Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmm - from a genetics standpoint it is not ALWAYS so clear, some times what appear to be detrimental mutations/adaptations can have unforeseen benefits, for example sickle cell anemia is a survival detriment in 1st world countries but it provides an innate resistance to malaria so it can actually increase odds of survival in places that have extremely high occurrence of malaria. From a genetic engineering standpoint, sometimes trying to target some specific "ideal" can actually decrease the genetic diversity of a population which can make the entire population more vulnerable to specific bacterial or viral infections, and can potentially decrease the likelihood of a given population to be able to adapt to unforeseen catastrophic events or changes. I think there are certain defects that are clearly disadvantageous enough to where I would not blame people for aborting if it came out that their child would have it, but a lot of mental illnesses do not quite reach that level.
I have a bit of knowledge about this topic, I am not a geneticist but I maintain some AI code that mimics the effects of evolution and genetics to solve complex problems and I can watch these types of effects play out in real time in the populations of simulated entities. Most of the time, extremely high genetic convergence forms a successful but brittle solution, where as a population with more distributed differences in their genetics may not be as successful in the moment but is more likely to be able to react appropriately should their inputs/environment change.
As an extreme example for illustrative purposes: One of the genes we decided to select against for mental illness could also provide some kind of resistance to a population destroying super illness that has not arisen yet, and we would have no good way to know that until its too late.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 10-06-2017 at 08:15 AM..
If we were far enough advanced in our understanding of the brain/genetics and could accurately identify those who will harm others, or those who will 100% produce such offspring, I would be all for it.
It would be the common sense thing to do.
But, inevitably, you will have those who will identify those people as "special" and will argue for their right to live and/or reproduce.
And, of course, you will have those who say it is God's will that those "special" people prey on the rest of us, you know, because God has a reason for some people to be victims, God has a plan, etc., etc.
IMO, we will destroy this planet and ourselves before we are advanced enough to embrace that kind of logic.
Hmm - from a genetics standpoint it is not ALWAYS so clear, some times what appear to be detrimental mutations/adaptations can have unforeseen benefits, for example sickle cell anemia is a survival detriment in 1st world countries but it provides an innate resistance to malaria so it can actually increase odds of survival in places that have extremely high occurrence of malaria. From a genetic engineering standpoint, sometimes trying to target some specific "ideal" can actually decrease the genetic diversity of a population which can make the entire population more vulnerable to specific bacterial or viral infections, and can potentially decrease the likelihood of a given population to be able to adapt to unforeseen catastrophic events or changes. I think there are certain defects that are clearly disadvantageous enough to where I would not blame people for aborting if it came out that their child would have it, but a lot of mental illnesses do not quite reach that level.
I have a bit of knowledge about this topic, I am not a geneticist but I maintain some AI code that mimics the effects of evolution and genetics to solve complex problems and I can watch these types of effects play out in real time in the populations of simulated entities. Most of the time, extremely high genetic convergence forms a successful but brittle solution, where as a population with more distributed differences in their genetics may not be as successful in the moment but is more likely to be able to react appropriately should their inputs/environment change.
As an extreme example for illustrative purposes: One of the genes we decided to select against for mental illness could also provide some kind of resistance to a population destroying super illness that has not arisen yet, and we would have no good way to know that until its too late.
You raise a good point. I don't mean it in ill will of course... if the genetics research exists to identify future violent and future criminals... how would that hurt evolution?
In theory, wouldn't it help it?
You raise a good point. I don't mean it in ill will of course... if the genetics research exists to identify future violent and future criminals... how would that hurt evolution?
In theory, wouldn't it help it?
Potentially, its a bit of a pandoras box... from an evolutionary stand point people are dying all the time for all kinds of reasons, homicides being a mere blip on the radar. Evolution deals in entire populations and extremely long time frames, so the worry is we do something to eliminate say, psychopathy which ends up having an unintended detrimental effect that is greater than the harm caused by psychopathy.
From our personal viewpoint, these crimes are horrific because they are visceral and incomprehensible to normal people, but from the population level and generation time frame of an evolutionary perspective, they are basically white noise. They do not even really move the needle because they are relatively rare. I would wager that say, cancer claimed more lives in the past decade than (probably) all the violent deaths of the entire last century, including genocides... those are the kinds of factors that have large evolutionary impacts.
Psychopathy/Sociopathy are most likely genetic hold overs from a time when they were actually evolutionary ADVANTAGES rather than detriments... in a hunter gatherer tribal warfare type situation they can be advantageous traits. In a vastly huge and complex interconnected society not so much.
In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
Of the 1, 1,132 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2015, 209 (16%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.
In 2015, nearly 1.1 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.3 That’s one percent of the 111 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year.
That's just DWI not including regular fatalities from say, speeding, wreck less driving, inclement weather and loss of control, or a pile up on a highway/freeway.
Number of deaths: 33,594
Of those deaths 2014 were suicide
(63.7%) and homicide (32.8%). .637x33,594= 21,400 deaths.
Homicide = 11,019. .328x33,594
Homicide, dying at the hands of another's actions.
Break those statistics down of deaths involving criminal enterprise. You know. Gang activity via turf war drugs, murders, and separate the columns of justified self defense shootings and actions by police.
Per bureau of justice report 2015
930 per year, or 1240 if assuming that nonreporting local agencies kill people at the same rate as reporting agencies.
So let's look at the numbers again
11,019 deaths minus 930= 10,089
11,019 deaths minus 1240= 9,779
Of the remaining 10,089 or of the 9,779 how many of these remaining deaths were committed by the hands of criminals, and how many were committed by the hands of a justified law abiding gun owner?
This is where stats and emotional postings lose ground fast...
Because we are comparing figures of criminal intent death with a firearm, vs death of a justified or law enforcement officer.
Now if I had the time I'd find of the remaining 10,089/9,779 were committed by criminals vs committed by law abiding owners in justified self defense of life/property.
Again I see no reason to live in fear when just stepping out the door and getting in your car and commuting is more of a risk to life and well being than that of a mass shooter.
Again I see no reason to live in fear when just stepping out the door and getting in your car and commuting is more of a risk to life and well being than that of a mass shooter.
There is no reason to be in fear, all violent crime stats are down and have been trending that way for a while. You got 350 million + people there is going to be violence every day no matter where you are, you have basically unlimited visibility on almost every single occurrence at this point because of the ubiquitous of cameras, and you have news that needs stories that people will tune in for and violent crimes have always filled that role.
Increased population leads to increase occurrences - Increased visibility leads to an increased perception of the prevalence of violence - perception shapes peoples' realities. End result, people think things are worse now, when they are actually pretty much the same they have always been.
Instead of banning implements. Instead of enforcing stricter laws. Instead of being subjected to groping, and increased security with scanners galore, relinquishing freedoms for a band aid of security...
Let's ban the insane, let's ban the evil and criminally intent.
How? Here's the proposition
It's 2017. I say genetic testing be carried out. Work with neuro scientists, genetics researchers, and psychologists. Keep it purely apolitical and non racially discriminating. Whether wealthy or poor. You are subjected to screening.
Sterilize the mentally unfit. Abort those currently pregnant. Keep those from reproducing.
Afterall... this scumbags father wasn't too sound in the head...
Reproduce only sane individuals who lack a thirst for blood and chaotic behavior.
...
We've already been down this road, in the US, with the eugenics movement (see War against the weak: eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race / by Black, Edwin). Been there, done that - & then we had to war upon Germany, Italy & Japan on much the same grounds. It was a set of horrors, & I don't know that Western Civilization has ever fully recovered.
The only way I could see selling the system would be to put it into cybernetic hands - but bear in mind that even herds of faceless programmers have human biases. Their notions of beauty, utility, aptness, etc. would creep into code, unless you have machines programming other machines. That way lies an inhuman logic. I don't know that the Terminator & all those movies have the right of it - but I'm not willing to gamble human destiny on mere logic gates.
No - for the kind of money & effort & research & technology this approach would require, you could likely achieve a kind of human Paradise on Earth. That's a much more worthy goal, & actually doable (I think) without mortgaging our future to some faceless, nameless fate hanging over the planet.
From a sociological POV, I don't know that you can separate out the artistic temperament from the personality that merely sets out to destroy. There's an element of chaos & unbalance there - as if the rules of normal society hadn't really taken hold. My impression is that heroic societies also give rise to the dark side of human personality - because some of the markers are hard to distinguish. Without a much better understanding of the genetics of that distinction, I don't think negative eugenics should be pursued at all. Maybe research, to see if we can tease out the distinctions. But nothing operational.
Potentially, its a bit of a pandoras box... from an evolutionary stand point people are dying all the time for all kinds of reasons, homicides being a mere blip on the radar. Evolution deals in entire populations and extremely long time frames, so the worry is we do something to eliminate say, psychopathy which ends up having an unintended detrimental effect that is greater than the harm caused by psychopathy.
From our personal viewpoint, these crimes are horrific because they are visceral and incomprehensible to normal people, but from the population level and generation time frame of an evolutionary perspective, they are basically white noise. They do not even really move the needle because they are relatively rare. I would wager that say, cancer claimed more lives in the past decade than (probably) all the violent deaths of the entire last century, including genocides... those are the kinds of factors that have large evolutionary impacts.
It's incomprehensible to me. I can't wrap my head around the thinking behind it. I'm not a shrink... what I also find incomprehensible is that the actions of few, punish everyone in whole, to satisfy those of no offense, weak manner who by choice, live with fear.
We've already been down this road, in the US, with the eugenics movement (see War against the weak: eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race / by Black, Edwin). Been there, done that - & then we had to war upon Germany, Italy & Japan on much the same grounds. It was a set of horrors, & I don't know that Western Civilization has ever fully recovered.
The only way I could see selling the system would be to put it into cybernetic hands - but bear in mind that even herds of faceless programmers have human biases. Their notions of beauty, utility, aptness, etc. would creep into code, unless you have machines programming other machines. That way lies an inhuman logic. I don't know that the Terminator & all those movies have the right of it - but I'm not willing to gamble human destiny on mere logic gates.
No - for the kind of money & effort & research & technology this approach would require, you could likely achieve a kind of human Paradise on Earth. That's a much more worthy goal, & actually doable (I think) without mortgaging our future to some faceless, nameless fate hanging over the planet.
From a sociological POV, I don't know that you can separate out the artistic temperament from the personality that merely sets out to destroy. There's an element of chaos & unbalance there - as if the rules of normal society hadn't really taken hold. My impression is that heroic societies also give rise to the dark side of human personality - because some of the markers are hard to distinguish. Without a much better understanding of the genetics of that distinction, I don't think negative eugenics should be pursued at all. Maybe research, to see if we can tease out the distinctions. But nothing operational.
Right and as I stated before, in theory how I would picture something like this working, would be to not have a hiterlesque intent or for evil manipulation. Simply to target and pinpoint using research based on those with a much more intricate knowledge and understanding of the human mind with a genetics expert and to find what can be done to really prevent this from happening without banning or drafting laws that restrict and limit rights.
I don't follow the logic of punish all for the actions of few...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Further more here are statistics
