Making better humans, or rather, making less-bad ones

[crazy canuck]

The risks that short majority will create a future where everyone is short are simply too great.

[Berkut]

The risks that short majority will create a future where everyone is short are simply too great.

+1

[garbon]

The risks that short majority will create a future where everyone is short are simply too great.

It seems like most things are created with shorter people in mind. To take a Raz vein, I wonder if it would be easier to weed out tall people or to re-shape the world to accommodate everyone being tall.

[Martinus]

Responses related to my sad-sackery can be directed to me elsewhere.  I know I have no place in any better world.
[...]
Oh, and I suppose it would increase government spending.  Feel free to also discuss aborting shitty babies in a private context, without federal funding.

Curing genetic diseases, I'm ok with it.

But then you get into the debate over what exactly constitutes a genetic disease or defect.  Raz seems to argue that homosexuality is a genetic defect, whereas in fact we don't even know for certain that it's genetic at all.  And further up the thread, Ide postulated that empathy is determined by genetics.

The thing is, I don't think Ide's ideas are even that radical - they are simple ineffective.

As I already said, in most civilised countries you can already abort pregnancy where a foetus is damaged or suffering from a disease; and both prenatal tests to check that and the cost of the abortion procedure is refunded by the local NHS. So people can take a decision more or less freely. I don't think promising additional hand-outs to people would make them take a different decision (and if it does, it would be for wrong reasons which should not be encouraged by the state).

If there is a question I guess, it is whether the state should assist you financially if you want to raise a kid who is, effectively, a vegetable and you were aware of this while you could still have a legal abortion. This is, imo, a much more interesting moral conundrum. I think it should, as the cost is likely negligible in the overall order of things, and the alternative is much more problematic.

[Eddie Teach]

The risks that short majority will create a future where everyone is short are simply too great.

This would only accelerate humanity's growth spurt.

[crazy canuck]

The risks that short majority will create a future where everyone is short are simply too great.

This would only accelerate humanity's growth spurt.

The point is that people will make genetic decisions based on flawed assumptions like what is too tall, too short, too etc etc etc.  If Ide were put in charge we would have a society genetically predisposed to have no artists.

[viper37]

Responses related to my sad-sackery can be directed to me elsewhere.  I know I have no place in any better world.
[...]
Oh, and I suppose it would increase government spending.  Feel free to also discuss aborting shitty babies in a private context, without federal funding.

Curing genetic diseases, I'm ok with it.

But then you get into the debate over what exactly constitutes a genetic disease or defect.  Raz seems to argue that homosexuality is a genetic defect, whereas in fact we don't even know for certain that it's genetic at all.  And further up the thread, Ide postulated that empathy is determined by genetics.   

Science has a pretty good definition of what is a disease.  Having brown eyes is not a disease.
In humans, "disease" is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes pain, dysfunction, distress, social problems, or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person.
I can't see how we fit homosexuality in there.

I think we can narrow it down sufficiently to avoid abuses, heck, aren't we already correcting stuff like down syndrome?  or simply detecting it and aborting the foetus?  Anyway, it is the same reasoning.

[Razgovory]

I wonder if homosexuality would be considered an undesirable element as homosexuals are on average more likely to be depressed and suffer STDs.

We've already had this conversation before. For both, it is hard to parse out what is intrinsic to homosexuality itself and what stems from societal pressures placed on homosexuals.

I can't believe anyone still falls for Raz's trolling.

No troll, but the cult of gay pride refuses to acknowledge that it's possible the condition of homosexuality has certain medical downsides and instead take the somewhat belligerent attitude of, "Well that's every one else's problem, not mine!".  Which is sort of like the black power movement blaming sickle cell anemia on racism.  I am simply suggesting that if homosexuality is prenatal then it is logical it should be able to be detected in the womb.  If that's true, then someone will find a way to alter sexuality before a person is born.  In such a situation, medical ethics would demand a parent be informed of that choice.  Since statistically parents are more likely to be straight then gay, even higher then the ratio of straights to gays in the general population the number of gay children being born is likely to decrease dramatically.  There is little reason for a straight parent to chose a sexuality for their child that different then their own, and is lots of reasons not to do so.

I see your point, Marti, and my apologies.

Not something you are comfortable with facing are you?

[Razgovory]

Responses related to my sad-sackery can be directed to me elsewhere.  I know I have no place in any better world.
[...]
Oh, and I suppose it would increase government spending.  Feel free to also discuss aborting shitty babies in a private context, without federal funding.

Curing genetic diseases, I'm ok with it.

But then you get into the debate over what exactly constitutes a genetic disease or defect.  Raz seems to argue that homosexuality is a genetic defect, whereas in fact we don't even know for certain that it's genetic at all.  And further up the thread, Ide postulated that empathy is determined by genetics.

Actually I said the opposite.  Homosexuality seems more probable in each subsequent child born to the same mother.  For instance the 1st born child is less likely to be gay then the 3rd child who is turn less likely to be gay as the 7th.   This is not the pattern of genetics but of hormonal change possibly triggered by multiple pregnancies.

[Razgovory]

Science has a pretty good definition of what is a disease.  Having brown eyes is not a disease.
In humans, "disease" is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes pain, dysfunction, distress, social problems, or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person.
I can't see how we fit homosexuality in there.

I think we can narrow it down sufficiently to avoid abuses, heck, aren't we already correcting stuff like down syndrome?  or simply detecting it and aborting the foetus?  Anyway, it is the same reasoning.

You don't see how being homosexual  can cause social problems or distress?

[Ideologue]

The risks that short majority will create a future where everyone is short are simply too great.

This would only accelerate humanity's growth spurt.

The point is that people will make genetic decisions based on flawed assumptions like what is too tall, too short, too etc etc etc.  If Ide were put in charge we would have a society genetically predisposed to have no artists.

Yeah, if there's one thing I fucking hate, it's artists.

[crazy canuck]

Ide, if you have gotten over your STEM infatuation I applaud you

[viper37]

Science has a pretty good definition of what is a disease.  Having brown eyes is not a disease.
In humans, "disease" is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes pain, dysfunction, distress, social problems, or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person.
I can't see how we fit homosexuality in there.

I think we can narrow it down sufficiently to avoid abuses, heck, aren't we already correcting stuff like down syndrome?  or simply detecting it and aborting the foetus?  Anyway, it is the same reasoning.

You don't see how being homosexual  can cause social problems or distress?

no more than being an Apple fan, a scat or feet fetishist, an animal lover, a geek, a nerd, or anything that does not conform to current societal standards.

With homosexuality, the distress or social problem one can feel are dependent upon the social reaction to this condition, not the condition in itself.

[grumbler]

The thing is, I don't think Ide's ideas are even that radical - they are simple ineffective.

As I already said, in most civilised countries you can already abort pregnancy where a foetus is damaged or suffering from a disease; and both prenatal tests to check that and the cost of the abortion procedure is refunded by the local NHS. So people can take a decision more or less freely. I don't think promising additional hand-outs to people would make them take a different decision (and if it does, it would be for wrong reasons which should not be encouraged by the state).

If there is a question I guess, it is whether the state should assist you financially if you want to raise a kid who is, effectively, a vegetable and you were aware of this while you could still have a legal abortion. This is, imo, a much more interesting moral conundrum. I think it should, as the cost is likely negligible in the overall order of things, and the alternative is much more problematic.

Whoever you are that has taken over Marti's account, I agree.  Well, except for some of the spelling.

[Razgovory]

no more than being an Apple fan, a scat or feet fetishist, an animal lover, a geek, a nerd, or anything that does not conform to current societal standards.

With homosexuality, the distress or social problem one can feel are dependent upon the social reaction to this condition, not the condition in itself.

This is true of most paraphilic disorders, but they are still considered disorders.  It is where atypical sexual attraction causes distress or impairment.  If we regard social reaction as  only standard we end up with some oddities.  A person of who is sexually attracted to children can be "cured", by him immigrating to culture where such a behavior is acceptable.  One of the medical risks of homosexuality is significant increased chance of STDs.  It is difficult to figure out what changes in societal standards are possible to prevent this.