Helix

No. I have been bringing up the issue of force, the implied lack of choice. Just because I didn’t say ‘choice’ doesn’t mean I wasn’t talking about the issue. There are oblique ways to approach any problem.

For flu viruses, it goes H for what type of hemaglutinin and N for what type of neurominadase. For others, I think it goes by name of place where it was discovered. Thus, Ebola Reston and Ebola Zaire

the ISEF. I'm entering, it should be pretty fun (though I'm entering in biology). http://www.sciserv.org/isef/ of course you'd have to enter for next year, as this year's competition starts in a week.

crabcakes monster (did anyone else think of 'ouch' for 'defenestrate'?)

The thing is genetic diseases will not do in humanity. Genetic diseases are a natural part of evolution; an unpleasant side effect of genetic mutations. So, seeing as how no other species is extinct because of genetic diseases, I doubt we will be the first. I believe that the humanity is its own biggest threat; nuclear war, lack of renewable resources and the like will do us in long before genetic diseases do. And even if they were a threat, eugenics is not the answer. The proponents are misinformed; the movement would not eradicate those diseases from humanity as genetic diseases are inherent to evolution. And the method of 'cleansing' itself is immoral, leading the atrocities by the Nazis and the United States. Eugenics was poorly formed and poorly executed by Galton and his ilk.

If we have an apocalypse on our hands, we have bigger problems than genetic diseases. That's fine; we're not all the same. But if you aren't sensitive to future generations, I'd hold off on making decisions that could potentially affect them. And when I view an ideal species I view humanity made up of free agent individuals determining their own futures through their own self-reliance. But again, if you aren't disposed to being sensitive, which is fine, making decisions to affect humanity in the future isn't the best course.

How can our technology and knowledge about biology fail? The only way these diseases can get out of hand is if our therapies not only don't advance but actually fail. How is that possible? Then if those future people with diseases can be happy, why preclude their existance with the use of eugenics? And how does it come down to the species?

That's a mature thing to say. But why are your people better than mine? By virtue that you agree with them, that makes them correct? A bit vain if I do say so... But the key thing in your flowchart is the technology failing: how will our therapies fail? If anything, they will only improve. No, it's those generations I am arguing for. I believe that diseases and all, it is better to live and try to pit the human spirit against a disease, rather than not try at all. Yours is a bleak outlook; people with diseases can still be happy in this world. Look at Gherig and Hawking; both suffer from a genetic disease. Look at everyone in the Special Olympics. The bottom line is that having a genetic disease does not damn you to a life of misery. On the contrary, if you are strong enough you can rise above it.

Then why let those bad-decision makers decide who can reproduce? You have yet to show me how. That's kind and I'm also fairly confident not the way to approach a problem like this. Yes, they wouldn't care. But others can care for them. Just because they can't argue for themselves (being sperm/egg and all), doesn't mean the cause is meaningless. No, I'm letting an enormous amount of people live in the hope that they can defy their ailment and succeed. People with disorders can, and do, survive and succeed in life. That's not conjecture, it's true. And if the right to live is an irrational moral I think we disagree on a lot more than eugenics.

The right to live. I think I should note I am talking about those children who wouldn't be born as a result of a eugenics program; I am against eugenics because it violates the rights of those it doesn't allow to live (the children of the 'inferior'). You're basically saying if you're crippled you can achieve nothing in your life but suffering. Yes, there is suffering in being crippled but there is also room for success. If eugenics was implemented earlier, physicist Steven Hawking wouldn't be alive because doctors would have seen he would eventually get ALS. He managed to live well and in the course of doing so illuminated quite a bit for the human race as a whole. Now, back in those days I don't think they had the technology to spot ALS before birth, but as they do today I am speaking as an example of what could happen to future generations if eugenics was implemented. Like I responded earlier, my mistake. No, I have said how eugenics is unethical. The horrors inflicted upon the human race in the name of racial purity and the 'cleansing' of our species have shown that eugenics is bad science and will only lead to strife. Forced sterilization is the most horrible aspect of eugenics, as it denies human rights by seizing the ability to reproduce from that person and degrading them by saying they aren't worthy to reproduce. I really can't explain it better than: reiterating the example set by Nazi Germany (same methods, different reasoning, and a happier facade) would create unspeakable horrors. Would you like the gov’t to deem you useless and have you sterilized? The whole concept is inhuman.

I understand what you are saying: we mate for different reasons than animals so there is nothing selecting against bad genes. So we, as sentient beings, should pick up the slack. People with bad genes, you think, shouldn't pollute the gene pool. I understand all of that. But what I don't understand is how you justify that gross misplacement of power and the use of a highly unethical method to achieve your goal of genetic purity? Forced sterilization is a bad idea, that's my main point. Morally, it's utterly damnable. I really cannot fathom how anyone, anyone at all, justifies the use of forced sterilization on a population. It was bad when the Nazis did it, it was bad when the US did it, and it will continue to be bad no matter how much rhetoric is strewn about it. It is a moral atrocity. If the goal of science isn't to make sure people live, and live well, then what is it? Yes, well I am a bleeding-heart individualist. So, I guess I rank pretty high on the sensitive scale. But that aside, there are better ways to deal with these 'inferiors' than sterilizing them. Why not work towards a therapy for the genetic illnesses that plague these people? I mean we could end world hunger by bombing the hungry but that might be construed as a bit harsh, as would this. My point is to try to fix the problem, not destroy it.

I've always liked science, but in 7th grade we did an intro to cell biology and I thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

My username is because I like genetics/cell biology. My avatar is....I actually forget. I think it's p53 doing its thing.

No real reasoning, except that I figured that to make serious strides against Islamic extremism it would take some time (and a decade is a nice whole unit of time). In reality I think the US will start to 'win' (i.e. get other Islamic groups on our sides, discredit Al Qaeda) in about 15 years. What do you think?

I don't see how we intrude on the workings of genetics more than any other animal does. Yes, mating is usually done according to specific traits (appearance, temperament) but animals do the same thing for other traits (plumage, aggressiveness). So how are we different? I do agree, though, that we have the capability to negatively impact evolution: eugenics. What do you mean by 'the suffering of countless children'? By 'rights' I mean the rights of those children who, by your plan of eugenics, wouldn't even be alive. I think the right to live, and live freely, is the most important right of all. Didn't know that. Learn something new every day

I agree; but I think it would be far better to just not have a war that lasts that long. If we can't accomplish this war on terror in a decade, I think the US needs to re-think their strategy. A diplomatic approach would be more well received and, obviously, less violent.

I see. But how can we manipulate evolution (thru eugenics) but still let evolution 'do its thing'? To really let evolution run its course we would back off and if Darwin was right (which he most likely was) then the 'bad' genes would just disappear. Evolution has worked for millions of years without our aid, why do we need to get involved when the moral side effects are so horrible (the effects being the forced Nazi-esque sterilization of all genetic ‘inferiors’)? Eugenics is wrong because it intrudes on the rights of private citizens; it denies them human rights. Also, if you're an American, it violates the 4th amendment by 'seizing' their reproductive organs. Also, if you're sterilized, how can you have sex? Are genetic diseases on the rise or have we just not noticed them fully up until now? Science has only advanced within the last century to the point where we can examine genetic disease; how can you say they 'are on the rise' with no comparable data from the Roman Empire or ancient China? It's more likely than not those genetic diseases have been around, but we only have had the capabilities (and knowledge) to observe them recently.

They don't seem to need an excuse as it is.

Right, but I think forced sterilization is still horrible. It strikes me as an inhuman thing to do. And humans survived for thousands of years without eugenics, so is it really necessary? If you haven't read about the trial of Carrie Buck, I think you should: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_eugenics.html The very chilling thing to me was the lack of defense she received. It seemed as if everyone thought she was useless. And, as a question to the proponents of this, isn't that what eugenics is about, who is inferior and thus shouldn't 'pollute' the gene pool? To me, it sounds like the Darwin Awards meets the Nazis.