(kind of, anyway)

One of my seeming superficial co-workers raised an interesting question at work today, I though I'd share it here.

We all know the concept of "for the greater good" i.e killing one person to save a far larger number of people.

We were discussing genetically pre-disposed diseases today, such as diabetes, cystic fibrosis etcetera.

With conventional medicine, a lot of diseases such as diabetes, previous debilitating and possibly fatal, are now entirely manageable.

However, herein lies the question of "natural selection", which governs that the weaker members of a species will die off, leaving only the strongest to survive and propogate.

This has become largely irrelevant to modern humans because we don't need to run fast or hide effectively to catch our food, or grow hair to survive the cold.

Genetic diseases, however, could be seen as a form of weakness that could conceivably undermine the health of the entire human race if the individuals affected are allowed to conceive, spreading their genes throughout humanity and leaving each generation more likely to suffer from such a disease at birth.

Of course, I'm not asking whether it would be right to kill people who suffer from such conditions, or prevent them from conceiving, because that's a no brainer, but I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on whether or not they think advances in palliative medicine will be beneficial or not in the long run, assuming that we can and never will find a cure for diabetes, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, depression, Alzheimer's, etcetera.

eugenics





and no.

___________________
**Man I'm Pretty**

Damn, I think I just associated myself with Nazi-ism.

quote:

Originally posted by Beat Blog Genetic diseases, however, could be seen as a form of weakness that could conceivably undermine the health of the entire human race if the individuals affected are allowed to conceive, spreading their genes throughout humanity and leaving each generation more likely to suffer from such a disease at birth.

Natural selection takes care of this too. If youre fat and disease ridden my subconscious baby maker says "fuck that shit!"

Edit: Not "fuck" in terms of "make babies"...

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie If youre fat and disease ridden my subconscious baby maker says "fuck that shit!"

whatever floats your boat





edit: grr ninja edit, you realised what you said the same time I did I think

___________________
**Man I'm Pretty**

quote:

Originally posted by Trance Nutter whatever floats your boat

Har har. It's edited.

___________________

i think people who are likely to transmit genes which will result in their kids suffering from a serious illness should not be allowed to have kids. simple. its for their own good and for the good of their wouldbe-kids.... something like that..

I don't think that genetic diseases "spread" or increse through-out subsequent generations, i have the impression that they remain steady, in the sense that the number of affected individuals is always proportional to the number of the total population. From that point of view, genetic diseases pose a minimal risk to humanity as a "whole".


This doesn't mean that these diseases aren't terrible for those who suffer from them. I really hope that the new branch of "medical genetics" would somehow lead to various preventive and protective methods (such as elimination of the potential sufferer's problematic gene before birth).

quote:

Originally posted by PETRAN This doesn't mean that these diseases aren't terrible for those who suffer from them. I really hope that the new branch of "medical genetics" would somehow lead to various preventive and protective methods (such as elimination of the potential sufferer's problematic gene before birth).

Yep. This is the possibility that the original post leaves out. Direct genetic modification (rather than "selective breeding" as in eugenics) may lead to elimination or reduction of many diseases.

Natural selection exists outside of genetics, and there's a very good reason why we evolved the desire to look after the weaker members of our societies. These people may be diseased but they aren't useless. Evolution is still there, it's merely shifted from being a mostly genetic phenomenon to a social phenomenon.

___________________
When bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

As moral and as people we are responsible for dragging out fellow humans in needs along the way and do as much possible to help them. After all, the evolution of medicine, mechanics and living standards are the things that many large groups as well as we individuals search for.

However...with everything positive comes also something negative and as events in history have proven - this is a way of balance.

The negative aspects of this is that the cleft between the hard-working and the lazy increases and here I include also the difference between the intellectuals and the uneducated, the researchers and the people that sit home and await, complain that there haven't been any new discoveries etc.

It's only a question of interpretation. Which side of the glass you want to see.


"assuming that we can and never will find a cure for diabetes, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, depression, Alzheimer's, etcetera."


These can be cured, however not through a direct way. In theory some of these are possible to be cured, but here it's a question of ethics.

___________________

Last edited by PaulSn on Jul-30-2008 at 16:50

unless these diseases prevent people from having kids they're not going to affect natural selection