• @Maggoty
    cake
    link
    English
    282 months ago

    No they acknowledge that the technology could be used that way. But there’s a lot of actual medical problems we can catch this way. Imagine you carry the Huntington’s gene. How much would you pay to make sure you don’t pass that down to your kids?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Imagine you carry the Huntington’s gene. How much would you pay to make sure you don’t pass that down to your kids?

      Nothing. That’s what health insurance is for. Also practically noone has any issues with preimplantation diagnostics when it comes to things that are clearly genetic diseases, what rubs people the wrong way is a) selecting by bullshit criteria, e.g. sex, eye colour, curliness of hair, whatever, b) making designer babies the default at the expanse of erm wild ones, worst of all, c) the combination.

      And ethics aside the arguments should be obvious it’s also a bad idea from the POV of the honest eugenicist: Humanity’s genetic diversity is already low as it is it would be fatal to allow things like fashions to narrow it down even more.

      Humanity is already shaping its own selection criteria, we might need to start doing something extra to avoid evolving ourselves into a corner by non-PID means. Random example: C-Sections. No mother or baby should die in childbirth, yet, the selective pressure towards more uncomplicated births getting removed might, over many many many generations, leave us with very few women who would survive a natural birth which doesn’t sound like a good situation for a species to be in, to be reliant on technology to even reproduce. Thus is might become prudent to artificially select for e.g. wide-hip genes.

      • @Maggoty
        cake
        link
        English
        1
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Yeah, but nobody here is suggesting racial criteria. This article is specifically about screening for health issues. Reading more into it, it seems like they’ve paired big data with genetic screening to lay odds on health problems that aren’t just a single gene going the wrong way.

        Edit to add, there’s no such thing as an ethical Eugenicist. The theory was based on racism and sterilizing “undesirables”. This isn’t Eugenics.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          This isn’t Eugenics.

          There’s a debate about that ongoing, whether the word and basic idea can be divorced from its history with scientific racism. I don’t really have a skin in the game but would like to point out that psychiatry didn’t cease to be called psychiatry when we stopped physically abusing inmates, showing them off to gawkers, whatnot, got rid of phrenology, etc. You can make arguments both for “we must start from a clean slate” as well as “let’s own the bullshit of the past to have something to teach students to not do”.

          • @Maggoty
            cake
            link
            English
            12 months ago

            That’s because phrenoloy and the other theories are under Psychiatry and Psychology. You don’t throw out Astronomy because of Heliocentrism. Eugenics was specifically developed to produce racial outcomes. It’s a theory, not a field of science.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              02 months ago

              It’s first and foremost a word meaning as much as “good stock”, or, more modern, “good genes”. Nazis didn’t actually use it, at least not prominently, they were all about “racial hygiene” – very different implications.

              As to “specifically developed” I’m not so sure I don’t know enough about Galton. What I do know is that he first did e.g. twin studies to figure out the relative importance of nature vs. nurture and stuff. People motivated by hate don’t tend to be that thorough meaning if he had more information he might’ve ended up on the other side of the fence but as said I don’t know nearly enough about his work to actually draw conclusions, ask a literary critic or such.

              • @Maggoty
                cake
                link
                English
                12 months ago

                His base assumption was something called genetic determinism. Which is exactly what it sounds like and exactly as debunked as you would think. He also tried to link body build and head measurements to genetic determinism.

                And No. The Nazis absolutely loved Eugenics. The entire Western world did. The Nazis literally made it a required subject in grade school.

                Eugenics needs to go die in a fire. There’s no need to resurrect the name or practices when we’re talking about actual genetic science.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  0
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  The Nazis absolutely loved Eugenics. The entire Western world did. The Nazis literally made it a required subject in grade school.

                  I was talking about words. Said required subject was called Rassenlehre, very much not a calque of eugenics.

                  There’s no need to resurrect the name or practices when we’re talking about actual genetic science.

                  If anti-racist biologists want to reclaim the word, or even appropriate it as the case may be, I’m not going to call them racists over it. That needs to be judged by the practices.

                  • @Maggoty
                    cake
                    link
                    English
                    12 months ago

                    Yeah that’s not whose arguing we should put call genetic modification eugenics. And the Germans didn’t use an English word? Shocking. Truly shocking.

    • @scutiger
      link
      English
      -12 months ago

      It’s still eugenics, you just used more words to describe it.

      • @Maggoty
        cake
        link
        English
        -5
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        No. Eugenics is race theory as much as it’s anything scientific. It was about making sure the “correct” races had children. I don’t know what the name for this is in science but Eugenics isn’t about making kids healthier, it’s about making them whiter.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          9
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          No that’s literally what it means:

          The practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations (as by sterilization) to improve the populations’ genetic composition

          Science that deals with the improvement of inherited qualities of a race or breed and especially of human beings

          The practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations (as by sterilization) to improve the populations’ genetic composition

          https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenics

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            102 months ago

            But this isn’t selective breeding, unless you twist the definition to the point where it means something wholly different. If I understand right, this is just screening embryos for potential health problems.

              • @Maggoty
                cake
                link
                English
                32 months ago

                Genetic screening has been around for awhile now. The scam here (if there is one) is them claiming this is new. Maybe they have a better screening, but this is not Theranos.

                The theory of eugenics is specific to racist ideology. They sterilized minorities so they couldn’t have children because they wanted more white people. That’s why it says “inherited qualities of a race, especially of human beings” it is specifically calling race out as separate from the idea of all humans.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                2
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                Closest, but the method used by eugenics is specifically selective breeding, and is specifically about races or breeds even when you twist the definition like you did here.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                02 months ago

                You specifically left out the “a science” part, which is also part of the “kids’” definition for eugenics in your source.

                eugenics noun eu·​gen·​ics yu̇-ˈjen-iks : a science that deals with the improvement of inherited qualities of a race or breed and especially of human beings

                Removing the “a” from the beginning completely changes the meaning of the word, which is why you did it.

                Shame.

          • billwashere
            link
            English
            92 months ago

            If this is indeed like GATTACA selecting specific embryos after fertilization is not really selective breeding. Selective breeding is picking the parents. This is picking the children. You could do both but it didn’t seem like that is what was happening. I could still see this likely leading to problems genetically not dissimilar to problems with inbreeding. Genetic diversity requires the randomness of life to be useful long term.

          • @Maggoty
            cake
            link
            English
            1
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Did you miss where they do that by sterilization? And qualities of a race or breed?

            Do you speak English? Is this a translation error?

            Edit to add-

            And you present it like there’s multiple definitions. There is not. This is Merriam’s entry-

            the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations (as by sterilization) to improve the populations’ genetic composition

            The second one is for kids. The follow on context under the actual definition also makes it very clear that this was selective breeding by sterilization, closely related to white supremacy ideology.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -12 months ago

            You specifically left out the “a science” part, which is also part of the “kids’” definition for eugenics.

            eugenics noun eu·​gen·​ics yu̇-ˈjen-iks : a science that deals with the improvement of inherited qualities of a race or breed and especially of human beings

            Removing the “a” from the beginning completely changes the meaning of the word, which is why you did it.

            Shame.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              32 months ago

              I’m not native speaker so please excuse my stupid question. How does the “a” change the meaning? My language doesn’t even have articles so I have troubles with using them or understanding such nuances.