull in once AIDS, hemophilia and sickle-cell are no longer the lowest rung on the ladder of genetic illnesses?

[SkingraftCity]

In any case, you're assuming that the worth of a human being lies solely in their ability to function physically. Clearly we can see that this is not the case. The most brilliant mind of our age is confined to a wheel chair and can't speak without the aid of a computer.

I can't think of a single problem that can be solved so easily. Fascist ideas like that are cop-outs for people who want to hear themselves squauk but don't want to put in the effort to come up with viable theories and solutions.

[Pandaman64]

At 2/27/06 09:55 AM, PhysicsMafia wrote: As medical advancements are made and lives are prolonged does the gene pool of the human race become poluted with poor quality genes. Those who would have died previously from their diseases or disabilities can now go on to reproduce and infect a new generation with their tarnished genes.

Will modern medice be the downfall of our civilisation, watering down a once strong gene pool to a festering swamp of deformity?

Just curious, wouldn't medicine also be strengthening diseases? Like Natural selection?

Not stating an opinion, just introducing another point.

May all your sparks be blue, and have a nice day.

[metalmonkey1]

Just curious, wouldn't medicine also be strengthening diseases? Like Natural selection?

Not stating an opinion, just introducing another point.

May all your sparks be blue, and have a nice day.

yes. dont you watch tv?

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 2/27/06 10:56 AM, SkingraftCity wrote: In any case, you're assuming that the worth of a human being lies solely in their ability to function physically. Clearly we can see that this is not the case. The most brilliant mind of our age is confined to a wheel chair and can't speak without the aid of a computer.

He's not saying that they're not as worth as much as humans, but rather, that allowing people with weaker genes to pass on their genes to the next generation is somewhat unnatural, and is achieved only by artificial means, and may lead to trouble down the road if newer, more resistant diseases develop.

[Ramnath]

The funny thing about genes is that they can be extremely random. Even if you had a whole population of people with dominant genes, there would still be children born with recessive genes and disorders and such. The only way to keep all of those genes out would be to manually alter all of the genes in a human being before it was born.

[PhysicsMafia]

At 2/27/06 10:56 AM, SkingraftCity wrote: In any case, you're assuming that the worth of a human being lies solely in their ability to function physically. Clearly we can see that this is not the case. The most brilliant mind of our age is confined to a wheel chair and can't speak without the aid of a computer.

I presume you are talking about stephen hawkins, the greatest mind of out time.....PLEASE. He is a celebrity, in the real world of physics he doesnt even rank in the top 10. His theories are only rebukes of the work done by those before him.

I am not saying that they are worthless, but the fact that we activley pass on these genes to the next generation is irresponsible, negligent and almost criminal. we are knowingly giving them such diseases, it amounts to sending your children small pox in the post

[peedee]

"You begin to die the moment you are born."

I think thats how it went, and I forget who said it...

Either way, it's true, and thats nature. We shouldn't chage it.

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 2/27/06 06:22 PM, peedee wrote: "You begin to die the moment you are born."

True, but only in the sense that the letter B comes after the letter A.

Either way, it's true, and thats nature. We shouldn't chage it.

Yea, we really shouldn't. But we can, therefore we do.

[PhysicsMafia]

At 2/27/06 06:44 PM, mofomojo wrote: First lesson of Nature : You cannot force nature to occur.

End of lesson.

wooaaw, that was soo deep...

sorry i mean that was sooo crap, we force nature to occur everyday, GM crops, selective breeding etc..

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 2/27/06 07:03 PM, PhysicsMafia wrote:

At 2/27/06 06:44 PM, mofomojo wrote: First lesson of Nature : You cannot force nature to occur.

End of lesson.

wooaaw, that was soo deep...

sorry i mean that was sooo crap, we force nature to occur everyday, GM crops, selective breeding etc..

Care to explain how selective breeding, controlled by us, is natural?

I'd ask for the same with genetically modified crops, but there ain't no way in hell you're going to tell me that altering genes is natural. But if you wanna try, go right ahead, I'm all ears.

[peedee]

At 2/27/06 06:47 PM, Leeloo_Minai wrote:

At 2/27/06 06:22 PM, peedee wrote: "You begin to die the moment you are born."

True, but only in the sense that the letter B comes after the letter A.

No. true is the sense that as soon as we are born, we age. Therefore, once we are born, we begin to die.

[PhysicsMafia]

At 2/27/06 07:08 PM, Leeloo_Minai wrote:

Care to explain how selective breeding, controlled by us, is natural?

I'd ask for the same with genetically modified crops, but there ain't no way in hell you're going to tell me that altering genes is natural. But if you wanna try, go right ahead, I'm all ears.

I didnt say it was natural, i said by doing it we were controlling nature. we alter the natural course of evolution, interfere with it and bend nature to our will.

[BeFell]

There is no such thing as "unnatural." The ability for humans to reason, build tools and manipulate our suroundings is just as much a product of natural selection as our opposable thumbs. These things made our ancestors more fit thus they were able to survive to pass on their genes. A distant ancestor of ours did not have the ability to kill a mammoth but he did have the ability to sharpen a stick which could get the job done. If someone saved through medical technology doesn't deserve to pass their traits then niether did that caveman.

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 2/27/06 07:10 PM, peedee wrote:

At 2/27/06 06:47 PM, Leeloo_Minai wrote:

At 2/27/06 06:22 PM, peedee wrote: "You begin to die the moment you are born."

True, but only in the sense that the letter B comes after the letter A.

No. true is the sense that as soon as we are born, we age. Therefore, once we are born, we begin to die.

Aging is now considered "dying"? Ok, how does one "live"?

I think you're just getting into semantics.

At 2/27/06 07:14 PM, PhysicsMafia wrote: I didnt say it was natural, i said by doing it we were controlling nature. we alter the natural course of evolution, interfere with it and bend nature to our will.

That is forcing nature, jackass.

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 2/27/06 07:29 PM, BeFell wrote: If someone saved through medical technology doesn't deserve to pass their traits then niether did that caveman.

Cavemen didn't squander their resources to keep old people who couldn't hunt alive.

Once you introduce commerce into the caveman system, and not just survival, you start working under a different set of rules.

[BeFell]

At 2/27/06 07:45 PM, Leeloo_Minai wrote:

At 2/27/06 07:29 PM, BeFell wrote: If someone saved through medical technology doesn't deserve to pass their traits then niether did that caveman.

Cavemen didn't squander their resources to keep old people who couldn't hunt alive.

Bullshit, the men brought food back so the women, children and elderly could eat too. The only thing that caused the old people to starve was having their teath fall out or a shortage of food meaning the younger and stronger got it all.

Once you introduce commerce into the caveman system, and not just survival, you start working under a different set of rules.

No, the ultimate goal is still survival the commerce system is just more efficient and allows for secondary goals such as happiness and boat.

[BeFell]

At 2/27/06 07:45 PM, Leeloo_Minai wrote:

At 2/27/06 07:29 PM, BeFell wrote: If someone saved through medical technology doesn't deserve to pass their traits then niether did that caveman.

Cavemen didn't squander their resources to keep old people who couldn't hunt alive.

Once you introduce commerce into the caveman system, and not just survival, you start working under a different set of rules.

It just occured to me that your point isn't even valid because the elderly would have already passed on their genes whether or not anyone cared about them. This conversation is about deteriorating the gene pool not whether or not we should be happy little helpers.

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 2/27/06 08:06 PM, BeFell wrote:
It just occured to me that your point isn't even valid because the elderly would have already passed on their genes whether or not anyone cared about them. This conversation is about deteriorating the gene pool not whether or not we should be happy little helpers.

Alright, ya caught me there. But that still doesn't change the fact Jane mated with Thor behind Dexter's back, passing on his genes instead :P

So what about the gene pool? Because we can do it is reason enough that it should be done? Have I got that right yet?

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 2/27/06 08:12 PM, Leeloo_Minai wrote:
Alright, ya caught me there. But that still doesn't change the fact Jane mated with Thor behind Dexter's back, passing on his genes instead :P

But it follows that Jane's wit is passed on to her son/daughter, producing more Dexters and more Janes.

Take that, feminists.

[BeFell]

At 2/27/06 08:12 PM, Leeloo_Minai wrote: So what about the gene pool? Because we can do it is reason enough that it should be done? Have I got that right yet?

The fact that we can do it is reason enough to say it is natural.

So, our basic question is then one of morality rather than nature.

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 2/27/06 08:15 PM, BeFell wrote:
The fact that we can do it is reason enough to say it is natural.

So, our basic question is then one of morality rather than nature.

So is anything actually "unnatural" in your specific model?

[BeFell]

At 2/27/06 08:37 PM, Leeloo_Minai wrote: So is anything actually "unnatural" in your specific model?

No, how would it be possible?

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 2/27/06 08:49 PM, BeFell wrote:

At 2/27/06 08:37 PM, Leeloo_Minai wrote: So is anything actually "unnatural" in your specific model?

No, how would it be possible?

I suppose you'd be right. Matter is matter no matter what shape it takes.

[peedee]

At 2/27/06 07:42 PM, Leeloo_Minai wrote:
Aging is now considered "dying"? Ok, how does one "live"?

I think you're just getting into semantics.

That is forcing nature, jackass.

We get older. Getting old entitles getting weaker. You eventually die.

[AirForceOne91]

Bleh, fine, have survival of the fittest. Too bad some of you debating for it will be the first to die.

Seriously, on paper it may look good to you, but reflect on the practicality.