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

[Ideologue]

Responses related to my sad-sackery can be directed to me elsewhere.  I know I have no place in any better world.

I distinguish between public and private eugenics for good reason: private eugenics is practiced universally without serious objection.  Like the free market, it is irrational and doesn't function properly.  (Strictly speaking, my proposal is not only "eugenics," since it would also cure non-heritable congenital disorders.)

Anyway, the question, more fully formed, is assuming that in the near future, Gattaca-like cheap gene sequencing/reading could be implemented for all conceptions, what is the actual objection to using it to flag children whose genes predispose them toward less happy lives?

Since, obviously, I do have pretty serious issues with forcing people to have abortions or sterilize them, I'd prefer a system that incentivized abortions by offering screening procedures for free and a tax credit regime that would basically give couples (or, possibly, individuals) money to "try again" if an embryo evidences negative traits.  "Negative traits" would include all sorts of things, from spina bifida to depression to low intelligence to unattractiveness.  The actual determination would probably be more complicated than binary yes/no decisions by the board tasked with awarding the credits, since it's unlikely any embryo is ever going to be "perfect."  Aborting an embryo with a combination of negligibly negative traits with positive ones would probably not result in a reward.  But you get the general idea.  [Derspeiss' note: There would probably have to be some kind of lifetime cap to prevent people buying Cadillacs with their abortion money]

I expect this idea somehow upsets liberals and conversatives alike.  If so, wouldn't that be strange?  Consider: unlike most of my crazy ideas, this one impinges on no established rights, and is strictly geared toward increasing aggregate utility with zero cognizable harm.  The worst I can see is that it would somehow "stigmatize" people who were not given "approval" to be born because their parents didn't love them enough to abort them (i.e., "the plot of Gattaca").  Most of these people are "stigmatized" anyway, or at least face serious obstacles in life.

Oh, and I suppose it would increase government spending.  Feel free to also discuss aborting shitty babies in a private context, without federal funding.

[Eddie Teach]

Leaving aside the moral and ethical issues, I think the resulting loss of genetic diversity would make us more vulnerable to deadly viruses.

[Ideologue]

Aw, you took that from a conversation we had with Vinraith like five years ago.  And he was right--but that context was genetic engineering using standardized parts.

I'm unsure to what extent, if any, mere embryo selection would seriously reduce genetic diversity.

[MadImmortalMan]

Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave.

[Ideologue]

Non-analogous social engineering project.  Also the main issue with the Pax was that it should have been given Phase III clinical tests before it was pumped into the atmosphere of an entire planet.  Oops!

[Eddie Teach]

Aw, you took that from a conversation we had with Vinraith like five years ago. 

Naturally, as I am incapable of independent thought.

I'm unsure to what extent, if any, mere embryo selection would seriously reduce genetic diversity.

You select against traits, they disappear. Then you select against new traits, which also disappear. This is just a slower form of genetic engineering.

[Ideologue]

OK, I didn't mean to offend you.

As I understand it, the genetic diversity that gives us protection against global pandemics involves the exact kind of proteins we express, like the CCR5 gene that, in most configurations, generates a receptor site for HIV.  (Whereas the Delta 35 mutation leaves that receptor site out, rendering its carriers immune.)  Multifactorial traits like intelligence or depression aren't triggered by one gene, and embryo selection would not select against those genes except in certain combinations.  The genes themselves would live on and the proteins they express continue to be expressed, for good or ill.

And for what it's worth, genetic diversity within the human population is already low and we're ridiculously vulnerable to a pandemic.  Using HIV as an example again, only like 1% of the population is immune.  I mean, I'm all for dieback, but that's a little excessive.

Anyway, what are the moral and ethical issues?

[Eddie Teach]

I'm not offended. Well, maybe a little at first. I simply don't recall this conversation.

I find it dubious that embryo selection won't result in the disappearance of genes. Perhaps they will be few enough to be worth the risk. I dunno.

[Martinus]

"Negative traits" would include all sorts of things, from spina bifida to depression to low intelligence to unattractiveness.

This is the best example why your idea is moronic. A lot of great people had depression or were unattractive (and in fact many otherwise necessary or useful personality traits could be linked to depression or unattractiveness). Not to mention you have cases like Stephen Hawking.

[Martinus]

So, the only area where this could possibly "work" is where the foetus is so damaged, the person born out of it would be essentially a "vegetable" - in such cases, the parents are already heavily incentivised to have an abortion and if they do not, it is because of very strong convictions, so getting a handout to "try again" would not change their mind.

[The Brain]

I'm shocked that Ide suggests Enhanced Abortion Techniques.

[dps]

"Negative traits" would include all sorts of things, from spina bifida to depression to low intelligence to unattractiveness.

This is the best example why your idea is moronic. A lot of great people had depression or were unattractive (and in fact many otherwise necessary or useful personality traits could be linked to depression or unattractiveness). Not to mention you have cases like Stephen Hawking.

My understanding is that while we don't know the cause of the disease that Hawking has, there doesn't appear to be a genetic component, so I'm not sure that Ide's suggestion would make any difference with it.

That said, I do believe I agree with your general point.  Also, when it comes to attractiveness, we might question whose standards of attractiveness is going to be used.

[Ideologue]

"Negative traits" would include all sorts of things, from spina bifida to depression to low intelligence to unattractiveness.

This is the best example why your idea is moronic. A lot of great people had depression or were unattractive (and in fact many otherwise necessary or useful personality traits could be linked to depression or unattractiveness). Not to mention you have cases like Stephen Hawking.

Apparently your argument is that preventable suffering doesn't matter, because sometimes the innocent sufferers' existence is good for society?

Well, as we don't currently possess the infrastructure for screening, any child could be the next Hawking; should we not take the risk and outlaw abortion?

Since you won't breed, should you be forced to?  Just in case your heir is the one who gets us to Mars?

But really your argument is on its face quite wrongheaded, because you're assuming lives that are not in being.  I don't think my ideas revolve around building fucking time machines and going back to kill Stephen Hawking in the womb.  This is the false equivalence that makes people uncomfortable: the notion that by deciding, going forward, no one will have to suffer motor neuron disease, it diminishes the value of people who currently have motor neuron disease.  Others suffered, so the future must suffer as well?  It's simply aborting fetuses--contemporary ones, mind.  It's something we do every day for all sorts of reasons.

All sorts of potential people never exist.  Including the potential people denied existence, because we let nature take its course and less-happy children were born instead of their ethereal brothers and sisters.

Incidentally, do you think it is immoral for a parent to decide to abort a child due to a "minor" defect like ALS?

[Ideologue]

"Negative traits" would include all sorts of things, from spina bifida to depression to low intelligence to unattractiveness.

This is the best example why your idea is moronic. A lot of great people had depression or were unattractive (and in fact many otherwise necessary or useful personality traits could be linked to depression or unattractiveness). Not to mention you have cases like Stephen Hawking.

My understanding is that while we don't know the cause of the disease that Hawking has, there doesn't appear to be a genetic component, so I'm not sure that Ide's suggestion would make any difference with it.

That said, I do believe I agree with your general point.  Also, when it comes to attractiveness, we might question whose standards of attractiveness is going to be used.

ALS can come from several different sources.  There are genetically-carried variants, which is ultra-dangerous as it is autosomally dominant.  However, most are not genetic in nature.

Anyway, it doesn't matter.  As I explained, this isn't solely or even mainly about improving the gene pool but rather the idea that removing fetuses with defects (as opposed to living humans like Stephen Hawking, just to be super-duper clear) would make a happier society, simply by dint of it being a society freer from pain.  Eugenics is a slight misnomer as it would be a broader mandate.

[Ideologue]

Annoyingly, I can't determine if Hawking's ALS was a result of an SOD1 or other mutation and hence familial ALS, or environmentally-caused sporadic ALS.

He has three kids with no ALS, though, so I guess it's unlikely to be one of the typically autosomally dominant mutations that cause familial ALS.  I did find an article that dropped Hawking's name in a discussion of potential gene therapy which would turn off the SOD1 gene.  However, it seems to have been written by a person with a very poor understanding of how ALS functions, given that they leave the question open of whether it would "cure" Hawking, who has spent like 40 years having his motor neurons destroyed.  So I don't credit that as a definite "Hawking has genetic ALS."

Hawking may be a terrible example, then, since I also don't advocate for abortions based on the possibility adult children may be hit by a fucking bus.