 |
|  |
 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote: Originally posted by obiwan18
This is the problem. How can beings who are unqualified to judge the hard cases, are now qualified to judge the so-called 'easy' cases? |
Well I'm sure there are cases that are pretty much agreed upon by everyone, don't you think?
quote:
Why do the mentally-handicapped suffer from their body? |

What I am saying is that they shouldn't be having children. They have the minds of children, so how can they be expected to take care of children of their own?
quote:
One point. How do we as human beings determine what is best for the human race? |
We haven't always made great decisions in this area, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
quote:
The problem with genetic improvement is the division between improvement and enhancement, part of the old proverb, "in the halls of the blind the one-eyed man is king."
IF most can see 20/20, does this mean that those who see 40/20 are defective and should be corrected? If most men are 6', and women 5'6'', are those who are shorter defective? |
Of course not, but with my eyesight being as bad as it is, I sure would like to be able to alter the gene that causes it so my kids don't have to suffer from it.
quote:
Times change. Evolution selects those who are most suited for their particular environment. What if the environment changes? By introducing wide-scale genetic engineering, will we not lose some of the genetic variation deemed 'defective' by those of the norm? |
Why don't you give me a likely scenario in which that would happen?
quote:
Where would you draw the line and why? |
Draw the line on what? Genetic engineering? I suppose I would draw the line at genetically engineering disabilities. Like a deaf couple using GE to ensure their child is deaf. I would be firmly against that.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ribannah
But if the atmospheric pressure changes, your gene might be the only way to adapt. |
So we should save all genes? I'm sorry, but your scenario is more than a little far-fetched.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ribannah
The essence is that we should preserve variety. Most defective genes will always stay just that, but once we start the purifying there is no limit, and we will eventually weaken because of it even if it looks a great improvement in the beginning. |
Good genes have all the variety we need. Also, mutations will still occor, no matter what we do with GE.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002 time: 21:25
|
|
quote: OK fine, Is this what was cause of the misunderstanding? |
tinyp3nis:
No misunderstanding.
I just wanted to strengthen your point with a concrete example.
caligastia:
quote: They have the minds of children, so how can they be expected to take care of children of their own?
|
That's not the point you were making earlier. You were saying we should genetically engineer these people to get rid of these genes, on the assumption that these people suffer.
How do they suffer from their handicap?
Secondly, your point is not valid. Many people who are not mentally handicapped have children without being able to take care of them. Should these people be sterilised to ensure that they do not have other children?
quote: I suppose I would draw the line at genetically engineering disabilities. Like a deaf couple using GE to ensure their child is deaf. I would be firmly against that.
|
Ok. I'm going to use a thought experiment here.
Suppose noise levels continue to increase in our crowded cities, to the point where people who hear well have great difficulties sleeping. Someone who is deaf will sleep perfectly well, in the same environment as the hearing people. Who will function better at work that morning, the deaf person or the sleep-deprived hearing person?
Suppose that deaf person married another deaf person and they have a hearing child. Suppose this child also has a problem sleeping at night due to the noise levels of the busy city. Would not a responsible parent try to improve the life of their child?
Disability is a relative concept. We only consider people to be disabled because they fall short of the apparent norm. However, the norm shifts with changes in the environment. People today are much taller than people 200 years ago due to better nutrition. People who would have been considered normal are considered handicapped as the goalposts shift.
One example of this is in China, where women undergo surgery to increase their height. One women put it very succinctly, 'a taller women will get a better job, a better husband and a better life. I am investing in my future with this surgery.'
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote: Originally posted by obiwan18
That's not the point you were making earlier. You were saying we should genetically engineer these people to get rid of these genes, on the assumption that these people suffer.
How do they suffer from their handicap? |
It's not so much their suffering, so much as the suffering society goes through. It costs a lot of hard-earned money to take care of those with severe handicaps, and at the end we have nothing to show for it. I'm sure you can see how suffering increases if there are more handicapped people to take care of.
quote:
Secondly, your point is not valid. Many people who are not mentally handicapped have children without being able to take care of them. Should these people be sterilised to ensure that they do not have other children? |
I would like to see that, yes, but I know it's not possible in the current political climate.
quote:
Suppose noise levels continue to increase in our crowded cities, to the point where people who hear well have great difficulties sleeping. Someone who is deaf will sleep perfectly well, in the same environment as the hearing people. Who will function better at work that morning, the deaf person or the sleep-deprived hearing person? |
The people who used ear-plugs.
quote:
Suppose that deaf person married another deaf person and they have a hearing child. Suppose this child also has a problem sleeping at night due to the noise levels of the busy city. Would not a responsible parent try to improve the life of their child? |

Come on now, this scenario is just silly. Intentionally having a deaf child instead of buying ear-plugs is overkill don't you think?
quote:
Disability is a relative concept. We only consider people to be disabled because they fall short of the apparent norm. However, the norm shifts with changes in the environment. People today are much taller than people 200 years ago due to better nutrition. People who would have been considered normal are considered handicapped as the goalposts shift.
One example of this is in China, where women undergo surgery to increase their height. One women put it very succinctly, 'a taller women will get a better job, a better husband and a better life. I am investing in my future with this surgery.' |
I don't think you can compare being a bit short with being deaf. If you are deaf, you are without one of your major senses, simply being a bit shorter than others is far less restricting. I know which I would rather be.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002 time: 21:25
|
|
quote: The people who used ear-plugs. |
Precisely, Caligastia. 
Now lets help deaf people do the same to overcome their disability, without resorting to genetic engineering.
quote: If you are deaf, you are without one of your major senses, simply being a bit shorter than others is far less restricting. |
If you had a choice to undergo genetic engineering to make you taller or shorter, which would you choose, Caligastia? The issue at hand is not whether deafness is worse than height, but whether being short is a disability.
quote: I would like to see that, yes, but I know it's not possible in the current political climate.
Why not, Caligastia? How would you determine which parents are fit, and which parents were unfit?
Japher:
[Quote]You are confusing not being able to do something with not having the capacity to be able do something. |
Do redundant abilities help or hinder organisms?
quote: In most/many cases the deaf person would not be able to perform the job. So while they got more sleep, they wouldn't need it because they have no job to go to. |
Name the job that cannot be performed by a deaf person.
Note, I am comparing a sleep deprived person with the deaf person as well. You also have to take that into account.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote: Originally posted by obiwan18
Precisely, Caligastia. 
Now lets help deaf people do the same to overcome their disability, without resorting to genetic engineering.
|
What difference does it make? It seems like a waste of resources to expend all this effort to accommodate a disability when we could just eliminate deafness altogether.
quote:
If you had a choice to undergo genetic engineering to make you taller or shorter, which would you choose, Caligastia? |
Considering that I'm 6'5", I think I could stand to lose a couple of inches actually. It sure would make those long flights home to NZ a lot more comfortable.
quote:
The issue at hand is not whether deafness is worse than height, but whether being short is a disability. |
IMO being short only becomes a disability when you are really short, like a dwarf.
quote:
Why not, Caligastia? How would you determine which parents are fit, and which parents were unfit?
|
With Hitler's eugenic antics still fresh in the minds of those in western society, any restrictions on reproduction will be unfairly associated with nazism.
I would have a tough time determining who is fit and who isn't, but I think we could all agree that a crack whore that has had 11 kids, all damaged for life by her drug use while she was pregnant with them, is not fit to be a parent.
quote:
Name the job that cannot be performed by a deaf person. |
Music producer.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote: Originally posted by obiwan18
Cali, like 5'6'' for a guy?
|
Nahh...more like under 5 foot.
quote:
Couple points. How expensive are earplugs? The measures needed for deaf people need not be expensive. |
I believe that in the long run it will always be more expensive to accomodate disabilities than to eliminate them.
quote:
Secondly, can we eliminate further mutations that produce deafness? |
Not entirely, as mutations are constantly occuring, but we can at least stop existing mutations from being passed down to the next generation.
quote:
Finally, how expensive will genetic engineering be compared with the alternatives? |
Expensive in the short term, but much cheaper in the long term IMO.
There are a lot of others I could come up with, some that could be more easily accomodated than others, but the point is that I think it's cheaper in the long run to just get rid of as many negative mutations as we can. Not only that, but I also think a person's chances of having a full life with a wide range of experiences would definitely be hindered by disabilities.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote: Originally posted by obiwan18
It's a very weak argument, that's all. |
If you think being deaf doesn't come with any limitations...pfff...that's just irrational. From where I'm standing, you're the one with the weak argument my friend.
quote:
What if I happened to be deaf? |
Perhaps if you were I could understand your position a bit more. After all, you wouldn't have experienced what it's like to hear things, so you wouldn't know what you're missing. Are you?
quote:
Negative mutations... Isn't that how evolution is supposed to work? No mutation is negative without the underlying environmental factors. You change the environment, you change the efficiency of a mutation.
Sickle-cell is an example used earlier in this thread, of how a detrimental effect can be positive given a suitable environment. |
Positive in one way, negative overall. Also, a natural immunity to malaria would be far more desirable than having SC.
quote:
Should we pay for this service? Is it ameliorating a disability? |
Now you're getting into the politics of nationalized health, I won't touch that one I'm afraid. Of course, I don't have a problem accommodating those with existing disabilities, I just think we should also be looking at prevention.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
Repeat after me obiwan18 - "Caligastia does not think deaf people are useless or incapable of leading full and productive lives, he simply recognises that being deaf is a disability."
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|