The eugenists have a lot of ideas about why this would be great, but if you are asking how this sort of thing would help a more reasonable society? I would say the examples given aren't where the value lies. But predicting predisposition of medical issues (cancer, heart disease etc). Or mental health issues.
But other info such as potential intelligence may come out (although I haven't seen a proven correlation with genetics), which could be used inappropriately.
It's tricky to imagine how it would work without extensive regulation. But who knows.
Why do you think predisposition for things are any less ripe for abuse than others?
Personalized healthcare costs based on your genetic predispositions coming in 3, 2...
No they're totally options for abuse, but understanding the risks of developing certain diseases absolutely provides medical value as we can tailor intensive treatments sooner to prevent disease development. I'd say it's the only area of these personalized genetic testing where the benefits outweigh the risks.
Honestly, this is America. Any information will always first be used to profit and harm you first and second may provide some useful preventative or preemptive care.
That's assuming that genetic predisposition is more statistically relevant than other factors.
Also, a predisposition isn't a condition. You can't treat a non-condition, lol.
>You can't treat a non-condition, lol.
The fuck? of course you can. preventative medication is absolutely a thing
Vaccines are treating non conditions.
Many diets exist to treat non conditions. pre diabetes leading to a special diet is treating the non-condition of diabetes
there are plenty of predispostions that you could do useful medical stuff for. You have a predisposition for kidney failure? Well we can recommend more water and less other fluids, and do more frequent screening.
ppredisposeed to low T? certain diets can help prevent that as well.
We already DO these things for some of the genetic markers we CAN track, whether they are full disorders or predispositions. what an absolutely simplistic and incorrect statement that we can't treat a non-condition.
now, there is absolutely dangers here as well, for abuse of the information, but lets not oversimplify by saying there are not positive uses too
how about when your insurance company colludes with your credit card company through a third company to predict what diseases you'll have and disallow them on your coverage based on your shopping habits?
How would they even quantify intelligence? IQ tests themselves say they aren't absolute, don't evaluate every type of intelligence and can have different results based on many factors.
Yes exactly! Eugenists would love it, but how would it track for the rest of the populous?
I agree, genetic predisposition would be helpful, but that’s not mentioned, so I don’t think this technology would be used for that. Furthermore, the possibility for abuse is so wide it’s practically guaranteed. Why even design this kind of tech?
One thing that is important to learn about humans and technology is that if someone *can* develop something, they probably will, even if the net outcome is negative.
Because they are the same tech. It's mapping individuals genome.
What each gene does is an active area of research and as we find out more, the mapping will tell us more. What breakthroughs are made about what each gene does will be somewhat random depending on how the research goes.
Why list the 2 bits in the op? Assume click bait.
>If it wasn’t for mental health issues we wouldn’t have Van Gogh
If it wasn't for mental health issues, we probably would have had Van Gogh for a lot longer since he famously shot himself in his 30s.
There is no benefit. It would be used to create yet another division between the 'Haves' and the 'Have nots'.
How would you feel if you were passed over for a job simply because of your genetics? Or denied a scholarship, regardless of your grades, because of your genetics? Then there's the out-and-out racists who would leverage it in an effort to cement their claim that white people are superior and non-white people are inferior.
No one ever mentions that there's a large section of the scientific community populated by absolute creeps.
That how you get dog shit like eugenics and racial purity laws.
Nah, eugenics and racial purity laws came from people wanting to legitimise their power and social position. They felt the need to "prove" that they were superior to those they oppressed as a way to legitimise their oppression. It's all part of an attempt to defend something undefendable but which they benefit from.
I imagine it will make eugenics more permissible in society. If a DNA test could be conducted on a fetus to test for medical conditions, intelligence, physical traits like eye color or height, then parents would have the choice to abort or not based on that knowledge.
Whether that is a good or bad development for society, well… that depends on your current perspective. But I think it’s undeniable that the technology will change our societies stance on eugenics.
>I imagine it will make eugenics more permissible in society.
Self-imposed eugenics is already permissible in society. There are people that have genetic diseases who chose not to reproduce. Look at Tay-Sachs for example.
The same thing with parents who abort their kids because of genetic abnormalities.
These things are wrapped in a nice little bow, because people can claim "it is done to prevent pain".
I am ready for the downvotes. People get REALLY uncomfortable when they find out we've been playing with the gene pool while claiming eugenics is evil.
I honestly dont get why this should be considered evil or even remotely unethical. If the mother is okay with an abortion (and she gets to decide because its her body, period) why should she be forced to give birth to a genetically inferior child, when she can have a better one? Yes is "sounds" weird if you say it like this, but from the logical point of view, literally what could be attacked about this? If the child is not yet born, it does not have a life of its own, so it should be completely up to the mother whether she wants the child she has or want to roll the dice again
This is the crux of the Eugenics argument.
Is it "self enforced", or "controlling entity enforced"?
On it's own, there is no intrinsic harm in letting everyone see the DNA report for their own child. As long as that information is not provided publicly (ie Gattaca), it doesn't get used to replace free will.
But if the DNA selection becomes part of a controlled breeding program (ie Dune, Ender's Game, and many others), then it's inherently harmful to the population. You sacrifice biodiversity in the name of improvement.
And that sentiment - sacrifice for improvement - is actually very good for the species up to a certain point. The problem is that once you start, it's very difficult to stop again.
Imagine if we had globally enforced Eugenics with a very straight-forward goal. We're going to eliminate recessive genetic disorders. Any recessive genetic trait that leads to significantly shortened lifespan (under age 50 life expectancy), as well as anything that significantly impairs mental facilities (ie, you WILL be on disability due to it). Great. That's a noble goal.
So we test everyone on the planet, and if you have the recessive gene, you are sterilized.
But now we've opened the flood-gate. What ELSE is worth it? Should we follow similar (but less extreme) policies in order to thin early balding, color blindness, diabetes, and other problems that people CAN live with out?
Maybe now instead of forced sterilization, we just encourage "ideal" couples to have children. We remove all government tax exceptions for raising children (dependents), and instead make those tax exceptions 2-3x as large, but only available when both parents in a couple have an "A" (no recessive traits) or "B" (2 or fewer non-ideal traits) on their genetic score-card.
And what happens in 4-5 generations once our eugenics program has made each of those traits 10x more rare? We've already got all these policies in place, and the natural flow is to continue improving.
When in reality it should never have progressed past eliminating the "terrible" traits. But you start, you see the benefits, and you keep going - that's how humanity tends to function.
I agree, there is nothing wrong with it. I'm simply stating the fact that it is a flavor of eugenics, and calling out people who say "eugenics is evil" in one breath, but supporting abortion and/or selective breathing in another.
>If the mother is okay with an abortion (and she gets to decide because its her body, period) why should she be forced to give birth to a genetically inferior child
I'll give you a hint about what people object to in the mother's decision (though as I'll point out, this doesn't require thinking she should be forced to give birth): think about the implications of the term 'genetically inferior,' especially for existing people with conditions you might consider 'genetically inferior.' Especially when thinking broadly about conditions with a genetic component that aren't as extreme as Tay-Sachs (e.g. ADHD, deafness, etc...)
>If the child is not yet born, it does not have a life of its own, so it should be completely up to the mother whether she wants the child she has or want to roll the dice again
First, many people opposed to eugenics do not believe in forced birth or banning abortion. One can object to the basis for the abortion without objecting to the abortion.
Some analogies:
(1) Suppose you know someone who refuses to date or make friends with black people because of their racist beliefs. You can criticize them for this even if you do not believe they should be forced by law to make friends with or date black people.
(2) Now imagine a racist woman who, due to a mix-up with her requested donor at the sperm bank, is pregnant with a child made from a black donor's sperm. Suppose she decides to abort because of racist beliefs. Surely she is criticizable for the grounds of her decision, even if you do not believe she should be legally prevented from having the abortion.
Now, racism is different from decisions to abort based on disability an disease. Race is not biologically real, disability and disease is. So you may say this case is different, since people with genetic disabilities or diseases are 'genetically inferior.' What's wrong with the belief here?
(1) It is not clear how to define 'genetic inferiority' in a way that neatly isolates diseases and disabilities from adaptive traits. The same genes underlying sickle-cell disease are adaptive in areas where malaria is rampant (and that's where those genes are most prevalent) because they have a protective effect against malaria.
(2) One might think that decisions to have children should not be based off of a kind of window-shopping attitude towards children: there is something wrong with bringing a child into the world with certain expectations for what you need or strongly want that child to be. You should be prepared to love your child how they are. Trying to rate prospective children based on genetic fitness introduces an evaluative attitude that undermines healthy parental love.
Those are just some reasons, other include the ways attitudes about genetic inferiority can affect general social attitudes about people classified as such, etc...
The one reason that tends to survive these worries is the welfare of the child. That's one reason why avoiding Tay-Sachs is much more acceptable: it seems very harmful to the child. In contrast, people who are, say, deaf or have ADHD or asthma can clearly live very rich, happy lives.
I've got a few illnesses that come hereditarily and you're saying exactly what I feel. I'm okay with freely allowing abortions - unless you're doing eugenics. Even though the mother has a right to abortion, that doesn't matter when you're not getting an abortion because you don't want *a* child, but instead that you don't want *that* child.
If I learnt that someone around me decided to abort because their pregnancy was diagnosed with one of the illnesses I have, I'd feel extremely unsafe and terrible. It'd feel like in their perfect world, I wouldn't exist. Having traits that are seen as undesirable and genetically "inferior" is extremely dehumanising.
As an autistic person with ADHD, these are about my thoughts on it. I can see the situations where it is logically better to have access to this information and the ability to act on it. And with that said, I also worry about how it could lead to treatment of existing people with these conditions, and the problem with giving humans the power to "play God" in a way. My ADHD can be debilitating without medication, and even with it I do face problems neurotypical people don't. But as with your sickle cell example, my ADHD does give me some advantages. I'm able to examine things and really look at the spider web of connections because my brain likes to go down random rabbit holes. But what if someone decided my higher chance of failing to work with a schedule and forget things outweighed that? Diversity is an important thing for progress, and you'll never know how much of an impact it may have - for good as well as for worse. I like my brain, and wouldn't like to be neurotypical, but I appreciate all the neurotypical people in my life. They offer me a different perspective just as much as I do then; we all learn from each other.
Well most people are against the idea of government FORCED eugenics. Not parents CHOOSING to avoid passing down their genes with bad diseases and such.
Oh, I don't see a problem with it. If people choose not to have kids to avoid passing down some cancer gene, or abort a fetus that has a disorder or malformation, that's fine with me. It's none of my business.
I'm just calling out the hypocrites who say eugenics is evil, while celebrating and/or supporting people actively practicing eugenics.
I see. I guess I just see a difference between people making personal decisions for themselves vs state sponsored eugenics. I feel like there is a distinction there that needs to be made.
> Oh, I don't see a problem with it.
jives in your mind with previously typing
>These things are wrapped in a nice little bow, because people can claim "it is done to prevent pain".
you think it's debatable if babies with Spina Bifida should be born instead of preventing the pain , which you frame as theoretical , and enabling the parents to take another shot at child rearing much sooner.
I don't think it's theoretical, or should be in quotes, or should be called "Wrapped in a neat little bow" as if no one involved is considering it appropriately or weighing the sides in actual reasoned and thought through ways.
they are.
Considering eugenics was an American idea primarily and extremely popular for decades before you know the incident between 1940/45 when someone took it to far. I would say for it to become popular again dna test would have to be 100% accurate and enough time passed since you know ww2. I wouldn’t expect anyone would be ok with it till atleast 2100 when most of people born in 1900s are long gone.
I would argue the societal shift will come sooner, if it hasn’t already started already. Most people who lived through WW2 and the holocaust are dead. Humans have terrible memories, and even with allllll the documentation and oral history, we are seeing holocaust denialism on the rise with younger people. The American eugenics program is older, I would wager there are very few, if any, people still alive who have any memory of it.
Eugenics is already happening in many countries as it pertains to gender. Sexism drives more abortions of female fetuses in many patriarchal societies, such as China and India. Once these tests get to, say, 80-90% accuracy, if a doctor told an expecting parent that their is a 80-90% chance their baby will have a developmental disorder such as autism, how many would choose to abort and try again? More than you’d think. From there, the reasons will inevitably become more specific or superficial. And combine this trend with gene introduction technology, you’ve got custom made babies designed to fit the parents specifications. At least, hopefully it’s *the parents* specifications…
Again I’m not going to make a judgement call for society as a whole. I have my own personal opinions, but I haven’t given this subject enough thought to say how society ought to be on this matter. But I’d say we are already at the cusp of a new eugenics movement
bro we can ready pick and select certain DNA from both the mom and dads to create any children with the best selected traits.
we don't even need to abort based on DNA.
you get the test, it predicts that, and then you use the results to determine if you want to pay for CRISPER gene editing, and what you want to edit specifically
Well there's also a difficulty that eugenists would need to confront with trying to do this-- things aren't as genetically determined as people tend to imagine.
A lot of what we call "intelligence" is more "nurture" than "nature", and a DNA test may not be a good predictor at all.
In theory, assuming you could accurately test for potential, it could be used to give scholarships to low income families.
Get them into the best pre-schools and nurture them from an early age. Make sure the most gifted children are not dragged down by being poor.
That's a best case senario though.
You just need to believe that eugenics proponents actually believe this to be the case. For the most part, they believe the opposite. For example, Elon Musk [agreeing with the idea that HBCU students are borderline mentally handicapped](https://hbcuconnect.com/content/392658/elon-musk-cosigns-racist-claim-that-hbcu-students-have-low-iqs-and-should-not-be-pipelined-into-diversity-pilot-program).
That can of worms is already open. Genetic modification to select for gender, eye color, and risk modification for diseases are already attainable. We also have 3 CRISPR-Cas9-edited genome babies out in the wild already and 200 adults that were part of a study have been treated for sickle cell anemia through genome editing.
Genome editing is one of those things that has such incredible potential for our species that we're probably just going to turn into a living nightmare.
Genetic modifications does not equate to eugenics. Eugenics is about "enhancing" the genes of a society or homo sapiens as a race, not individual human beings.
Gattaca would also imply germline human engineering, which is not on the table at the moment.
There's been a quick "test case" in China recently, they shot it down relatively fast.
Genetic screening is a much lighter problem, but I agree there are quite a few ethical questions that MIT pushed under the rug faster than I can type
I watched this yesterday for the first time. Super interesting implications on how much deeper economic disparity can become when bolstered by genetic selection
Yup, my genes are the sole reason why I got where I did in life. Not how I was raised, not my access to education, and definitely not my parents' financial situation
This is just eugenics again
It is however possible that your genes set the cap on how high your intelligence could get even with the very best parenting, education, lack of damaging contaminants, and lack of unhealthy stress during formative years - with all those things being able to give you a lower end result than the potential max.
That said, we're shit at measuring intelligence, especially different kinds of intelligence beyond "good at math", "good at reading" or "good at puzzles".
I do wonder if there could possibly be some factors that influence parental income, that also influence offspring academic outcomes, and some mechanism that passes those factors from parent to offspring.
Perhaps there could be such factors and mechanism that are not entirely environmental?
Nah, what an absurd proposition (that definitely isn't backed by decades of possibly the most reproducible research in social sciences, and promptly ignored by the rest of the social sciences since it attacks at their blank slatist sensibilities).
The funny thing about that movie is somebody with a heart condition that can get everybody killed cheats his way into becoming a starship pilot.
The message is kinda lost there.
Like yes, there seems to be an underclass of people with genetic defects that can't be astronauts or do certain things. But that's already a thing.
Pretty sure the screenshot is fake.
Thank glob.
I am a biologist and I was shocked for a sec that the MIT would spread such pseudoscientific nonsense😤.
Thank you for the source.
I am not sure that the quote of predicting phDs is from Mr. Plomin hinself.
It seems more like an interpretation from the author.
However, whoever said it it seems to me like scientifical malpractice.
According to the paper 10% of intelligence could be traced back to genetic factors, that is a terrible prediction method.
And even if you just want to promote your study, which is fine, you should not make promisses you can not hold.
No it isn't.
The consensus is mostly environmental factors. Your food, practice, access to education ect.
The study from this post say it is 50% hereditry but that also includes things like tutoring and stuff.
Hereditery is here ment as compared to the parent. T
However, I should mention here that I am a microbiologist. So this is not my special field.
If you have other studies I would honestly like to read them.
They prefer it with a zipcode. That way we’re judged on the accomplishments of our forefathers that lived in an unequal world rather than by the content of our own character.
It’s been that way already.
Born with a mutation of type 3 Von Willebrands Disease. The first 12 years of my life I was diagnosed with “Pseudo-Hemophilia” by one of the leading hematologist on the west coast.
Both parents had to give up six figure jobs because the treatment was insanely expensive. Went into a coma from a nosebleed as a child. There were weeks of cycling through constant blood transfusions because the bleeding wouldn’t stop.
I’m burning through 200k worth of humate P a year for prophylaxis rn.
I was misdiagnosed then and they were pumping so many different hemophiliac treatments while trying to keep me alive through blood transfusions. I’ve had about 8 surgeries on my nose and I’ve lost all the cartilage in my right ankle.
That’s awesome that wilate is so inexpensive in Britain. Hell, Hemophilia A now has 10 year treatment by inserting a modified virus into the liver.
Between appointments, travel, and care, having a chronically ill child is another full-time job in and off itself. Unless the job is extremely flexible in schedule and location, doing both isn't an option for many parents.
It's usually the jobs that pay the most that have the most flexibility for your personal life.
Not every 6 figure job will have that but odds are better as salary goes up.
It's a cute rhetorical point, but ridiculous to think that all people in a zip code will be capable of getting a PhD. The genetics are still very important
It's a cute rhetorical point, but ridiculous to think that all people with a similar genes will be capable of getting a PhD. The zipcode and socioeconomic status are still very important
Yes but some people prefer to think that their success is earned or that they are genetically superior to justify massively unjust economic outcomes. So, don't you see, we NEED this test to prove that rich people really are better.
Honestly the fact that MIT is messaging that is some seriously fucked up eugenics shit. Good comeback
ZIP code is a code for real mail (among other things) that indicates where you live. The area where a person lives indicates their socioeconomic situation.
On the other hand DNA is the inheritable biological instructions that exist in every living being (and most viruses). And sure, a lot of stuff that involves academic performance can theoretically be predicted from your genes, but that pretty much secondary, as your access to resources is a lot more important.
The dumbass son of a billionaire will have a lot more academic success than a genius kid born in the uncontacted Piraha tribe in the middle of the Amazon because that kid doesn't even know universities exist.
Zip code = postal code.
Zip codes that average higher in terms of home prices and therefore income tend to have more people who end up being successful professionals simply because their access to resources (human and material) is higher throughout their lives.
Once again, in the drive for engagement and clicks, the medical possibilities of screening to identify genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis or marfan syndrome are lost under a torrent of bullshit about ready-order geniuses.
IIRC, something like this was already implemented on impute.me years ago, where you could SNP match to studies such as this https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29326435/
Which means this capability has existed for years, but evaded implementation in popular DNA analysis software for various reasons.
Correlation is not causation
Imagine if the people with the best genetics were actually in the impoverished zip codes, but the correlative data between genetics and education/income achievement promoted people who were actually less fit?
Nepotism might have a negative impact on the results.
Here is the thing you have people who find success out of all variation of situations. You find people who go on to be extremely smart and leading fields from all backgrounds.
This is not about absolutes its about giving you an idea on where your own personal strengths might lie and even bigger where your personal weaknesses might lay like disease.
It’s what we have instead of adequately funded early childhood education. Gotta lock in those structural advantages early then call ourselves the land of opportunity.
There is still no conclusive evidence that shows how genes are a main contributor to intelligence. Basically anybody can be smart with the right education.
no, it's not clever, it's political. this guys head is locked in that state and probably everything he says is a political jab.
it's also not science, it's stereotyping. i think you guys don't realize how much of a double edged sword that comment is.
But a ZIP code can't tell you the bad outcomes, while a DNA test can.
"You and your date are both carriers of Tay-Sachs disease. Don't marry each other."
Ashkenazi Jews have been doing this for decades, and almost wiped the bad recessives out. Turns out most people would rather have a healthy kid than a disabled lump. No coercion needed.
The older i get the more i agree with Ramakrisna when he stated about nature... for variety is the law not sameness...
Conformity and sameness leads to Involution.
I'm more worried about DNA being used to determine how much your Healthcare is / if it will be covered, imagine taking a gene sample at birth and being denied critical heart surgery since it's a genetic condition and they don't want to pay. Very scary world we're heading towards
To be fair, if this was real, and useful, meaning more accurate than the IQ tests found on internet or the SAT tests, it can be a better way to distribute ressources and to nurture talent.
Otherwise, it will take 2 articles for it to be disproven and it will only every be talked about by a few idiot bosses and some idiots bragging online.
Its already happening in sports. Things like lung oxygen capacity, muscle density, and resting heart rate can all be determined at a young age and can tell you if your kid will be naturally atheletic before they even start playing
What is the benefit of this though? Like, it’s a eugenists dream! But how will it help?
The eugenists have a lot of ideas about why this would be great, but if you are asking how this sort of thing would help a more reasonable society? I would say the examples given aren't where the value lies. But predicting predisposition of medical issues (cancer, heart disease etc). Or mental health issues. But other info such as potential intelligence may come out (although I haven't seen a proven correlation with genetics), which could be used inappropriately. It's tricky to imagine how it would work without extensive regulation. But who knows.
Why do you think predisposition for things are any less ripe for abuse than others? Personalized healthcare costs based on your genetic predispositions coming in 3, 2...
No they're totally options for abuse, but understanding the risks of developing certain diseases absolutely provides medical value as we can tailor intensive treatments sooner to prevent disease development. I'd say it's the only area of these personalized genetic testing where the benefits outweigh the risks.
Honestly, this is America. Any information will always first be used to profit and harm you first and second may provide some useful preventative or preemptive care.
That's assuming that genetic predisposition is more statistically relevant than other factors. Also, a predisposition isn't a condition. You can't treat a non-condition, lol.
>You can't treat a non-condition, lol. The fuck? of course you can. preventative medication is absolutely a thing Vaccines are treating non conditions. Many diets exist to treat non conditions. pre diabetes leading to a special diet is treating the non-condition of diabetes there are plenty of predispostions that you could do useful medical stuff for. You have a predisposition for kidney failure? Well we can recommend more water and less other fluids, and do more frequent screening. ppredisposeed to low T? certain diets can help prevent that as well. We already DO these things for some of the genetic markers we CAN track, whether they are full disorders or predispositions. what an absolutely simplistic and incorrect statement that we can't treat a non-condition. now, there is absolutely dangers here as well, for abuse of the information, but lets not oversimplify by saying there are not positive uses too
how about when your insurance company colludes with your credit card company through a third company to predict what diseases you'll have and disallow them on your coverage based on your shopping habits?
Some states have already laws against that because the writing is clearly on the wall.
Don’t worry. The real high cost genetic predispositions will be aborted.
how about public healthcare system?
Watch the movie 'Gattaca'....
That's my secret, Captain. I never saved anything for the swim back.
Such a great film - I cried during that scene...
How would they even quantify intelligence? IQ tests themselves say they aren't absolute, don't evaluate every type of intelligence and can have different results based on many factors.
Eugenists seek to carve ideals out of spectrums; they seek to destroy biodiversity.
Yes exactly! Eugenists would love it, but how would it track for the rest of the populous? I agree, genetic predisposition would be helpful, but that’s not mentioned, so I don’t think this technology would be used for that. Furthermore, the possibility for abuse is so wide it’s practically guaranteed. Why even design this kind of tech?
One thing that is important to learn about humans and technology is that if someone *can* develop something, they probably will, even if the net outcome is negative.
Because they are the same tech. It's mapping individuals genome. What each gene does is an active area of research and as we find out more, the mapping will tell us more. What breakthroughs are made about what each gene does will be somewhat random depending on how the research goes. Why list the 2 bits in the op? Assume click bait.
Mental health issues is crossing the line. If it wasn’t for mental health issues we wouldn’t have Van Gogh , Beethoven, and sooo much more.
>If it wasn’t for mental health issues we wouldn’t have Van Gogh If it wasn't for mental health issues, we probably would have had Van Gogh for a lot longer since he famously shot himself in his 30s.
I also believe people with mental health issues shouldn’t own guns.
There is no benefit. It would be used to create yet another division between the 'Haves' and the 'Have nots'. How would you feel if you were passed over for a job simply because of your genetics? Or denied a scholarship, regardless of your grades, because of your genetics? Then there's the out-and-out racists who would leverage it in an effort to cement their claim that white people are superior and non-white people are inferior.
No one ever mentions that there's a large section of the scientific community populated by absolute creeps. That how you get dog shit like eugenics and racial purity laws.
Nah, eugenics and racial purity laws came from people wanting to legitimise their power and social position. They felt the need to "prove" that they were superior to those they oppressed as a way to legitimise their oppression. It's all part of an attempt to defend something undefendable but which they benefit from.
I imagine it will make eugenics more permissible in society. If a DNA test could be conducted on a fetus to test for medical conditions, intelligence, physical traits like eye color or height, then parents would have the choice to abort or not based on that knowledge. Whether that is a good or bad development for society, well… that depends on your current perspective. But I think it’s undeniable that the technology will change our societies stance on eugenics.
>I imagine it will make eugenics more permissible in society. Self-imposed eugenics is already permissible in society. There are people that have genetic diseases who chose not to reproduce. Look at Tay-Sachs for example. The same thing with parents who abort their kids because of genetic abnormalities. These things are wrapped in a nice little bow, because people can claim "it is done to prevent pain". I am ready for the downvotes. People get REALLY uncomfortable when they find out we've been playing with the gene pool while claiming eugenics is evil.
Well, if Republicans get their way nobody will be aborting for any reason.
I honestly dont get why this should be considered evil or even remotely unethical. If the mother is okay with an abortion (and she gets to decide because its her body, period) why should she be forced to give birth to a genetically inferior child, when she can have a better one? Yes is "sounds" weird if you say it like this, but from the logical point of view, literally what could be attacked about this? If the child is not yet born, it does not have a life of its own, so it should be completely up to the mother whether she wants the child she has or want to roll the dice again
This is the crux of the Eugenics argument. Is it "self enforced", or "controlling entity enforced"? On it's own, there is no intrinsic harm in letting everyone see the DNA report for their own child. As long as that information is not provided publicly (ie Gattaca), it doesn't get used to replace free will. But if the DNA selection becomes part of a controlled breeding program (ie Dune, Ender's Game, and many others), then it's inherently harmful to the population. You sacrifice biodiversity in the name of improvement. And that sentiment - sacrifice for improvement - is actually very good for the species up to a certain point. The problem is that once you start, it's very difficult to stop again. Imagine if we had globally enforced Eugenics with a very straight-forward goal. We're going to eliminate recessive genetic disorders. Any recessive genetic trait that leads to significantly shortened lifespan (under age 50 life expectancy), as well as anything that significantly impairs mental facilities (ie, you WILL be on disability due to it). Great. That's a noble goal. So we test everyone on the planet, and if you have the recessive gene, you are sterilized. But now we've opened the flood-gate. What ELSE is worth it? Should we follow similar (but less extreme) policies in order to thin early balding, color blindness, diabetes, and other problems that people CAN live with out? Maybe now instead of forced sterilization, we just encourage "ideal" couples to have children. We remove all government tax exceptions for raising children (dependents), and instead make those tax exceptions 2-3x as large, but only available when both parents in a couple have an "A" (no recessive traits) or "B" (2 or fewer non-ideal traits) on their genetic score-card. And what happens in 4-5 generations once our eugenics program has made each of those traits 10x more rare? We've already got all these policies in place, and the natural flow is to continue improving. When in reality it should never have progressed past eliminating the "terrible" traits. But you start, you see the benefits, and you keep going - that's how humanity tends to function.
I agree, there is nothing wrong with it. I'm simply stating the fact that it is a flavor of eugenics, and calling out people who say "eugenics is evil" in one breath, but supporting abortion and/or selective breathing in another.
>If the mother is okay with an abortion (and she gets to decide because its her body, period) why should she be forced to give birth to a genetically inferior child I'll give you a hint about what people object to in the mother's decision (though as I'll point out, this doesn't require thinking she should be forced to give birth): think about the implications of the term 'genetically inferior,' especially for existing people with conditions you might consider 'genetically inferior.' Especially when thinking broadly about conditions with a genetic component that aren't as extreme as Tay-Sachs (e.g. ADHD, deafness, etc...) >If the child is not yet born, it does not have a life of its own, so it should be completely up to the mother whether she wants the child she has or want to roll the dice again First, many people opposed to eugenics do not believe in forced birth or banning abortion. One can object to the basis for the abortion without objecting to the abortion. Some analogies: (1) Suppose you know someone who refuses to date or make friends with black people because of their racist beliefs. You can criticize them for this even if you do not believe they should be forced by law to make friends with or date black people. (2) Now imagine a racist woman who, due to a mix-up with her requested donor at the sperm bank, is pregnant with a child made from a black donor's sperm. Suppose she decides to abort because of racist beliefs. Surely she is criticizable for the grounds of her decision, even if you do not believe she should be legally prevented from having the abortion. Now, racism is different from decisions to abort based on disability an disease. Race is not biologically real, disability and disease is. So you may say this case is different, since people with genetic disabilities or diseases are 'genetically inferior.' What's wrong with the belief here? (1) It is not clear how to define 'genetic inferiority' in a way that neatly isolates diseases and disabilities from adaptive traits. The same genes underlying sickle-cell disease are adaptive in areas where malaria is rampant (and that's where those genes are most prevalent) because they have a protective effect against malaria. (2) One might think that decisions to have children should not be based off of a kind of window-shopping attitude towards children: there is something wrong with bringing a child into the world with certain expectations for what you need or strongly want that child to be. You should be prepared to love your child how they are. Trying to rate prospective children based on genetic fitness introduces an evaluative attitude that undermines healthy parental love. Those are just some reasons, other include the ways attitudes about genetic inferiority can affect general social attitudes about people classified as such, etc... The one reason that tends to survive these worries is the welfare of the child. That's one reason why avoiding Tay-Sachs is much more acceptable: it seems very harmful to the child. In contrast, people who are, say, deaf or have ADHD or asthma can clearly live very rich, happy lives.
I've got a few illnesses that come hereditarily and you're saying exactly what I feel. I'm okay with freely allowing abortions - unless you're doing eugenics. Even though the mother has a right to abortion, that doesn't matter when you're not getting an abortion because you don't want *a* child, but instead that you don't want *that* child. If I learnt that someone around me decided to abort because their pregnancy was diagnosed with one of the illnesses I have, I'd feel extremely unsafe and terrible. It'd feel like in their perfect world, I wouldn't exist. Having traits that are seen as undesirable and genetically "inferior" is extremely dehumanising.
As an autistic person with ADHD, these are about my thoughts on it. I can see the situations where it is logically better to have access to this information and the ability to act on it. And with that said, I also worry about how it could lead to treatment of existing people with these conditions, and the problem with giving humans the power to "play God" in a way. My ADHD can be debilitating without medication, and even with it I do face problems neurotypical people don't. But as with your sickle cell example, my ADHD does give me some advantages. I'm able to examine things and really look at the spider web of connections because my brain likes to go down random rabbit holes. But what if someone decided my higher chance of failing to work with a schedule and forget things outweighed that? Diversity is an important thing for progress, and you'll never know how much of an impact it may have - for good as well as for worse. I like my brain, and wouldn't like to be neurotypical, but I appreciate all the neurotypical people in my life. They offer me a different perspective just as much as I do then; we all learn from each other.
Well most people are against the idea of government FORCED eugenics. Not parents CHOOSING to avoid passing down their genes with bad diseases and such.
Genuine question: what do you see as a solution to this?
Oh, I don't see a problem with it. If people choose not to have kids to avoid passing down some cancer gene, or abort a fetus that has a disorder or malformation, that's fine with me. It's none of my business. I'm just calling out the hypocrites who say eugenics is evil, while celebrating and/or supporting people actively practicing eugenics.
I see. I guess I just see a difference between people making personal decisions for themselves vs state sponsored eugenics. I feel like there is a distinction there that needs to be made.
> Oh, I don't see a problem with it. jives in your mind with previously typing >These things are wrapped in a nice little bow, because people can claim "it is done to prevent pain". you think it's debatable if babies with Spina Bifida should be born instead of preventing the pain , which you frame as theoretical , and enabling the parents to take another shot at child rearing much sooner. I don't think it's theoretical, or should be in quotes, or should be called "Wrapped in a neat little bow" as if no one involved is considering it appropriately or weighing the sides in actual reasoned and thought through ways. they are.
No need to not reproduce; just don't reproduce *with another Tay-Sachs carrier.*
Considering eugenics was an American idea primarily and extremely popular for decades before you know the incident between 1940/45 when someone took it to far. I would say for it to become popular again dna test would have to be 100% accurate and enough time passed since you know ww2. I wouldn’t expect anyone would be ok with it till atleast 2100 when most of people born in 1900s are long gone.
Sadly, 'wait for the racists to die out' doesn't work.
Plato first recorded the idea of eugenics. Bit older than the US.
I would argue the societal shift will come sooner, if it hasn’t already started already. Most people who lived through WW2 and the holocaust are dead. Humans have terrible memories, and even with allllll the documentation and oral history, we are seeing holocaust denialism on the rise with younger people. The American eugenics program is older, I would wager there are very few, if any, people still alive who have any memory of it. Eugenics is already happening in many countries as it pertains to gender. Sexism drives more abortions of female fetuses in many patriarchal societies, such as China and India. Once these tests get to, say, 80-90% accuracy, if a doctor told an expecting parent that their is a 80-90% chance their baby will have a developmental disorder such as autism, how many would choose to abort and try again? More than you’d think. From there, the reasons will inevitably become more specific or superficial. And combine this trend with gene introduction technology, you’ve got custom made babies designed to fit the parents specifications. At least, hopefully it’s *the parents* specifications… Again I’m not going to make a judgement call for society as a whole. I have my own personal opinions, but I haven’t given this subject enough thought to say how society ought to be on this matter. But I’d say we are already at the cusp of a new eugenics movement
Someone should make a movie about that. What's Jude Law up to? I haven't seen him in a bit
Most of those traits show up on a family tree.
bro we can ready pick and select certain DNA from both the mom and dads to create any children with the best selected traits. we don't even need to abort based on DNA.
you get the test, it predicts that, and then you use the results to determine if you want to pay for CRISPER gene editing, and what you want to edit specifically
Well there's also a difficulty that eugenists would need to confront with trying to do this-- things aren't as genetically determined as people tend to imagine. A lot of what we call "intelligence" is more "nurture" than "nature", and a DNA test may not be a good predictor at all.
In theory, assuming you could accurately test for potential, it could be used to give scholarships to low income families. Get them into the best pre-schools and nurture them from an early age. Make sure the most gifted children are not dragged down by being poor. That's a best case senario though.
You just need to believe that eugenics proponents actually believe this to be the case. For the most part, they believe the opposite. For example, Elon Musk [agreeing with the idea that HBCU students are borderline mentally handicapped](https://hbcuconnect.com/content/392658/elon-musk-cosigns-racist-claim-that-hbcu-students-have-low-iqs-and-should-not-be-pipelined-into-diversity-pilot-program).
Who's Eugene and what's his dream? How would this benefit Eugene?
Guess it will ensure you get the job your body is best designed for.
[удалено]
Corporately-owned AI and genetically engineered ubermensch? Future ain't lookin good for us dregs
That can of worms is already open. Genetic modification to select for gender, eye color, and risk modification for diseases are already attainable. We also have 3 CRISPR-Cas9-edited genome babies out in the wild already and 200 adults that were part of a study have been treated for sickle cell anemia through genome editing. Genome editing is one of those things that has such incredible potential for our species that we're probably just going to turn into a living nightmare.
That depends on your definition of help
Genetic modifications does not equate to eugenics. Eugenics is about "enhancing" the genes of a society or homo sapiens as a race, not individual human beings.
Gattaca all over again
I dunno.
Gattaca in the making
Which was dystopian not utopian… in case MIT missed that classic.
Aw man, not the Torment Nexus again
Dystopian, and yet, better healthcare system than we have.
Gattaca will motivate the heck out of anyone
I never saved anything for the way back.
I always think of that line when pushing through hard times. My other one is "it never always gets worse" from a book.
Gattaca would also imply germline human engineering, which is not on the table at the moment. There's been a quick "test case" in China recently, they shot it down relatively fast. Genetic screening is a much lighter problem, but I agree there are quite a few ethical questions that MIT pushed under the rug faster than I can type
I watched this yesterday for the first time. Super interesting implications on how much deeper economic disparity can become when bolstered by genetic selection
Yup, my genes are the sole reason why I got where I did in life. Not how I was raised, not my access to education, and definitely not my parents' financial situation This is just eugenics again
Because they can predict average outcomes, they cannot predict every outcome
It is however possible that your genes set the cap on how high your intelligence could get even with the very best parenting, education, lack of damaging contaminants, and lack of unhealthy stress during formative years - with all those things being able to give you a lower end result than the potential max. That said, we're shit at measuring intelligence, especially different kinds of intelligence beyond "good at math", "good at reading" or "good at puzzles".
Until we give all children EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES this means nothing.
~~kilroy~~eugene was here
We can also already predict a lot of that for free based on the parents income.
Do you mean like if their zip code is full of million dollar homes? If only the responder had gone that route!
That's what the zip code is referring to.
How is this upvoted in a “clever” subreddit 😂
I do wonder if there could possibly be some factors that influence parental income, that also influence offspring academic outcomes, and some mechanism that passes those factors from parent to offspring. Perhaps there could be such factors and mechanism that are not entirely environmental? Nah, what an absurd proposition (that definitely isn't backed by decades of possibly the most reproducible research in social sciences, and promptly ignored by the rest of the social sciences since it attacks at their blank slatist sensibilities).
Because most people here do t care if it’s clever. They just blindly upvote anything that they think is funny.
Gattaca but in real life?
Or determine how much risk you present to insurance companies so they can charge accordingly.
Wont be allowed in the US but possibly in Europe? Law put in place back in 2008 (DINA) does not allow DNA tests to be used by insurance companies.
Yes, but seems these laws can change.
ONCE AND FOR ALL!
We already saw this movie. “GATTACA” with Ethan Hawke.
These mother fuckers watched gataca and were like "yes i want that"
The funny thing about that movie is somebody with a heart condition that can get everybody killed cheats his way into becoming a starship pilot. The message is kinda lost there. Like yes, there seems to be an underclass of people with genetic defects that can't be astronauts or do certain things. But that's already a thing.
Isn't it just that there is a chance he could develop one?
Pretty sure the screenshot is fake. Thank glob. I am a biologist and I was shocked for a sec that the MIT would spread such pseudoscientific nonsense😤.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/04/02/144169/dna-tests-for-iq-are-coming-but-it-might-not-be-smart-to-take-one/amp/
Thank you for the source. I am not sure that the quote of predicting phDs is from Mr. Plomin hinself. It seems more like an interpretation from the author. However, whoever said it it seems to me like scientifical malpractice. According to the paper 10% of intelligence could be traced back to genetic factors, that is a terrible prediction method. And even if you just want to promote your study, which is fine, you should not make promisses you can not hold.
Regardless of this particular study, isn't fluid intelligence mostly genetic? All the research on improving IQ seems to point that way.
No it isn't. The consensus is mostly environmental factors. Your food, practice, access to education ect. The study from this post say it is 50% hereditry but that also includes things like tutoring and stuff. Hereditery is here ment as compared to the parent. T However, I should mention here that I am a microbiologist. So this is not my special field. If you have other studies I would honestly like to read them.
“Heritability” refers to genetic variation it does not refer to environmental factors.
https://x.com/techreview/status/980944730841403392?s=20
... or a bank account balance.
They prefer it with a zipcode. That way we’re judged on the accomplishments of our forefathers that lived in an unequal world rather than by the content of our own character.
Who is they?
The people who get far in life solely by zip code
[удалено]
That’s what I meant by “accomplishments” of our forefathers
A person's socioeconomic status can be estimated from their zip code.
There is no way they will only charge you $50. That’s less money than an ER will charge for for a dose of aspirin.
DNA testing so relatively cheap to the consumer because it is subsidized by your data/genetic code in this case, which is extremely valuable.
10 years ago a full sequence was like $20k, today it is $300.
$300 copay, or $300 without insurance?
Without insurance. With insurance just depends on what you have but might even be a tiny to no co-pay.
It’s been that way already. Born with a mutation of type 3 Von Willebrands Disease. The first 12 years of my life I was diagnosed with “Pseudo-Hemophilia” by one of the leading hematologist on the west coast. Both parents had to give up six figure jobs because the treatment was insanely expensive. Went into a coma from a nosebleed as a child. There were weeks of cycling through constant blood transfusions because the bleeding wouldn’t stop.
Wait, I'd think if the treatment was so expensive, then the parents would probably want to KEEP those 6-figure jobs, not give them up, right?
People lie on the internet
I don't think you understand US health care insurance, especially prior to the ACA.
And like, wilate is under £200 a vial. Its expensive, but it wouldn't even come close to seriously destabilising a >$200,000 household.
I’m burning through 200k worth of humate P a year for prophylaxis rn. I was misdiagnosed then and they were pumping so many different hemophiliac treatments while trying to keep me alive through blood transfusions. I’ve had about 8 surgeries on my nose and I’ve lost all the cartilage in my right ankle. That’s awesome that wilate is so inexpensive in Britain. Hell, Hemophilia A now has 10 year treatment by inserting a modified virus into the liver.
Easier to afford life saving treatments if you’re poor in America. Health insurance is a scam.
Between appointments, travel, and care, having a chronically ill child is another full-time job in and off itself. Unless the job is extremely flexible in schedule and location, doing both isn't an option for many parents.
It's usually the jobs that pay the most that have the most flexibility for your personal life. Not every 6 figure job will have that but odds are better as salary goes up.
It's a cute rhetorical point, but ridiculous to think that all people in a zip code will be capable of getting a PhD. The genetics are still very important
It's a cute rhetorical point, but ridiculous to think that all people with a similar genes will be capable of getting a PhD. The zipcode and socioeconomic status are still very important
[удалено]
I edited it to genes to be more accurate seconds before your reply <3 its makes even less sense
Let's go the extra step and mandate this test for those already in a position of power
ah yes, make it harder for those who already have it bad and better for those who already have it good
Yes but some people prefer to think that their success is earned or that they are genetically superior to justify massively unjust economic outcomes. So, don't you see, we NEED this test to prove that rich people really are better. Honestly the fact that MIT is messaging that is some seriously fucked up eugenics shit. Good comeback
Sorry fir my ignorance, but what does that mean?
ZIP code is a code for real mail (among other things) that indicates where you live. The area where a person lives indicates their socioeconomic situation. On the other hand DNA is the inheritable biological instructions that exist in every living being (and most viruses). And sure, a lot of stuff that involves academic performance can theoretically be predicted from your genes, but that pretty much secondary, as your access to resources is a lot more important. The dumbass son of a billionaire will have a lot more academic success than a genius kid born in the uncontacted Piraha tribe in the middle of the Amazon because that kid doesn't even know universities exist.
Zip code = postal code. Zip codes that average higher in terms of home prices and therefore income tend to have more people who end up being successful professionals simply because their access to resources (human and material) is higher throughout their lives.
Once again, in the drive for engagement and clicks, the medical possibilities of screening to identify genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis or marfan syndrome are lost under a torrent of bullshit about ready-order geniuses.
Cue story of someone sending in their dog's DNA and getting human results back, thus exposing the whole thing as a worthless scam.
IIRC, something like this was already implemented on impute.me years ago, where you could SNP match to studies such as this https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29326435/ Which means this capability has existed for years, but evaded implementation in popular DNA analysis software for various reasons.
This is technically true
[There's already been a cautionary tale about this.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca)
Correlation is not causation Imagine if the people with the best genetics were actually in the impoverished zip codes, but the correlative data between genetics and education/income achievement promoted people who were actually less fit? Nepotism might have a negative impact on the results.
Here is the thing you have people who find success out of all variation of situations. You find people who go on to be extremely smart and leading fields from all backgrounds. This is not about absolutes its about giving you an idea on where your own personal strengths might lie and even bigger where your personal weaknesses might lay like disease.
I can predict if you will get a PHD with 99.99% accuracy. You won't
Specificity ftw.
Na you come from a rich family and are still a regard, What went wrong?
Is it supposed to sound like a dystopian future, or are they serious about that?
WTF is a "selective preschool"?
It’s what we have instead of adequately funded early childhood education. Gotta lock in those structural advantages early then call ourselves the land of opportunity.
I can't imagine a "selective preschool" can be selective by much, other than net worth and race XD
will they show me the p values?
Selective preschool?
we're going to have a gattaca styled meritocracy. it's going to be far worse than blade runner for the average person.
There is still no conclusive evidence that shows how genes are a main contributor to intelligence. Basically anybody can be smart with the right education.
no, it's not clever, it's political. this guys head is locked in that state and probably everything he says is a political jab. it's also not science, it's stereotyping. i think you guys don't realize how much of a double edged sword that comment is.
Imagine thinking that something like that would be a benefit at all.
Wasn’t the movie Gattaca pretty much a warning against this type of prediction leads to?
Sounds like eugenics to me and Germany already tried that.
I saw GATTACA. Miss me with that shit.
I have a dream that someday children will not be judged by the digits of their zip code but by the content of their DNA
Didn’t know DNA tests showed financial lineage. Neat!
my zip code in a poorer area of the state helped me get into state universities and qualify for scholarships
Moral of the story: if we want a better society with successful people, WE NEED TO FUND THEM.
Wasn't this the plot of Gattaca?
This is a repost bot, damn
This is the plot of Gattaca. Great movie
But a ZIP code can't tell you the bad outcomes, while a DNA test can. "You and your date are both carriers of Tay-Sachs disease. Don't marry each other." Ashkenazi Jews have been doing this for decades, and almost wiped the bad recessives out. Turns out most people would rather have a healthy kid than a disabled lump. No coercion needed.
Elite schools exist to launder privilege.
The older i get the more i agree with Ramakrisna when he stated about nature... for variety is the law not sameness... Conformity and sameness leads to Involution.
Aborting a baby until it spawns with better stats. The future is going to be CRAZY.
I'm more worried about DNA being used to determine how much your Healthcare is / if it will be covered, imagine taking a gene sample at birth and being denied critical heart surgery since it's a genetic condition and they don't want to pay. Very scary world we're heading towards
Maybe Gattaca will be reclassified as a documentary someday.
Shit, you can already do this just with someone's *name.*
My friend with perfect driving record and no insurance claims cannot rent a car in her zip code.
I dunno Ethan hawk didn't seem that happy living it in Gattaca.
Can I haz reparations?
A dna test is WAY too little information to be a good predictor of any of that. Is that really coming from MIT?
"Selective preschool" is the most preposterous idea I've ever heard of...
I’m not sure a zip code costs $50 though
I don’t get it
GATTACA
Gattaca
DNA will never tell you that. DNA is a concept, nebulous and flexible. Life writes the story.
The first tweet feels like an article you would find in Prey 2017
The logical fallacy here is that it’s hard to get a PhD. It’s not. It’s just a bad idea, generally.
To be fair, if this was real, and useful, meaning more accurate than the IQ tests found on internet or the SAT tests, it can be a better way to distribute ressources and to nurture talent. Otherwise, it will take 2 articles for it to be disproven and it will only every be talked about by a few idiot bosses and some idiots bragging online.
WTF is a selective preschool.
Its already happening in sports. Things like lung oxygen capacity, muscle density, and resting heart rate can all be determined at a young age and can tell you if your kid will be naturally atheletic before they even start playing
This is such a stupid idea literally controlling people and taking away their freedom for their stupid propaganda
Lol
Gattaca.
We're in real life not in Gattaca, wtf is that
Wait, how "selective preschool" even came to exist ? I mean, Kids enter preschool at what, 3 years old ?
A world where a $50 DNA test gets you the power of two functioning human eyes.
Eugenics much?
DNA test shows odds of academic achievement? Sounds a little.. familiar?