a new super race?

[rosieglo]

Re the article in the guardian about the baby that was successfully screened for the breast cancer gene and the controversy about 'designer babies' - what's the fuss? I'm thinking that breeding out illness and disabilty is a great thing. Improving intelligence also; hopefully the smarter the future generations are the more likely they will find ways to halt our destruction of the planet and stop fighting. What's wrong with wanting fitter, stronger, cleverer and healthier children? And I think it is so wrong for a deaf or blind parent to actively seek out a way to pass their disability on, I cannot begin to understand how they could want to deprive their child of the ability to hear music or see the world around them.
hmmn - for me it's a pretty straight forward matter.

Cory - I know hypermobility is genetic. What I meant to question was whether there is a hypermobility gene, or if, for example, there is a flexibility gene that leads to hypermobility when reinforced by other genes/factors.

silverfrog I get that "oh what a shame"
ffs dd is like a ray of sunshine on a rainy day. in RL I am having it crap at the moment, one thing I know is that she will make me smile.
she is happy and has a zest for life.........and not a mean bone in her body(oh apart from saying she didn't like her new top to wind me up )

"Xenia, you seem to see a wider purpose to genetic engineering. Would you say it was the self-direction of human evolution? "

Yes because I think it exists in nature and that humankind has consistently done it anyway. Although there is an interesting issue now that for the first time in british history people will live less than their parents because we're all getting so fat so may be we've starting going backwards not forwards because of teh appalling diet people eat.

Of course I know that lots of disabilities are caused at or after birth too. My brother deals with suicides - masses of those don't succeed and then lose their legs or are disabled and brain damaged for life, seomthing people don't think about when they try to kill themselves and fail. Countless reasnos people have disabilities.

But my main point is it would be betteri f we had no disabilities and if we can eradicate them that's great, that although people with disabilities are different but of value just as I being white or having freckles or being female am different or with value, the problems they have and perhaps the pubilc utility and cost issues mean if we can remove those disabilities so much the better. The converse argument is deaf is best let's have 100% deaf people or the middle argument - never interfere with nature in any way or never interfer with nature by allowing any stem cell treatments (see today's about spinal injuries in the US - wonderful) or genetic engineering. Even clones are in nature- every identical twin on thep lanet is a clone.

better for who, though, Xenia?

"the problems they have and perhaps the pubilc utility and cost issues mean if we can remove those disabilities so much the better"

Well, most people with a disability work and contribute to society, Xenia. I do. I haven't cost society one penny. Neither have most of the other people with disabilities who would 'disappear' from a future society.

Wrong info, seriously, it is.

"the problems they have and perhaps the pubilc utility and cost issues mean if we can remove those disabilities so much the better"

My ds will never live an independent life, nor will he ever work. However, because he will always need help with his living and with his care, he will actually generate employment for people who choose to work in the caring sector.

Job done.

The reason I asked, Xenia, was because it it did indeed seem very close to what you were saying, and I had noticed that it was the motto of the International Eugenics Conference in 1921.

There is huge potential - as we have seen - for this attitude to end up in the horrific dehumanisation of those that do not conform to our idea of perfection.

Evolution is eugenics anyway as is good diet, picking a husband carefully etc etc so it's a bit pointless to say we dont' want to improve human beings as whether you're in favour of it or not it happens anyway.

Xenia, I don't wish to be 'improved', thank you. Neither does my son, nor my husband. We love each other as we are. So do those around us.

No, I wasn't joking.

Okay, well it doesn't quite work like that.

That doesn't make money for society but costs money from society. I'm not saying society should begrudge it at all. Any of us might get sick (quite a lot of NHS money was spent on me) but it does go on the loss side not on the profit side.

Xenia: "Evolution is eugenics anyway"

Not really.

Evolution is chance variation and unintentional selection. Eugenics is a science aiming at intentional human behaviour. Our intentional behaviour is subject to moral constraints not acting on natural processes.

Evolution reinforces survival-positive traits; it doesn't actively eliminate survival-negative traits. Eugenics (in the form of selection amongst embryos) involves 'active elimination'.

The fact that we are able to regard the consequences of evolution positivelydoesn't entail any attitude towards eugenics.

(It would be facile to respond that 'eugenics' just means 'good genes'. That is it's origin, but it involves more.)

So when most people have children, the first thing they do is sit down with a calculator and work out how to maximise the financial profit to society?

Let me off this planet...

Oh, and evolution has just one imperative -- reproduction of genes.

Eugenics might have several, and each might be contested. What do we seek to maximise? Not reproduction. As individuals we aren't always concerned with that at all (though as a species we a re conditioned by it).

The recent media discussion has focussed on the distinctive quality of autistic experience. The desirability of its eradication is questionable to say the least.

And so is the desirability of eradicating many experiences associated with other disabilities and impairments.

Amber, was that about my post? I was simply correcting a misunderstanding. When I get free medical help it doesn't increase the NHS profits does it.

There's no misunderstanding on my part.

My ds will be unable to look after himself, which will entail the employment of others to provide his daily care. This employment will lead to earnings and taxation, rather than say, the claiming of unemployment benefits (which thousands of non-disabled people claim daily and often out of choice over wanting to work).

will not be able to look after himself

Onager, the NHS isn't supposed to make a profit? (Thoroughly confused now...and not a little dispirited at friends being seen as a burdensome cost, when to me they are such fine and lovely and caring people who want to make a contribution to society but jolly well aren't given the chance to do so)

MannyMoeAndJack, I wasn't trying to make you feel bad. As I say I've used enough resources myself.

When I need someone to do something for me because I am sick they have to be paid. That money comes from the taxpayers. Ordinary people chipping in to pay for my needs. That's okay becaue that's what having a society is for and when I am not sick my taxes go towards something else.
But you can't call it a profit. Even if the people caring for me pay tax that is out of the tax money that was used to pay them. The treasury or whatever is still worse off for having had to employ them in the first place.

Don't take my word for it since I'm sure you now think I'm being mean. Discuss it with someone in the real world.

oh dear, so dd is costing the NHS money......the same NHS that caused her cp!!!

amber32002, saint2shoes etc I'm not the one equating money and people. It was being suggested that the more people who were disabled the more money the NHS would make. That is silly and I was trying to point it out tactfully.

'That money comes from the taxpayers'

No, really?! Well, that's everyone who works then, including the people who will care for my ds but sadly not the non-disabled people who live their lives on benefits or in prison - cos taxes go there too.

'Discuss it with someone in the real world'

Not sure what this means.