All,

Has anyone given much thought to the regulation of reproduction on space colonies?

I would presume that visitors and new members would have to pass through quarantine to assure freedom from contagious diseases such as TB, so what about genetic disorders?

A colony may be the root of many thousands of generations and much suffering and premature death may be prevented if simple steps are taken at the on-set. This is especially critical if the colony is heading for a distant star system. If we know how to prevent the passage of defective genes on to offspring, are we not obligated to do so?

In particular, should a colony continue to allow all comers to have as many babies as they like, or should procreation be a privilege monitored by the local society?

Should drug addicts and alcoholics automatically loose parenting privileges?

What about carriers of significant genetic disorders? Should the fertilized embryos be "fixed", if possible, or what?

Should eggs and sperm be fertilized in a lab where the zygotes can be examined for genetic defects, perhaps treated, before implantation? (For the sake of discussion, lets assume that this is easily possible, OK?)

Regards,

Tom

Has anyone given much thought to the regulation of reproduction on space colonies?

I would presume that visitors and new members would have to pass through quarantine to assure freedom from contagious diseases such as TB, so what about genetic disorders?

A colony may be the root of many thousands of generations and much suffering and premature death may be prevented if simple steps are taken at the on-set. This is especially critical if the colony is heading for a distant star system. If we know how to prevent the passage of defective genes on to offspring, are we not obligated to do so?

In particular, should a colony continue to allow all comers to have as many babies as they like, or should procreation be a privilege monitored by the local society?

Should drug addicts and alcoholics automatically loose parenting privileges?

What about carriers of significant genetic disorders? Should the fertilized embryos be "fixed", if possible, or what?

Should eggs and sperm be fertilized in a lab where the zygotes can be examined for genetic defects, perhaps treated, before implantation? (For the sake of discussion, lets assume that this is easily possible, OK?)

Regards,

Tom

The answer to all your question is NO.

Regulation of reproduction is dangerous. It assumes that there is an
authority capable of making a decision on what is desirable traits
(blue eyes, blonde hair, etc...). If you think I'm crazy you are
wrong. Would you have elimated Stephen Hawkings at birth because of
his genetic defect. And why blame the children of alcoholics and drug
addicts.

Perhaps you should study the problems associated with population
control in China. Example: near 65% of people between 15-25 in Cina
today are male, because of the one-child policy and the ability to
check gender near conception. Do you see a problem with that
imbalance?

Bill

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
wrote:
> All,
>
> Has anyone given much thought to the regulation of reproduction on
space colonies?
>
> I would presume that visitors and new members would have to pass
through quarantine to assure freedom from contagious diseases such as
TB, so what about genetic disorders?
>
> A colony may be the root of many thousands of generations and much
suffering and premature death may be prevented if simple steps are
taken at the on-set. This is especially critical if the colony is
heading for a distant star system. If we know how to prevent the
passage of defective genes on to offspring, are we not obligated to do
so?
>
> In particular, should a colony continue to allow all comers to have
as many babies as they like, or should procreation be a privilege
monitored by the local society?
>
> Should drug addicts and alcoholics automatically loose parenting
privileges?
>
> What about carriers of significant genetic disorders? Should the
fertilized embryos be "fixed", if possible, or what?
>
> Should eggs and sperm be fertilized in a lab where the zygotes can
be examined for genetic defects, perhaps treated, before implantation?
(For the sake of discussion, lets assume that this is easily possible,
OK?)

Bill,

Sounds like an emotional response to me. Please elaborate about your statement that "Regulation of reproduction is dangerous" in what way?

From: bill t
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 2:36 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Genetic Defects and New Colonies

The answer to all your question is NO.

Regulation of reproduction is dangerous. It assumes that there is an
authority capable of making a decision on what is desirable traits
(blue eyes, blonde hair, etc...). If you think I'm crazy you are
wrong. Would you have elimated Stephen Hawkings at birth because of
his genetic defect.

Tom - No, I would have fix his genetic disorder thus giving him an even longer and more productive life.

And why blame the children of alcoholics and drug
addicts.

Tom - I am not blaming the children, but I believe that most souls would prefer to be born into the body of a baby that is not handycaped from the start due to the mother's caring more about getting high than about her babies ability to succeed in school and society.

Perhaps you should study the problems associated with population
control in China. Example: near 65% of people between 15-25 in Cina
today are male, because of the one-child policy and the ability to
check gender near conception. Do you see a problem with that
imbalance?

Tom - No, this is the natural result of a nation that has failed to offer full and equal opportunities to females and so China has become over-populated and is taking steps to correct this failure. In this century we will also see nations that loose large proportions of their younger generations due to child mortality and death by parents who belatedly realize that they can not afford another mouth to feed.

Bill, you are mixing up population/abortion issues with the thrust of this thread, namely our responsibility to care for future generations by being more responsible parents and members of society now.
Tom

Bill

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
wrote:
> All,
>
> Has anyone given much thought to the regulation of reproduction on
space colonies?
>
> I would presume that visitors and new members would have to pass
through quarantine to assure freedom from contagious diseases such as
TB, so what about genetic disorders?
>
> A colony may be the root of many thousands of generations and much
suffering and premature death may be prevented if simple steps are
taken at the on-set. This is especially critical if the colony is
heading for a distant star system. If we know how to prevent the
passage of defective genes on to offspring, are we not obligated to do
so?
>
> In particular, should a colony continue to allow all comers to have
as many babies as they like, or should procreation be a privilege
monitored by the local society?
>
> Should drug addicts and alcoholics automatically loose parenting
privileges?
>
> What about carriers of significant genetic disorders? Should the
fertilized embryos be "fixed", if possible, or what?
>
> Should eggs and sperm be fertilized in a lab where the zygotes can
be examined for genetic defects, perhaps treated, before implantation?
(For the sake of discussion, lets assume that this is easily possible,
OK?)
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom

Sounds like an emotional response to me.
Please elaborate about your statement that "Regulation of reproduction is dangerous" in what way?

From:
bill t
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent:
Saturday, December 23, 2000 2:36 PM
Subject:
[spacesettlers] Re: Genetic Defects and New Colonies
The answer to all your question is NO.
Regulation of reproduction is dangerous. It assumes that there is an
authority capable of making a decision on what is desirable traits
(blue eyes, blonde hair, etc...). If you think I'm crazy you are
wrong. Would you have elimated Stephen Hawkings at birth because of
his genetic defect.

Tom - No, I would have fix his genetic disorder thus giving him an even longer and more productive life.

And why blame the children of alcoholics and drug
addicts.

Tom - I am not blaming the children, but I believe that most souls would prefer to be born into the body of a baby that is not handycaped from the start due to the mother's caring more about getting high than about her babies ability to succeed in school and society.
Perhaps you should study the problems associated with population
control in China. Example: near 65% of people between 15-25 in Cina
today are male, because of the one-child policy and the ability to
check gender near conception. Do you see a problem with that
imbalance?
Tom - No, this is the natural result of a nation that has failed to offer full and equal opportunities to females and so China has become over-populated and is taking steps to correct this failure. In this century we will also see nations that loose large proportions of their younger generations due to child mortality and death by parents who belatedly realize that they can not afford another mouth to feed.

Bill, you are mixing up population/abortion issues with the thrust of this thread, namely our responsibility to care for future generations by being more responsible parents and members of society now.
Tom
Bill
--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
All,
>
> Has anyone given much thought to the regulation of reproduction on
space colonies?
>
> I would presume that visitors and new members would have to pass
through quarantine to assure freedom from contagious diseases such as
TB, so what about genetic disorders?
>
> A colony may be the root of many thousands of generations and much
suffering and premature death may be prevented if simple steps are
taken at the on-set. This is especially critical if the colony is
heading for a distant star system. If we know how to prevent the
passage of defective genes on to offspring, are we not obligated to do
so?
>
> In particular, should a colony continue to allow all comers to have
as many babies as they like, or should procreation be a privilege
monitored by the local society?
>
> Should drug addicts and alcoholics automatically loose parenting
privileges?
>
> What about carriers of significant genetic disorders? Should the
fertilized embryos be "fixed", if possible, or what?
>
> Should eggs and sperm be fertilized in a lab where the zygotes can
be examined for genetic defects, perhaps treated, before implantation?
(For the sake of discussion, lets assume that this is easily possible,
OK?)

Tom Tucker (Olympia) wrote:

> All,
>
> Has anyone given much thought to the regulation of reproduction on space
> colonies?

Why bother? Space can support a HUGE population. Run out
of space? Build another habitat! Materials and energy are
easily available...

Ian,

When your taxes rise to take care of those who can't take care of themselves and who can't be put out onto the streets as we do on earth, then perhaps you recognize why I am asking the question.

I am trying to bridge from the fantastic to the realistic. People who can't fend for themselves are likely to be sacrificed if we don't plan well now.

Besides, imagine the misery that passing along defective genes will cause over a thousand generations as opposed to the relatively minor inconvenience of fixing the genes now? Wouldn't you rather be born without defective genes/diseases that may shorten you life? Well, multiply this concern by millions and you may then understand where I am coming from.

Regards,

Tom
From: Ian Woollard
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies

Tom Tucker (Olympia) wrote:

> All,
>
> Has anyone given much thought to the regulation of reproduction on space
> colonies?

Why bother? Space can support a HUGE population. Run out
of space? Build another habitat! Materials and energy are
easily available...

> Tom

When your taxes rise to take care of those who can't take care of themselves and who can't be put out onto the streets as we do on earth, then perhaps you recognize why I am asking the question.

I am trying to bridge from the fantastic to the realistic. People who can't fend for themselves are likely to be sacrificed if we don't plan well now.

Besides, imagine the misery that passing along defective genes will cause over a thousand generations as opposed to the relatively minor inconvenience of fixing the genes now? Wouldn't you rather be born without defective genes/diseases that may shorten you life? Well, multiply this concern by millions and you may then understand where I am coming from.

Regards,

Tom
From:
Ian Woollard
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent:
Saturday, December 23, 2000 4:00 PM
Subject:
Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies
Tom Tucker (Olympia) wrote:
> All,
>
> Has anyone given much thought to the regulation of reproduction on space
> colonies?
Why bother? Space can support a HUGE population. Run out
of space? Build another habitat! Materials and energy are
easily available...

Tom Tucker (Olympia) wrote:

> Ian,
>
> When your taxes rise to take care of those who can't take care of
> themselves and who can't be put out onto the streets as we do on earth,
> then perhaps you recognize why I am asking the question.

There are worst things than higher taxes. And far worse causes
of higher taxes.

None of which has much to do with space settlements. Returning
people you don't want to earth is very cheap actually. The delta-v
is under 2 km/s, you just slingshot them around the moon and
aerobrake.

From: Ian Woollard
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies

Tom Tucker (Olympia) wrote:

> Ian,
>
> When your taxes rise to take care of those who can't take care of
> themselves and who can't be put out onto the streets as we do on earth,
> then perhaps you recognize why I am asking the question.

There are worst things than higher taxes. And far worse causes
of higher taxes.

None of which has much to do with space settlements. Returning
people you don't want to earth is very cheap actually. The delta-v
is under 2 km/s, you just slingshot them around the moon and
aerobrake.

Tom - So, would the parents return also? What if they have a large family, would their children also have to return?
What if the space colony has achieved independents status from earth, which nation would be responsible to care for the children? IMO, the family and colony are responsible, especially, if in orbit around Mars or on it's way to another star.
You have conveniently ignored my question about our responsibility to protect future generations from genetic harm.
I will place your "vote" under the category of "we must accept the will of God."

Thank you,

Tom

From:
Ian Woollard
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent:
Saturday, December 23, 2000 5:59 PM
Subject:
Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies
Tom Tucker (Olympia) wrote:
> Ian,
>
> When your taxes rise to take care of those who can't take care of
> themselves and who can't be put out onto the streets as we do on earth,
> then perhaps you recognize why I am asking the question.
There are worst things than higher taxes. And far worse causes
of higher taxes.
None of which has much to do with space settlements. Returning
people you don't want to earth is very cheap actually. The delta-v
is under 2 km/s, you just slingshot them around the moon and
aerobrake.
Tom - So, would the parents return also? What if they have a large family, would their children also have to return?
What if the space colony has achieved independents status from earth, which nation would be responsible to care for the children? IMO, the family and colony are responsible, especially, if in orbit around Mars or on it's way to another star.
You have conveniently ignored my question about our responsibility to protect future generations from genetic harm.
I will place your "vote" under the category of "we must accept the will of God."

Thank you,

Tom

Tom Tucker (Olympia) wrote:

> None of which has much to do with space settlements. Returning
> people you don't want to earth is very cheap actually. The delta-v
> is under 2 km/s, you just slingshot them around the moon and
> aerobrake.
>
> Tom - So, would the parents return also? What if they have a large
> family, would their children also have to return?

Their choice don't you think?

> What if the space colony has achieved independents status from
> earth, which nation would be responsible to care for the children?

If they've ceded from the earth, then perhaps they will have
to look after their own children. Or perhaps not, they
may have made trade deals of some kind.

> IMO, the family and colony are responsible, especially, if in orbit
> around Mars or on it's way to another star.

Of course. But genetic disease is only one side of the coin.
What about the adults that become disabled? What about the
old people?

> You have conveniently ignored my question about our responsibility
> to protect future generations from genetic harm.

Actually, heritable diseases usually crop up in inbreeding
situations. Right now massive outbreeding is going on. Space
habitats won't be inbred.

I don't agree that future generations need protecting from genetic
harm. The human genome has built human beings to take care of itself
for 3 million years. It is good at doing both. It also selects what
attributes are to keep and to go. It is good at that too. Evolution
is still going on all the time.

> I will place your "vote" under the category of "we must accept the
> will of God.

You must be an American! I've heard about your voting. ;-)

Not even close btw.

From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
To:
Sent: Sbado, 23 de Dezembro de 2000 19:15
Subject: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies

All,

All,

Has anyone given much thought to the regulation of reproduction on space
colonies?

If youre talking about birth control, yes. If youre talking about
eugenics, no.

I would presume that visitors and new members would have to pass through
quarantine to assure freedom from contagious diseases such as TB, so what
about genetic disorders?

A colony may be the root of many thousands of generations and much suffering
and premature death may be prevented if simple steps are taken at the
on-set. This is especially critical if the colony is heading for a distant
star system. If we know how to prevent the passage of defective genes on to
offspring, are we not obligated to do so?

So, youre talking about eugenics and here we go to deep and smelly ethical
swamps with references to Nazism. I dont want to walk in this unsteady
ground, however, and therefore Ill focus on the biological and cultural
side of the question.

It is kind of difficult to determine what is a "defect" and what is not in
Biology. Many genes that at first where diagnosed as purely deleterious
later where recognized as having some positive effect in the population;
sickle-cell anemia is the classical example.

Also, in the cultural arena, sometimes some characteristic is considered a
defect, and other times those same characteristics doesnt matter or are
even considered desirable. An example is left-handed people: in other times,
they were considered "defective" and even malignant. (In Portuguese, the
word for left-handed, "canhoto", has a root that means "demon". A
medievalism that still survives in our language.) Nowadays, theyre
considered just one of two possibilities equally acceptable.

Due to those cultural and biological subtleties, I would prefer the
population in an habitat to be genetically as diverse as possible. In fact,
my point of view is that such a diversity would be *specially* desirable for
an interstellar travel, since that might prevent problems associated with
endogamy in the long run.

(But maybe my arguments are a bit biased. I live in a country with *extreme*
human genetic diversity, and I would like to live in a space habitat just
like that.)

In particular, should a colony continue to allow all comers to have as many
babies as they like, or should procreation be a privilege monitored by the
local society?

Some birth control is indispensable, since if you double your population you
have also to build a new habitat, and therefore any population increase
would have to be linked to the construction of new habitats. However, Im
against reproductive privileges given to some groups only. Again, this is
eugenics. Im in favor or limiting the number of children per couple to 2.2
or something like that.

Should drug addicts and alcoholics automatically loose parenting privileges?

No. First, although there maybe some genetic predisposition for some drugs,
I very much doubt that there is genetic predisposition for *all* drugs.
Second, the concept of "drug" is yet another thing that changes from time to
time and from culture to culture. At first, cocaine was a substance
perfectly integrated into the life of the indians; in the 19th century, its
use was kind of widespread in the Western world with no medical or law
restrictions; but nowadays it is seen as a horrible substance that must be
regulated at all cost. (In most countries. In the Netherlands, its use is
free, if I remember correctly, and probably there are other exceptions.) On
the other hand, substances that beyond all doubt are very hazardous to human
health, like alcohol and tobacco, are not regulated, or are much less
regulated.

What about carriers of significant genetic disorders? Should the fertilized
embryos be "fixed", if possible, or what?

Should eggs and sperm be fertilized in a lab where the zygotes can be
examined for genetic defects, perhaps treated, before implantation? (For the
sake of discussion, lets assume that this is easily possible, OK?)

Well, now youre coming to the scenario that I think is more likely. In a
few years, or decades at most, I think, many parents will have the resources
and the will to produce engineered babies free of "defects" and blessed with
all "virtues" (depending on what is considered "defect" and what is "virtue"
in their societies/times). Of course, careful genetic manipulation and
assisted human reproduction are not (and probably will not be) the cheapest
things of the world, and just rich/middle class people will have access to
this. There are people concerned right know that this will lead to a upper
cast of rich genetically engineered bermenschen and a great poor mass of
just "normal" people. (This scenario is brilliantly shown in the movie
"Gattaca", for example; and was also seen, in some extent, in " The Time
Machine", by H.G. Wells.)

Regards,

Regards,

Tom

Lucio

Dr. Omni,

Comments below.
From: Dr. Omni
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies

From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
To:
Sent: Sbado, 23 de Dezembro de 2000 19:15
Subject: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies

All,

All,

Has anyone given much thought to the regulation of reproduction on space
colonies?

If youre talking about birth control, yes. If youre talking about
eugenics, no.

I would presume that visitors and new members would have to pass through
quarantine to assure freedom from contagious diseases such as TB, so what
about genetic disorders?

A colony may be the root of many thousands of generations and much suffering
and premature death may be prevented if simple steps are taken at the
on-set. This is especially critical if the colony is heading for a distant
star system. If we know how to prevent the passage of defective genes on to
offspring, are we not obligated to do so?

So, youre talking about eugenics and here we go to deep and smelly ethical
swamps with references to Nazism. I dont want to walk in this unsteady
ground, however, and therefore Ill focus on the biological and cultural
side of the question.

It is kind of difficult to determine what is a "defect" and what is not in
Biology. Many genes that at first where diagnosed as purely deleterious
later where recognized as having some positive effect in the population;
sickle-cell anemia is the classical example.

Tom - A discussion of the definition of a defect is naturally personal and relative and so might be best left for a separate thread. For the purpose of this thread, lets define a genetic defect as:
a) A gene that produces a mal-functioning protein that results in the manifestation of a medically recognized disease.
b) The known result significantly shortens the life of the subject, and may also have an advese affect on the qulaity of life of the subject.

Here are but a few of the well over one hundred examples of genetic defects:
1) Defective gene resulting in high cholesterol and death by age 45. If both genes are inherited, death occurs by age 35.
2) Downs syndrome,
3) Lou Geregs disease.
4) Suseptability to cancers.

Also, in the cultural arena, sometimes some characteristic is considered a
defect, and other times those same characteristics doesnt matter or are
even considered desirable. An example is left-handed people: in other times,
they were considered "defective" and even malignant. (In Portuguese, the
word for left-handed, "canhoto", has a root that means "demon". A
medievalism that still survives in our language.) Nowadays, theyre
considered just one of two possibilities equally acceptable.

Tom - The decision making body of each colony should be able to make a rational decision about what is a defect and what is not, and I understand that this will vary over time and space. We should not presume to make that decision for others now.

Due to those cultural and biological subtleties, I would prefer the
population in an habitat to be genetically as diverse as possible. In fact,
my point of view is that such a diversity would be *specially* desirable for
an interstellar travel, since that might prevent problems associated with
endogamy in the long run.

Tom - Interesting point of discussion. Just what do you mean be "diverse". Are you speaking of racial or skin color, or are you referring to personality types such a: natural football players, natural soldiers, professior types, boxers, hot heads, cool heads, intellectuals, laggards, attention deficit disorder, suseptable to pleasure/drugs, criminality, psychopaths, etc?
If debating, I would suggest that there may be some personality traits that are unsuitible for the demands of life on a space colony, and that carefull screening should be considered. Naturally, skin color would not be one of these traits since I view all humans as being members of the same race. :-) Afterall, we all originated from Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago, right?

(But maybe my arguments are a bit biased. I live in a country with *extreme*
human genetic diversity, and I would like to live in a space habitat just
like that.)

Tom - This is good for life on earth, but life on a space colony, at least for the first settlers, may be very demanding and may require high skills for most if not all members. Low-skill jobs may be rare IMO. I suppose that one could always pull weeds on a vast O Neil colony, but in a more compact colony with solar powered air conditioning/recycling, working in the hydroponic greenhouse may be the lowest skill job available and even here not being able to tell the difference between a week and the shoot of a food plant would be no good.

In particular, should a colony continue to allow all comers to have as many
babies as they like, or should procreation be a privilege monitored by the
local society?

Some birth control is indispensable, since if you double your population you
have also to build a new habitat, and therefore any population increase
would have to be linked to the construction of new habitats. However, Im
against reproductive privileges given to some groups only. Again, this is
eugenics. Im in favor or limiting the number of children per couple to 2.2
or something like that.

Should drug addicts and alcoholics automatically loose parenting privileges?

No. First, although there maybe some genetic predisposition for some drugs,
I very much doubt that there is genetic predisposition for *all* drugs.
Second, the concept of "drug" is yet another thing that changes from time to
time and from culture to culture. At first, cocaine was a substance
perfectly integrated into the life of the indians; in the 19th century, its
use was kind of widespread in the Western world with no medical or law
restrictions; but nowadays it is seen as a horrible substance that must be
regulated at all cost. (In most countries. In the Netherlands, its use is
free, if I remember correctly, and probably there are other exceptions.) On
the other hand, substances that beyond all doubt are very hazardous to human
health, like alcohol and tobacco, are not regulated, or are much less
regulated.

Tom - The consumption of alcohol while pregnant should be illegal IMO and the tax on smoking should be sufficiently high to pay for the extra air-conditioning as well as the increased medical costs likely to result.

You appear to have side-steped the issue of drug affected babies that are sometimes born blind and which require massive investments in post-birth care since they are often born under-weight and premature. Studies show that these children never catch-up. Wouldn't it be better for these souls to be born to a drug-free family?

What about carriers of significant genetic disorders? Should the fertilized
embryos be "fixed", if possible, or what?

Should eggs and sperm be fertilized in a lab where the zygotes can be
examined for genetic defects, perhaps treated, before implantation? (For the
sake of discussion, lets assume that this is easily possible, OK?)

Well, now youre coming to the scenario that I think is more likely. In a
few years, or decades at most, I think, many parents will have the resources
and the will to produce engineered babies free of "defects" and blessed with
all "virtues" (depending on what is considered "defect" and what is "virtue"
in their societies/times). Of course, careful genetic manipulation and
assisted human reproduction are not (and probably will not be) the cheapest
things of the world, and just rich/middle class people will have access to
this. There are people concerned right know that this will lead to a upper
cast of rich genetically engineered bermenschen and a great poor mass of
just "normal" people. (This scenario is brilliantly shown in the movie
"Gattaca", for example; and was also seen, in some extent, in " The Time
Machine", by H.G. Wells.)

Tom - It would be good if we could come to a middle ground in this sensitive area.
What if the above scenario were to be combined with cloning and what if many thousands of clones were available to choose from? Perhaps each zygot that is suitible for implantation is first cloned a hundred times and the balance frozen for later use either by the original donors or perhaps for donation to the public?
What if medical insurance was universally available and that implantation of a "genetic defect free" egg was covered for all? Parents could choose from a picture book of what their children would look like based upon past births of the " series".

At minimal cost, parents would have the opportunity to trade their right to pass on their own set of genes with defects in exchange for a set of known genes without defects. Candidates for this service would be families with known problems of breast cancer, diabetes, etc.

Regards,

Tom

Lucio

Comments below.
From:
Dr. Omni
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent:
Saturday, December 23, 2000 10:40 PM
Subject:
Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies
From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)" <
tntucker@...

To: <
spacesettlers@egroups.com
>
Sent: Sbado, 23 de Dezembro de 2000 19:15
Subject: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies
All,
All,
Has anyone given much thought to the regulation of reproduction on space
colonies?
If youre talking about birth control, yes. If youre talking about
eugenics, no.
I would presume that visitors and new members would have to pass through
quarantine to assure freedom from contagious diseases such as TB, so what
about genetic disorders?
A colony may be the root of many thousands of generations and much suffering
and premature death may be prevented if simple steps are taken at the
on-set. This is especially critical if the colony is heading for a distant
star system. If we know how to prevent the passage of defective genes on to
offspring, are we not obligated to do so?
So, youre talking about eugenics and here we go to deep and smelly ethical
swamps with references to Nazism. I dont want to walk in this unsteady
ground, however, and therefore Ill focus on the biological and cultural
side of the question.
It is kind of difficult to determine what is a "defect" and what is not in
Biology. Many genes that at first where diagnosed as purely deleterious
later where recognized as having some positive effect in the population;
sickle-cell anemia is the classical example.
Tom - A discussion of the definition of a defect is naturally personal and relative and so might be best left for a separate thread. For the purpose of this thread, lets define a genetic defect as:
a) A gene that produces a mal-functioning protein that results in the manifestation of a medically recognized disease.
b) The known result significantly shortens the life of the subject, and may also have an advese affect on the qulaity of life of the subject.

Here are but a few of the well over one hundred examples of genetic defects:
1) Defective gene resulting in high cholesterol and death by age 45. If both genes are inherited, death occurs by age 35.
2) Downs syndrome,
3) Lou Geregs disease.
4) Suseptability to cancers.

Also, in the cultural arena, sometimes some characteristic is considered a
defect, and other times those same characteristics doesnt matter or are
even considered desirable. An example is left-handed people: in other times,
they were considered "defective" and even malignant. (In Portuguese, the
word for left-handed, "canhoto", has a root that means "demon". A
medievalism that still survives in our language.) Nowadays, theyre
considered just one of two possibilities equally acceptable.
Tom - The decision making body of each colony should be able to make a rational decision about what is a defect and what is not, and I understand that this will vary over time and space. We should not presume to make that decision for others now.
Due to those cultural and biological subtleties, I would prefer the
population in an habitat to be genetically as diverse as possible. In fact,
my point of view is that such a diversity would be *specially* desirable for
an interstellar travel, since that might prevent problems associated with
endogamy in the long run.

Tom - Interesting point of discussion. Just what do you mean be "diverse". Are you speaking of racial or skin color, or are you referring to personality types such a: natural football players, natural soldiers, professior types, boxers, hot heads, cool heads, intellectuals, laggards, attention deficit disorder, suseptable to pleasure/drugs, criminality, psychopaths, etc?
If debating, I would suggest that there may be some personality traits that are unsuitible for the demands of life on a space colony, and that carefull screening should be considered. Naturally, skin color would not be one of these traits since I view all humans as being members of the same race. :-) Afterall, we all originated from Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago, right?

(But maybe my arguments are a bit biased. I live in a country with *extreme*
human genetic diversity, and I would like to live in a space habitat just
like that.)
Tom - This is good for life on earth, but life on a space colony, at least for the first settlers, may be very demanding and may require high skills for most if not all members. Low-skill jobs may be rare IMO. I suppose that one could always pull weeds on a vast O Neil colony, but in a more compact colony with solar powered air conditioning/recycling, working in the hydroponic greenhouse may be the lowest skill job available and even here not being able to tell the difference between a week and the shoot of a food plant would be no good.
In particular, should a colony continue to allow all comers to have as many
babies as they like, or should procreation be a privilege monitored by the
local society?
Some birth control is indispensable, since if you double your population you
have also to build a new habitat, and therefore any population increase
would have to be linked to the construction of new habitats. However, Im
against reproductive privileges given to some groups only. Again, this is
eugenics. Im in favor or limiting the number of children per couple to 2.2
or something like that.
Should drug addicts and alcoholics automatically loose parenting privileges?
No. First, although there maybe some genetic predisposition for some drugs,
I very much doubt that there is genetic predisposition for *all* drugs.
Second, the concept of "drug" is yet another thing that changes from time to
time and from culture to culture. At first, cocaine was a substance
perfectly integrated into the life of the indians; in the 19th century, its
use was kind of widespread in the Western world with no medical or law
restrictions; but nowadays it is seen as a horrible substance that must be
regulated at all cost. (In most countries. In the Netherlands, its use is
free, if I remember correctly, and probably there are other exceptions.) On
the other hand, substances that beyond all doubt are very hazardous to human
health, like alcohol and tobacco, are not regulated, or are much less
regulated.
Tom - The consumption of alcohol while pregnant should be illegal IMO and the tax on smoking should be sufficiently high to pay for the extra air-conditioning as well as the increased medical costs likely to result.

You appear to have side-steped the issue of drug affected babies that are sometimes born blind and which require massive investments in post-birth care since they are often born under-weight and premature. Studies show that these children never catch-up. Wouldn't it be better for these souls to be born to a drug-free family?
What about carriers of significant genetic disorders? Should the fertilized
embryos be "fixed", if possible, or what?
Should eggs and sperm be fertilized in a lab where the zygotes can be
examined for genetic defects, perhaps treated, before implantation? (For the
sake of discussion, lets assume that this is easily possible, OK?)
Well, now youre coming to the scenario that I think is more likely. In a
few years, or decades at most, I think, many parents will have the resources
and the will to produce engineered babies free of "defects" and blessed with
all "virtues" (depending on what is considered "defect" and what is "virtue"
in their societies/times). Of course, careful genetic manipulation and
assisted human reproduction are not (and probably will not be) the cheapest
things of the world, and just rich/middle class people will have access to
this. There are people concerned right know that this will lead to a upper
cast of rich genetically engineered bermenschen and a great poor mass of
just "normal" people. (This scenario is brilliantly shown in the movie
"Gattaca", for example; and was also seen, in some extent, in " The Time
Machine", by H.G. Wells.)
Tom - It would be good if we could come to a middle ground in this sensitive area.
What if the above scenario were to be combined with cloning and what if many thousands of clones were available to choose from? Perhaps each zygot that is suitible for implantation is first cloned a hundred times and the balance frozen for later use either by the original donors or perhaps for donation to the public?
What if medical insurance was universally available and that implantation of a "genetic defect free" egg was covered for all? Parents could choose from a picture book of what their children would look like based upon past births of the " series".

At minimal cost, parents would have the opportunity to trade their right to pass on their own set of genes with defects in exchange for a set of known genes without defects. Candidates for this service would be families with known problems of breast cancer, diabetes, etc.
Regards,
Tom
Lucio

Comments below:
From: Ian Woollard
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies

Tom Tucker (Olympia) wrote:

> None of which has much to do with space settlements. Returning
> people you don't want to earth is very cheap actually. The delta-v
> is under 2 km/s, you just slingshot them around the moon and
> aerobrake.
>
> Tom - So, would the parents return also? What if they have a large
> family, would their children also have to return?

Their choice don't you think?

Tom - Yes, but this could have a devastating impact on a family as well as on a colony.

> What if the space colony has achieved independents status from
> earth, which nation would be responsible to care for the children?

If they've ceded from the earth, then perhaps they will have
to look after their own children. Or perhaps not, they
may have made trade deals of some kind.

> IMO, the family and colony are responsible, especially, if in orbit
> around Mars or on it's way to another star.

Of course. But genetic disease is only one side of the coin.
What about the adults that become disabled? What about the
old people?

Tom - Living on a space colony will not relieve inhabinents from saving for retirement and the medical care that may be needed.

> You have conveniently ignored my question about our responsibility
> to protect future generations from genetic harm.

Actually, heritable diseases usually crop up in inbreeding
situations. Right now massive outbreeding is going on. Space
habitats won't be inbred.

Tom - We are learning that many of the "old age" diseases of humanity are in-fact the result of defective genes. Cancer is a major example and heart disease another. Alzheimers, which affects a large percentage of older people may also be the result of cells not being able to cleanup and destroy aberant proteins which represents a broken process. ADD, which affect over 10% of our school children is also genetic IMO, so, you see, the impact may be vast.

I don't agree that future generations need protecting from genetic
harm. The human genome has built human beings to take care of itself
for 3 million years. It is good at doing both. It also selects what
attributes are to keep and to go. It is good at that too. Evolution
is still going on all the time.

Tom - IMO, nature has done a good job thus far, but nature did not intend for us to live much past 30 after procreation. By weedding out genetic defects we are helping nature to evolve, you see? Premature death that is avoidable should be avoided IMO.
I recall reading about a line of Jewish people who currently have hundreds of people suffering from a genetic disorder that they have been able to trace back hundreds of years to a single individual. This is they type of case I have in mind.

> I will place your "vote" under the category of "we must accept the
> will of God.

You must be an American! I've heard about your voting. ;-)

Not even close btw.

> Tom

From:
Ian Woollard
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent:
Saturday, December 23, 2000 10:50 PM
Subject:
Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies
Tom Tucker (Olympia) wrote:
> None of which has much to do with space settlements. Returning
> people you don't want to earth is very cheap actually. The delta-v
> is under 2 km/s, you just slingshot them around the moon and
> aerobrake.
>
> Tom - So, would the parents return also? What if they have a large
> family, would their children also have to return?
Their choice don't you think?
Tom - Yes, but this could have a devastating impact on a family as well as on a colony.

> What if the space colony has achieved independents status from
earth, which nation would be responsible to care for the children?
If they've ceded from the earth, then perhaps they will have
to look after their own children. Or perhaps not, they
may have made trade deals of some kind.
> IMO, the family and colony are responsible, especially, if in orbit
> around Mars or on it's way to another star.
Of course. But genetic disease is only one side of the coin.
What about the adults that become disabled? What about the
old people?
Tom - Living on a space colony will not relieve inhabinents from saving for retirement and the medical care that may be needed.

> You have conveniently ignored my question about our responsibility
> to protect future generations from genetic harm.
Actually, heritable diseases usually crop up in inbreeding
situations. Right now massive outbreeding is going on. Space
habitats won't be inbred.
Tom - We are learning that many of the "old age" diseases of humanity are in-fact the result of defective genes. Cancer is a major example and heart disease another. Alzheimers, which affects a large percentage of older people may also be the result of cells not being able to cleanup and destroy aberant proteins which represents a broken process. ADD, which affect over 10% of our school children is also genetic IMO, so, you see, the impact may be vast.
I don't agree that future generations need protecting from genetic
harm. The human genome has built human beings to take care of itself
for 3 million years. It is good at doing both. It also selects what
attributes are to keep and to go. It is good at that too. Evolution
is still going on all the time.
Tom - IMO, nature has done a good job thus far, but nature did not intend for us to live much past 30 after procreation. By weedding out genetic defects we are helping nature to evolve, you see? Premature death that is avoidable should be avoided IMO.
I recall reading about a line of Jewish people who currently have hundreds of people suffering from a genetic disorder that they have been able to trace back hundreds of years to a single individual. This is they type of case I have in mind.
> I will place your "vote" under the category of "we must accept the
> will of God.
You must be an American! I've heard about your voting. ;-)
Not even close btw.

>
> When your taxes rise to take care of those who can't take care of
themselves and who can't be put out onto the streets as we do on
earth, then perhaps you recognize why I am asking the question.
>
Under your theory, Stephen Hawking or Nicoli Tesla would have never
been born, and Albert Einstein never educated.

> I am trying to bridge from the fantastic to the realistic. People
who can't fend for themselves are likely to be sacrificed if we don't
plan well now.
>

> Besides, imagine the misery that passing along defective genes will
cause over a thousand generations as opposed to the relatively minor
inconvenience of fixing the genes now? Wouldn't you rather be born
without defective genes/diseases that may shorten you life? Well,
multiply this concern by millions and you may then understand where I
am coming from.
>
Sickle Cell Anemia is a genetic disorder that provides a natural
resistance to Malaria.

Given a choice of not being born or living a shortened life, I would
take the later.

The problem is who is to decide what is defective genes. Is black skin
a defective gene? Remember evolution is caused by defective genes.

Bill

> Regards,
>
> Tom
> From: Ian Woollard
> To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 4:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies
>
> Tom Tucker (Olympia) wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > Has anyone given much thought to the regulation of reproduction
on space

> You have conveniently ignored my question about our responsibility
to protect future generations from genetic harm.

Until you can define exactly what 'genetic harm' is you have no
question.

Was the birth Alan Turing (homosexual), Nicoli Tesla (hemophilia),
Stephen Hawking (Lou Greg Disease) bad for the human race?

Bill

>
> Tom - IMO, nature has done a good job thus far, but nature did not
intend for us to live much past 30 after procreation. By weedding out
genetic defects we are helping nature to evolve, you see? Premature
death that is avoidable should be avoided IMO.

Evolution is based on genetic defects. That is the only method nature
has to increase the size of the genetic pool. Nature is not a
benevolent God directing evolution to one end. Nature trys everything
and lets the environment things interact with determine if the change
was good.

>From the point of view of space settlement you want to encourage
genetic defects. This is a totally new environment and life hasn't
started evolving for it.

> I recall reading about a line of Jewish people who currently have
hundreds of people suffering from a genetic disorder that they have
been able to trace back hundreds of years to a single individual.
This is they type of case I have in mind.

Well obviously this genetic disorder doesn't seem to have any great
impact on the population that holds it because there are still people
that suffer from it.

>
> > I will place your "vote" under the category of "we must
accept the
> > will of God.
>

Actually you should put my vote in blind evolution. It has done a
better job than any human has.

Bill

From: bill t
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 2:14 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Genetic Defects and New Colonies

> You have conveniently ignored my question about our responsibility
to protect future generations from genetic harm.

Until you can define exactly what 'genetic harm' is you have no
question.

Tom - Lets take Lupus as an example. OK?

Was the birth Alan Turing (homosexual), Nicoli Tesla (hemophilia),
Stephen Hawking (Lou Greg Disease) bad for the human race?

Bill

From:
bill t
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent:
Sunday, December 24, 2000 2:14 PM
Subject:
[spacesettlers] Re: Genetic Defects and New Colonies
> You have conveniently ignored my question about our responsibility
to protect future generations from genetic harm.
Until you can define exactly what 'genetic harm' is you have no
question.
Tom - Lets take Lupus as an example. OK?
Was the birth Alan Turing (homosexual), Nicoli Tesla (hemophilia),
Stephen Hawking (Lou Greg Disease) bad for the human race?
Bill

From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies

[snikt]
Tom - A discussion of the definition of a defect is naturally personal and
relative and so might be best left for a separate thread. For the purpose of
this thread, lets define a genetic defect as:
a) A gene that produces a mal-functioning protein that results in the
manifestation of a medically recognized disease.
b) The known result significantly shortens the life of the subject, and
may also have an advese affect on the qulaity of life of the subject.

Here are but a few of the well over one hundred examples of genetic
defects:
1) Defective gene resulting in high cholesterol and death by age 45. If
both genes are inherited, death occurs by age 35.
2) Downs syndrome,
3) Lou Geregs disease.
4) Suseptability to cancers.

Your definition of genetic defect does not matches the examples. Down
Syndrome is not caused by a gene that produces a malfunctioning protein
(your item a), it is simply an error during replication of the chromosomes -
a child with Down Syndrome has an extra copy of the 23rd chromosome, if I
remember correctly. In fact, Ive heard that an individual with Down
Syndrome can give birth to normal children, though Im not able to confirm
this information at the moment.

Tom - The decision making body of each colony should be able to make a
rational decision about what is a defect and what is not, and I understand
that this will vary over time and space. We should not presume to make that
decision for others now.

This invalidates your argument in another message, when you say that we
would be "helping" evolution by practicing eugenics. Evolution is a process
that takes tens of thousands of years to produce some measurable effect in a
species with slow reproduction like humans, and cultural concepts can vary
wildly in just a few decades. (Yet another example: homosexuality, a
characteristic that many scientists nowadays believe to be
biological/genetic in some extent, was considered a psychological disease
until the 70s, while nowadays it is progressively being accepted by
society.) Therefore, much of the influence of our cultural decisions will
most likely annihilate each other along the hundreds of centuries needed to
make a difference in evolutionary terms. (Except, of course, in the cases
where your population of bermenschen will be isolated from the rest of
Humanity, like in an interstellar travel.)

Tom - Interesting point of discussion. Just what do you mean be "diverse".
Are you speaking of racial or skin color, or are you referring to
personality types such a: natural football players, natural soldiers,
professior types, boxers, hot heads, cool heads, intellectuals, laggards,
attention deficit disorder, suseptable to pleasure/drugs, criminality,
psychopaths, etc?

When I used the word "diverse", I meant a population completely detached
from our culture-based judgments, values and biases. In order to clarify my
concept, consider the example of the population to be put in an interstellar
ship. First of all, we should chose, obviously, just people who are willing
to endure this travel. Lets suppose that there is a list of volunteers with
a number N of people much higher than the actual capacity n of the ship.
Then, to fill you ship, you *randomly* choose your n passengers among the N
candidates.

Random choice may sound complete devoid of sense for a proponent of eugenics
like you, but that is precisely what is used in many applications where you
have to maintain a compromise between the quality and the diversity of your
population. In Genetic Programming algorithms, for example, migration of
individuals between different populations is done randomly in order to
preserve diversity and therefore avoid stagnation or loss of quality in the
long range.

If debating, I would suggest that there may be some personality traits
that are unsuitible for the demands of life on a space colony, and that
carefull screening should be considered. Naturally, skin color would not be
one of these traits since I view all humans as being members of the same
race. :-) Afterall, we all originated from Africa between 100,000 and
200,000 years ago, right?
[snikt]
Tom - This is good for life on earth, but life on a space colony, at
least for the first settlers, may be very demanding and may require high
skills for most if not all members. Low-skill jobs may be rare IMO. I
suppose that one could always pull weeds on a vast O Neil colony, but in a
more compact colony with solar powered air conditioning/recycling, working
in the hydroponic greenhouse may be the lowest skill job available and even
here not being able to tell the difference between a week and the shoot of a
food plant would be no good.

The question here is that you see the life in a space colony as
fundamentally different from life on Earth. However, in societal terms, I
see a space colony as nothing more than a city -- a city located in space,
yes, but anyway a city for most of societal and cultural purposes. (The only
exception would be an interstellar worldship, which would be a completely
isolated city -- indeed a situation much different from that of earthling
cities.)

As for your argument about low-skill jobs, I dont see much difference
between that and the current urban life on Earth. Even in a third-world
country like mine, 80% of the population lives in cities, where the number
of low-skill jobs drops dramatically along time and ability to read/write,
and even computer skills, are more and more and more required for virtually
all kinds of jobs. Now, the 20% of the population still living in rural
areas: agriculture gets more and more mechanized, in such a way that
"pulling weeds" will be an obsolete profession on Earth itself in a very
short time.

Now, this is the situation in a third world country, Brazil. But if you
take, for example, Europe, you have a population of hundreds of millions of
people where just a minuscule fraction of them have low-skill jobs. The same
in Japan. However, Europeans and Japaneses did not have to undergo a
eugenics program in order to accommodate to this new situation. They simply
invested massively in education, social programs and employment policies.
The point is that human behavior and abilities are much more conditioned by
the society and culture where we are grow (our "memes", as Richard Dawkins
would say) than by our genes.

However, since I consider space colonies equivalent (in terms of society
dynamics) to any city on Earth (I even like to call them "uranopolis", a
Greek-Roman term for "heavenly city"), all this discussion about eugenics in
space sounds completely theoretical for me. I think that the criteria for
admitting a new citizen/resident in a colony will be as varied (and probably
as free of genetic criteria) as laws controlling immigration in all current
countries.

You appear to have side-steped the issue of drug affected babies that are
sometimes born blind and which require massive investments in post-birth
care since they are often born under-weight and premature. Studies show
that these children never catch-up. Wouldn't it be better for these souls
to be born to a drug-free family?

Probably. But, again, we fall in my argument regarding conclusive links
between genetics and drug addiction for all drugs -- and the lack of a
culturally perennial definition of "drug".

What if the above scenario were to be combined with cloning and what if
many thousands of clones were available to choose from? Perhaps each zygot
that is suitible for implantation is first cloned a hundred times and the
balance frozen for later use either by the original donors or perhaps for
donation to the public?
What if medical insurance was universally available and that implantation
of a "genetic defect free" egg was covered for all? Parents could choose
from a picture book of what their children would look like based upon past
births of the " series".

Widespread use of cloning would be the worst-case scenario for loss of
diversity in a population. Let suppose that you seeds 10 million copies of
one of your ber-babies among the population. Now, suppose that a few years
latter a new virus spreads in the population. You didnt know at the time of
the production of your ber-babies (because the virus didnt exist at that
time), but your ber-babies are lethaly susceptible to the new virus strand.
As a result, you have a massive number of dead children and a serious
problem in the continuity of your population.

That is the problem with loss of diversity: it makes your population
unprepared for circumstances that our limited, narrow and biased human minds
cannot foresee. Cloning of human beings should be used only in rare
circumstances (for example, in the case of sterile individuals that do want
to have children of their own), but never as a industrial process of
reproduction...

[snikt]
Regards,
[snikt]

Regards,

Lucio.

From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
To:
Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Genetic Defects and New Colonies
[snikt]
Tom - Bill, Bill, please! We are going over the same territory again!
No, they would still have been born, only without the genetic defects, OK?
[snikt]

No, they wouldnt. As far as I remember, you were advocating forbidding
reproduction/immigration of people with genetic defects in your space
colonies. That would rule out the parents of Tesla and Hawking, since their
families would have a history of genetic disease. Perhaps you would also
rule out Beethoven, whose father was alcoholic.

Maybe youll say that youre not advocating "selective reproduction"
anymore; maybe youll say that the embryos of Tesla and Hawking would be
fixed by genetic engineering and they would still be born, but without their
defects. However, again youre revealling some ingenuity or lack or
knowledge in genetics: how can you guarantee that, without the aleles for
haemophilia and Lou Gherig disease, they would still be the same people?

Unlike what is pictured in popular imagination, genes are not "modular"
functional entities, independent from each other; instead, they interact
with each other and with the environment in almost unpredictable ways. (And
that makes the production of transgenic animals and plants specially
tricky...) For example: the gene for eye albinism should affect only the
color of the eyes but, through probably a series of cascade interactions
with other genes, it also affects brain visual processing, in such a way
that people with eye albinism are almost blind because their brains cant
interpret images properly. This is an example of a gene coding a physical
characteristic affecting also a *cognitive* characteristic -- and this
example only suffices to cast serious doubts that healthy versions of Tesla
and Hawking would guarantedly be the same persons. And Im not even
considering the fact that, without their diseases (which have strong effects
in the way that they lived their lives), their lives could even follow
completely different stories, leading again to completely different
personalities.

Lucio

From: Dr. Omni
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies

From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies

[snikt]
Tom - A discussion of the definition of a defect is naturally personal and
relative and so might be best left for a separate thread. For the purpose of
this thread, lets define a genetic defect as:
a) A gene that produces a mal-functioning protein that results in the
manifestation of a medically recognized disease.
b) The known result significantly shortens the life of the subject, and
may also have an advese affect on the qulaity of life of the subject.

Here are but a few of the well over one hundred examples of genetic
defects:
1) Defective gene resulting in high cholesterol and death by age 45. If
both genes are inherited, death occurs by age 35.
2) Downs syndrome,
3) Lou Geregs disease.
4) Suseptability to cancers.

Your definition of genetic defect does not matches the examples. Down
Syndrome is not caused by a gene that produces a malfunctioning protein
(your item a), it is simply an error during replication of the chromosomes -
a child with Down Syndrome has an extra copy of the 23rd chromosome, if I
remember correctly. In fact, Ive heard that an individual with Down
Syndrome can give birth to normal children, though Im not able to confirm
this information at the moment.

To - OK, I didn't pick a clear example, so lets use Lupus instead or any of the hundreds of other genetic disorders (e.g. obesity) that plague humanity? Perhaps at the test tube stage we could remove the extra chromosome or make it inactive? Lets give science the chance, shall we?

Tom - The decision making body of each colony should be able to make a
rational decision about what is a defect and what is not, and I understand
that this will vary over time and space. We should not presume to make that
decision for others now.

This invalidates your argument in another message, when you say that we
would be "helping" evolution by practicing eugenics. Evolution is a process
that takes tens of thousands of years to produce some measurable effect in a
species with slow reproduction like humans, and cultural concepts can vary
wildly in just a few decades. (Yet another example: homosexuality, a
characteristic that many scientists nowadays believe to be
biological/genetic in some extent, was considered a psychological disease
until the 70s, while nowadays it is progressively being accepted by
society.) Therefore, much of the influence of our cultural decisions will
most likely annihilate each other along the hundreds of centuries needed to
make a difference in evolutionary terms. (Except, of course, in the cases
where your population of bermenschen will be isolated from the rest of
Humanity, like in an interstellar travel.)

Tom - Yes, we focusing on the frontier of interstellar travel when we discuss space colonies, aren't we? Each colony that leaves the solar system will be effectively isolated from the rest of humanity and may, over hundreds of thousands of years, become quite different from the root stock here on earth. Like it or not, anything that we can imagine happening to better adapt to the environment, will likely happen whether we like it or not, hence, the more we prepare now, the better.

I would fully expect some, if not many "societies" in our first space colonies around sol, to strive to advance themselves while the more primitive cultures remain on earth. For example, cultures that place religious scriptures over the study of science are least likley to make it in space, let alone to another star or to inhabit the galaxy. I would guess that even in devleoped nations, only one out of 1000 will be ready, willing and able to become a member of as space colony. What do you think?

Tom - Interesting point of discussion. Just what do you mean be "diverse".
Are you speaking of racial or skin color, or are you referring to
personality types such a: natural football players, natural soldiers,
professior types, boxers, hot heads, cool heads, intellectuals, laggards,
attention deficit disorder, suseptable to pleasure/drugs, criminality,
psychopaths, etc?

When I used the word "diverse", I meant a population completely detached
from our culture-based judgments, values and biases. In order to clarify my
concept, consider the example of the population to be put in an interstellar
ship. First of all, we should chose, obviously, just people who are willing
to endure this travel. Lets suppose that there is a list of volunteers with
a number N of people much higher than the actual capacity n of the ship.
Then, to fill you ship, you *randomly* choose your n passengers among the N
candidates.

Random choice may sound complete devoid of sense for a proponent of eugenics
like you, but that is precisely what is used in many applications where you
have to maintain a compromise between the quality and the diversity of your
population. In Genetic Programming algorithms, for example, migration of
individuals between different populations is done randomly in order to
preserve diversity and therefore avoid stagnation or loss of quality in the
long range.

If debating, I would suggest that there may be some personality traits
that are unsuitible for the demands of life on a space colony, and that
carefull screening should be considered. Naturally, skin color would not be
one of these traits since I view all humans as being members of the same
race. :-) Afterall, we all originated from Africa between 100,000 and
200,000 years ago, right?
[snikt]
Tom - This is good for life on earth, but life on a space colony, at
least for the first settlers, may be very demanding and may require high
skills for most if not all members. Low-skill jobs may be rare IMO. I
suppose that one could always pull weeds on a vast O Neil colony, but in a
more compact colony with solar powered air conditioning/recycling, working
in the hydroponic greenhouse may be the lowest skill job available and even
here not being able to tell the difference between a week and the shoot of a
food plant would be no good.

The question here is that you see the life in a space colony as
fundamentally different from life on Earth. However, in societal terms, I
see a space colony as nothing more than a city -- a city located in space,
yes, but anyway a city for most of societal and cultural purposes. (The only
exception would be an interstellar worldship, which would be a completely
isolated city -- indeed a situation much different from that of earthling
cities.)

As for your argument about low-skill jobs, I dont see much difference
between that and the current urban life on Earth. Even in a third-world
country like mine, 80% of the population lives in cities, where the number
of low-skill jobs drops dramatically along time and ability to read/write,
and even computer skills, are more and more and more required for virtually
all kinds of jobs. Now, the 20% of the population still living in rural
areas: agriculture gets more and more mechanized, in such a way that
"pulling weeds" will be an obsolete profession on Earth itself in a very
short time.

Now, this is the situation in a third world country, Brazil. But if you
take, for example, Europe, you have a population of hundreds of millions of
people where just a minuscule fraction of them have low-skill jobs. The same
in Japan. However, Europeans and Japaneses did not have to undergo a
eugenics program in order to accommodate to this new situation. They simply
invested massively in education, social programs and employment policies.
The point is that human behavior and abilities are much more conditioned by
the society and culture where we are grow (our "memes", as Richard Dawkins
would say) than by our genes.

However, since I consider space colonies equivalent (in terms of society
dynamics) to any city on Earth (I even like to call them "uranopolis", a
Greek-Roman term for "heavenly city"), all this discussion about eugenics in
space sounds completely theoretical for me. I think that the criteria for
admitting a new citizen/resident in a colony will be as varied (and probably
as free of genetic criteria) as laws controlling immigration in all current
countries.

Tom - Sounds nice, but the devil is always in the details, isn't it? So, lets distill t his down to basics. Given a list of hundreds of genetic defect that are agreed to exist medically, and which can be repaired or suppressed, would you or would you not support efforts to have these measures taken on space colonies that choose to follow a path of minimal passage of genetic defects to future generations?

You appear to have side-steped the issue of drug affected babies that are
sometimes born blind and which require massive investments in post-birth
care since they are often born under-weight and premature. Studies show
that these children never catch-up. Wouldn't it be better for these souls
to be born to a drug-free family?

Probably. But, again, we fall in my argument regarding conclusive links
between genetics and drug addiction for all drugs -- and the lack of a
culturally perennial definition of "drug".

Tom - OK, lets define the obvious. A drug is: herone, cocaine, Meth. Now what is you opinion on parents who are addicted to these substances?

What if the above scenario were to be combined with cloning and what if
many thousands of clones were available to choose from? Perhaps each zygot
that is suitible for implantation is first cloned a hundred times and the
balance frozen for later use either by the original donors or perhaps for
donation to the public?
What if medical insurance was universally available and that implantation
of a "genetic defect free" egg was covered for all? Parents could choose
from a picture book of what their children would look like based upon past
births of the " series".

Widespread use of cloning would be the worst-case scenario for loss of
diversity in a population. Let suppose that you seeds 10 million copies of
one of your ber-babies among the population. Now, suppose that a few years
latter a new virus spreads in the population. You didnt know at the time of
the production of your ber-babies (because the virus didnt exist at that
time), but your ber-babies are lethaly susceptible to the new virus strand.
As a result, you have a massive number of dead children and a serious
problem in the continuity of your population.

That is the problem with loss of diversity: it makes your population
unprepared for circumstances that our limited, narrow and biased human minds
cannot foresee. Cloning of human beings should be used only in rare
circumstances (for example, in the case of sterile individuals that do want
to have children of their own), but never as a industrial process of
reproduction...

Tom - OK, lets not seed 10 million, but perhaps just a hundred of each clone over many years spread over many colonies? Perhaps we could limit clones in both time and place to minimize them running into each other. These details await discussion.

Given the choice, don't you think that future generations would prefer to be born into healthier bodies?
Cheers,

Tom

[snikt]
Regards,
[snikt]

Regards,

Lucio.

From:
Dr. Omni
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent:
Monday, December 25, 2000 9:16 PM
Subject:
Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies
From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)" <
tntucker@...
>
To: <
spacesettlers@egroups.com
>
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies
[snikt]
Tom - A discussion of the definition of a defect is naturally personal and
relative and so might be best left for a separate thread. For the purpose of
this thread, lets define a genetic defect as:
a) A gene that produces a mal-functioning protein that results in the
manifestation of a medically recognized disease.
b) The known result significantly shortens the life of the subject, and
may also have an advese affect on the qulaity of life of the subject.
Here are but a few of the well over one hundred examples of genetic
defects:
1) Defective gene resulting in high cholesterol and death by age 45. If
both genes are inherited, death occurs by age 35.
2) Downs syndrome,
3) Lou Geregs disease.
4) Suseptability to cancers.
Your definition of genetic defect does not matches the examples. Down
Syndrome is not caused by a gene that produces a malfunctioning protein
(your item a), it is simply an error during replication of the chromosomes -
a child with Down Syndrome has an extra copy of the 23rd chromosome, if I
remember correctly. In fact, Ive heard that an individual with Down
Syndrome can give birth to normal children, though Im not able to confirm
this information at the moment.
To - OK, I didn't pick a clear example, so lets use Lupus instead or any of the hundreds of other genetic disorders (e.g. obesity) that plague humanity? Perhaps at the test tube stage we could remove the extra chromosome or make it inactive? Lets give science the chance, shall we?

Tom - The decision making body of each colony should be able to make a
rational decision about what is a defect and what is not, and I understand
that this will vary over time and space. We should not presume to make that
decision for others now.
This invalidates your argument in another message, when you say that we
would be "helping" evolution by practicing eugenics. Evolution is a process
that takes tens of thousands of years to produce some measurable effect in a
species with slow reproduction like humans, and cultural concepts can vary
wildly in just a few decades. (Yet another example: homosexuality, a
characteristic that many scientists nowadays believe to be
biological/genetic in some extent, was considered a psychological disease
until the 70s, while nowadays it is progressively being accepted by
society.) Therefore, much of the influence of our cultural decisions will
most likely annihilate each other along the hundreds of centuries needed to
make a difference in evolutionary terms. (Except, of course, in the cases
where your population of bermenschen will be isolated from the rest of
Humanity, like in an interstellar travel.)
Tom - Yes, we focusing on the frontier of interstellar travel when we discuss space colonies, aren't we? Each colony that leaves the solar system will be effectively isolated from the rest of humanity and may, over hundreds of thousands of years, become quite different from the root stock here on earth. Like it or not, anything that we can imagine happening to better adapt to the environment, will likely happen whether we like it or not, hence, the more we prepare now, the better.

I would fully expect some, if not many "societies" in our first space colonies around sol, to strive to advance themselves while the more primitive cultures remain on earth. For example, cultures that place religious scriptures over the study of science are least likley to make it in space, let alone to another star or to inhabit the galaxy. I would guess that even in devleoped nations, only one out of 1000 will be ready, willing and able to become a member of as space colony. What do you think?

Tom - Interesting point of discussion. Just what do you mean be "diverse".
Are you speaking of racial or skin color, or are you referring to
personality types such a: natural football players, natural soldiers,
professior types, boxers, hot heads, cool heads, intellectuals, laggards,
attention deficit disorder, suseptable to pleasure/drugs, criminality,
psychopaths, etc?
When I used the word "diverse", I meant a population completely detached
from our culture-based judgments, values and biases. In order to clarify my
concept, consider the example of the population to be put in an interstellar
ship. First of all, we should chose, obviously, just people who are willing
to endure this travel. Lets suppose that there is a list of volunteers with
a number N of people much higher than the actual capacity n of the ship.
Then, to fill you ship, you *randomly* choose your n passengers among the N
candidates.
Random choice may sound complete devoid of sense for a proponent of eugenics
like you, but that is precisely what is used in many applications where you
have to maintain a compromise between the quality and the diversity of your
population. In Genetic Programming algorithms, for example, migration of
individuals between different populations is done randomly in order to
preserve diversity and therefore avoid stagnation or loss of quality in the
long range.
If debating, I would suggest that there may be some personality traits
that are unsuitible for the demands of life on a space colony, and that
carefull screening should be considered. Naturally, skin color would not be
one of these traits since I view all humans as being members of the same
race. :-) Afterall, we all originated from Africa between 100,000 and
200,000 years ago, right?
[snikt]
Tom - This is good for life on earth, but life on a space colony, at
least for the first settlers, may be very demanding and may require high
skills for most if not all members. Low-skill jobs may be rare IMO. I
suppose that one could always pull weeds on a vast O Neil colony, but in a
more compact colony with solar powered air conditioning/recycling, working
in the hydroponic greenhouse may be the lowest skill job available and even
here not being able to tell the difference between a week and the shoot of a
food plant would be no good.
The question here is that you see the life in a space colony as
fundamentally different from life on Earth. However, in societal terms, I
see a space colony as nothing more than a city -- a city located in space,
yes, but anyway a city for most of societal and cultural purposes. (The only
exception would be an interstellar worldship, which would be a completely
isolated city -- indeed a situation much different from that of earthling
cities.)
As for your argument about low-skill jobs, I dont see much difference
between that and the current urban life on Earth. Even in a third-world
country like mine, 80% of the population lives in cities, where the number
of low-skill jobs drops dramatically along time and ability to read/write,
and even computer skills, are more and more and more required for virtually
all kinds of jobs. Now, the 20% of the population still living in rural
areas: agriculture gets more and more mechanized, in such a way that
"pulling weeds" will be an obsolete profession on Earth itself in a very
short time.
Now, this is the situation in a third world country, Brazil. But if you
take, for example, Europe, you have a population of hundreds of millions of
people where just a minuscule fraction of them have low-skill jobs. The same
in Japan. However, Europeans and Japaneses did not have to undergo a
eugenics program in order to accommodate to this new situation. They simply
invested massively in education, social programs and employment policies.
The point is that human behavior and abilities are much more conditioned by
the society and culture where we are grow (our "memes", as Richard Dawkins
would say) than by our genes.
However, since I consider space colonies equivalent (in terms of society
dynamics) to any city on Earth (I even like to call them "uranopolis", a
Greek-Roman term for "heavenly city"), all this discussion about eugenics in
space sounds completely theoretical for me. I think that the criteria for
admitting a new citizen/resident in a colony will be as varied (and probably
as free of genetic criteria) as laws controlling immigration in all current
countries.
Tom - Sounds nice, but the devil is always in the details, isn't it? So, lets distill t his down to basics. Given a list of hundreds of genetic defect that are agreed to exist medically, and which can be repaired or suppressed, would you or would you not support efforts to have these measures taken on space colonies that choose to follow a path of minimal passage of genetic defects to future generations?
You appear to have side-steped the issue of drug affected babies that are
sometimes born blind and which require massive investments in post-birth
care since they are often born under-weight and premature. Studies show
that these children never catch-up. Wouldn't it be better for these souls
to be born to a drug-free family?
Probably. But, again, we fall in my argument regarding conclusive links
between genetics and drug addiction for all drugs -- and the lack of a
culturally perennial definition of "drug".
Tom - OK, lets define the obvious. A drug is: herone, cocaine, Meth. Now what is you opinion on parents who are addicted to these substances?
What if the above scenario were to be combined with cloning and what if
many thousands of clones were available to choose from? Perhaps each zygot
that is suitible for implantation is first cloned a hundred times and the
balance frozen for later use either by the original donors or perhaps for
donation to the public?
What if medical insurance was universally available and that implantation
of a "genetic defect free" egg was covered for all? Parents could choose
from a picture book of what their children would look like based upon past
births of the " series".
Widespread use of cloning would be the worst-case scenario for loss of
diversity in a population. Let suppose that you seeds 10 million copies of
one of your ber-babies among the population. Now, suppose that a few years
latter a new virus spreads in the population. You didnt know at the time of
the production of your ber-babies (because the virus didnt exist at that
time), but your ber-babies are lethaly susceptible to the new virus strand.
As a result, you have a massive number of dead children and a serious
problem in the continuity of your population.
That is the problem with loss of diversity: it makes your population
unprepared for circumstances that our limited, narrow and biased human minds
cannot foresee. Cloning of human beings should be used only in rare
circumstances (for example, in the case of sterile individuals that do want
to have children of their own), but never as a industrial process of
reproduction...
Tom - OK, lets not seed 10 million, but perhaps just a hundred of each clone over many years spread over many colonies? Perhaps we could limit clones in both time and place to minimize them running into each other. These details await discussion.

Given the choice, don't you think that future generations would prefer to be born into healthier bodies?
Cheers,

Tom

[snikt]
Regards,
[snikt]
Regards,
Lucio.

This thread is becoming stupid.

Tom, lets stick with science that we can do. This means we can't cure
genetic diseases. So your choice becomes one of, should the choice to
give birth to a child with genetic defects be left to the parents, or
be given over to a steering committee.

The second question is should the up bringing of children be left in
the parents hands or should they be institutionalized.

We can't fix genetic code today, and if technology gets to that point
we will be able to continually fix our own bodies and won't have to
reproduce.

So can we please stick to reality

Bill

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
wrote:
>
> From: Dr. Omni
> To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
> Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 9:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies
>
> From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 5:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies
>
> [snikt]
> Tom - A discussion of the definition of a defect is naturally
personal and
> relative and so might be best left for a separate thread. For the
purpose of
> this thread, lets define a genetic defect as:
> a) A gene that produces a mal-functioning protein that results
in the
> manifestation of a medically recognized disease.
> b) The known result significantly shortens the life of the
subject, and
> may also have an advese affect on the qulaity of life of the
subject.
>
> Here are but a few of the well over one hundred examples of
genetic
> defects:
> 1) Defective gene resulting in high cholesterol and death by age
45. If
> both genes are inherited, death occurs by age 35.
> 2) Downs syndrome,
> 3) Lou Geregs disease.
> 4) Suseptability to cancers.
>
> Your definition of genetic defect does not matches the examples.
Down
> Syndrome is not caused by a gene that produces a malfunctioning
protein
> (your item a), it is simply an error during replication of the
chromosomes -
> a child with Down Syndrome has an extra copy of the 23rd
chromosome, if I
> remember correctly. In fact, Ive heard that an individual with
Down
> Syndrome can give birth to normal children, though Im not able to
confirm
> this information at the moment.
>
> To - OK, I didn't pick a clear example, so lets use Lupus instead
or any of the hundreds of other genetic disorders (e.g. obesity) that
plague humanity? Perhaps at the test tube stage we could remove the
extra chromosome or make it inactive? Lets give science the chance,
shall we?
>
> Tom - The decision making body of each colony should be able to
make a
> rational decision about what is a defect and what is not, and I
understand
> that this will vary over time and space. We should not presume to
make that
> decision for others now.
>
> This invalidates your argument in another message, when you say
that we
> would be "helping" evolution by practicing eugenics. Evolution is
a process
> that takes tens of thousands of years to produce some measurable
effect in a
> species with slow reproduction like humans, and cultural concepts
can vary
> wildly in just a few decades. (Yet another example: homosexuality,
a
> characteristic that many scientists nowadays believe to be
> biological/genetic in some extent, was considered a psychological
disease
> until the 70s, while nowadays it is progressively being accepted
by
> society.) Therefore, much of the influence of our cultural
decisions will
> most likely annihilate each other along the hundreds of centuries
needed to
> make a difference in evolutionary terms. (Except, of course, in
the cases
> where your population of bermenschen will be isolated from the
rest of
> Humanity, like in an interstellar travel.)
>
> Tom - Yes, we focusing on the frontier of interstellar travel when
we discuss space colonies, aren't we? Each colony that leaves the
solar system will be effectively isolated from the rest of humanity
and may, over hundreds of thousands of years, become quite different
from the root stock here on earth. Like it or not, anything that we
can imagine happening to better adapt to the environment, will likely
happen whether we like it or not, hence, the more we prepare now, the
better.
>
> I would fully expect some, if not many "societies" in our first
space colonies around sol, to strive to advance themselves while the
more primitive cultures remain on earth. For example, cultures that
place religious scriptures over the study of science are least likley
to make it in space, let alone to another star or to inhabit the
galaxy. I would guess that even in devleoped nations, only one out of
1000 will be ready, willing and able to become a member of as space
colony. What do you think?
>
> Tom - Interesting point of discussion. Just what do you mean be
"diverse".
> Are you speaking of racial or skin color, or are you referring to
> personality types such a: natural football players, natural
soldiers,
> professior types, boxers, hot heads, cool heads, intellectuals,
laggards,
> attention deficit disorder, suseptable to pleasure/drugs,
criminality,
> psychopaths, etc?
>
> When I used the word "diverse", I meant a population completely
detached
> from our culture-based judgments, values and biases. In order to
clarify my
> concept, consider the example of the population to be put in an
interstellar
> ship. First of all, we should chose, obviously, just people who
are willing
> to endure this travel. Lets suppose that there is a list of
volunteers with
> a number N of people much higher than the actual capacity n of the
ship.
> Then, to fill you ship, you *randomly* choose your n passengers
among the N
> candidates.
>
> Random choice may sound complete devoid of sense for a proponent
of eugenics
> like you, but that is precisely what is used in many applications
where you
> have to maintain a compromise between the quality and the
diversity of your
> population. In Genetic Programming algorithms, for example,
migration of
> individuals between different populations is done randomly in
order to
> preserve diversity and therefore avoid stagnation or loss of
quality in the
> long range.
>
> If debating, I would suggest that there may be some personality
traits
> that are unsuitible for the demands of life on a space colony, and
that
> carefull screening should be considered. Naturally, skin color
would not be
> one of these traits since I view all humans as being members of
the same
> race. :-) Afterall, we all originated from Africa between 100,000
and
> 200,000 years ago, right?
> [snikt]
> Tom - This is good for life on earth, but life on a space
colony, at
> least for the first settlers, may be very demanding and may
require high
> skills for most if not all members. Low-skill jobs may be rare
IMO. I
> suppose that one could always pull weeds on a vast O Neil colony,
but in a
> more compact colony with solar powered air conditioning/recycling,
working
> in the hydroponic greenhouse may be the lowest skill job available
and even
> here not being able to tell the difference between a week and the
shoot of a
> food plant would be no good.
>
> The question here is that you see the life in a space colony as
> fundamentally different from life on Earth. However, in societal
terms, I
> see a space colony as nothing more than a city -- a city located
in space,
> yes, but anyway a city for most of societal and cultural purposes.
(The only
> exception would be an interstellar worldship, which would be a
completely
> isolated city -- indeed a situation much different from that of
earthling
> cities.)
>
> As for your argument about low-skill jobs, I dont see much
difference
> between that and the current urban life on Earth. Even in a
third-world
> country like mine, 80% of the population lives in cities, where
the number
> of low-skill jobs drops dramatically along time and ability to
read/write,
> and even computer skills, are more and more and more required for
virtually
> all kinds of jobs. Now, the 20% of the population still living in
rural
> areas: agriculture gets more and more mechanized, in such a way
that
> "pulling weeds" will be an obsolete profession on Earth itself in
a very
> short time.
>
> Now, this is the situation in a third world country, Brazil. But
if you
> take, for example, Europe, you have a population of hundreds of
millions of
> people where just a minuscule fraction of them have low-skill
jobs. The same
> in Japan. However, Europeans and Japaneses did not have to undergo
a
> eugenics program in order to accommodate to this new situation.
They simply
> invested massively in education, social programs and employment
policies.
> The point is that human behavior and abilities are much more
conditioned by
> the society and culture where we are grow (our "memes", as Richard
Dawkins
> would say) than by our genes.
>
> However, since I consider space colonies equivalent (in terms of
society
> dynamics) to any city on Earth (I even like to call them
"uranopolis", a
> Greek-Roman term for "heavenly city"), all this discussion about
eugenics in
> space sounds completely theoretical for me. I think that the
criteria for
> admitting a new citizen/resident in a colony will be as varied
(and probably
> as free of genetic criteria) as laws controlling immigration in
all current
> countries.
>
> Tom - Sounds nice, but the devil is always in the details, isn't
it? So, lets distill t his down to basics. Given a list of hundreds of
genetic defect that are agreed to exist medically, and which can be
repaired or suppressed, would you or would you not support efforts to
have these measures taken on space colonies that choose to follow a
path of minimal passage of genetic defects to future generations?
>
> You appear to have side-steped the issue of drug affected babies
that are
> sometimes born blind and which require massive investments in
post-birth
> care since they are often born under-weight and premature.
Studies show
> that these children never catch-up. Wouldn't it be better for
these souls
> to be born to a drug-free family?
>
> Probably. But, again, we fall in my argument regarding conclusive
links
> between genetics and drug addiction for all drugs -- and the lack
of a
> culturally perennial definition of "drug".
>
> Tom - OK, lets define the obvious. A drug is: herone, cocaine,
Meth. Now what is you opinion on parents who are addicted to these
substances?
>
> What if the above scenario were to be combined with cloning and
what if
> many thousands of clones were available to choose from? Perhaps
each zygot
> that is suitible for implantation is first cloned a hundred times
and the
> balance frozen for later use either by the original donors or
perhaps for
> donation to the public?
> What if medical insurance was universally available and that
implantation
> of a "genetic defect free" egg was covered for all? Parents could
choose
> from a picture book of what their children would look like based
upon past
> births of the " series".
>
> Widespread use of cloning would be the worst-case scenario for
loss of
> diversity in a population. Let suppose that you seeds 10 million
copies of
> one of your ber-babies among the population. Now, suppose that a
few years
> latter a new virus spreads in the population. You didnt know at
the time of
> the production of your ber-babies (because the virus didnt exist
at that
> time), but your ber-babies are lethaly susceptible to the new
virus strand.
> As a result, you have a massive number of dead children and a
serious
> problem in the continuity of your population.
>
> That is the problem with loss of diversity: it makes your
population
> unprepared for circumstances that our limited, narrow and biased
human minds
> cannot foresee. Cloning of human beings should be used only in
rare
> circumstances (for example, in the case of sterile individuals
that do want
> to have children of their own), but never as a industrial process
of
> reproduction...
>
> Tom - OK, lets not seed 10 million, but perhaps just a hundred of
each clone over many years spread over many colonies? Perhaps we could
limit clones in both time and place to minimize them running into each
other. These details await discussion.
>
> Given the choice, don't you think that future generations would
prefer to be born into healthier bodies?

Bill,

If we had to stick what we can do today, then what point is there in discussing space colonies?

With cloning, the public waited until it was a reality before attempting to discuss it. Should we do the same with genetic repair? I guess you answer is "yes".
From: bill t
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 4:53 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Genetic Defects and New Colonies

This thread is becoming stupid.

Tom - Yes, I agree, you being unscientific an emotional, and so we are not able to compare hypothesis, facts, or anything else.

Tom, lets stick with science that we can do. This means we can't cure
genetic diseases. So your choice becomes one of, should the choice to
give birth to a child with genetic defects be left to the parents, or
be given over to a steering committee.

Tom - No Bill, my question is hypothestical and based upon the constraints of past letters, which basically means that defects WOULD be fixed, and abortions would not happen because the selection would be part of the test tube process before implantation, unless, of course, you believe that all fertilized eggs are human beings, which, if true, would have saved us lots of bits if you had disclosed this bit of information before.
Furthermore, a birth with a defective gene can't happen if the donors elect not to have the egg implanted.

The second question is should the up bringing of children be left in
the parents hands or should they be institutionalized.

We can't fix genetic code today, and if technology gets to that point
we will be able to continually fix our own bodies and won't have to
reproduce.

Tom - There is no basis for your hopeful conclusion that I am aware of. Fixing a gene that controls the devleopment of the brain, for example can't be fixed after birth or after the defect is manifest since the damage will already have been done during the window of activity of the gene while in the womb.

So can we please stick to reality

Tom - My reality is science and it's likely/possible future. If you prefer to stay with what is today, that to is fine, but then it makes no sense for you to continue to comment on a subject that you obviously would prefer not to discuss and are offended at.

Bill

--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
wrote:
>
> From: Dr. Omni
> To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
> Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 9:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies
>
> From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 5:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies
>
> [snikt]
> Tom - A discussion of the definition of a defect is naturally
personal and
> relative and so might be best left for a separate thread. For the
purpose of
> this thread, lets define a genetic defect as:
> a) A gene that produces a mal-functioning protein that results
in the
> manifestation of a medically recognized disease.
> b) The known result significantly shortens the life of the
subject, and
> may also have an advese affect on the qulaity of life of the
subject.
>
> Here are but a few of the well over one hundred examples of
genetic
> defects:
> 1) Defective gene resulting in high cholesterol and death by age
45. If
> both genes are inherited, death occurs by age 35.
> 2) Downs syndrome,
> 3) Lou Geregs disease.
> 4) Suseptability to cancers.
>
> Your definition of genetic defect does not matches the examples.
Down
> Syndrome is not caused by a gene that produces a malfunctioning
protein
> (your item a), it is simply an error during replication of the
chromosomes -
> a child with Down Syndrome has an extra copy of the 23rd
chromosome, if I
> remember correctly. In fact, Ive heard that an individual with
Down
> Syndrome can give birth to normal children, though Im not able to
confirm
> this information at the moment.
>
> To - OK, I didn't pick a clear example, so lets use Lupus instead
or any of the hundreds of other genetic disorders (e.g. obesity) that
plague humanity? Perhaps at the test tube stage we could remove the
extra chromosome or make it inactive? Lets give science the chance,
shall we?
>
> Tom - The decision making body of each colony should be able to
make a
> rational decision about what is a defect and what is not, and I
understand
> that this will vary over time and space. We should not presume to
make that
> decision for others now.
>
> This invalidates your argument in another message, when you say
that we
> would be "helping" evolution by practicing eugenics. Evolution is
a process
> that takes tens of thousands of years to produce some measurable
effect in a
> species with slow reproduction like humans, and cultural concepts
can vary
> wildly in just a few decades. (Yet another example: homosexuality,
a
> characteristic that many scientists nowadays believe to be
> biological/genetic in some extent, was considered a psychological
disease
> until the 70s, while nowadays it is progressively being accepted
by
> society.) Therefore, much of the influence of our cultural
decisions will
> most likely annihilate each other along the hundreds of centuries
needed to
> make a difference in evolutionary terms. (Except, of course, in
the cases
> where your population of bermenschen will be isolated from the
rest of
> Humanity, like in an interstellar travel.)
>
> Tom - Yes, we focusing on the frontier of interstellar travel when
we discuss space colonies, aren't we? Each colony that leaves the
solar system will be effectively isolated from the rest of humanity
and may, over hundreds of thousands of years, become quite different
from the root stock here on earth. Like it or not, anything that we
can imagine happening to better adapt to the environment, will likely
happen whether we like it or not, hence, the more we prepare now, the
better.
>
> I would fully expect some, if not many "societies" in our first
space colonies around sol, to strive to advance themselves while the
more primitive cultures remain on earth. For example, cultures that
place religious scriptures over the study of science are least likley
to make it in space, let alone to another star or to inhabit the
galaxy. I would guess that even in devleoped nations, only one out of
1000 will be ready, willing and able to become a member of as space
colony. What do you think?
>
> Tom - Interesting point of discussion. Just what do you mean be
"diverse".
> Are you speaking of racial or skin color, or are you referring to
> personality types such a: natural football players, natural
soldiers,
> professior types, boxers, hot heads, cool heads, intellectuals,
laggards,
> attention deficit disorder, suseptable to pleasure/drugs,
criminality,
> psychopaths, etc?
>
> When I used the word "diverse", I meant a population completely
detached
> from our culture-based judgments, values and biases. In order to
clarify my
> concept, consider the example of the population to be put in an
interstellar
> ship. First of all, we should chose, obviously, just people who
are willing
> to endure this travel. Lets suppose that there is a list of
volunteers with
> a number N of people much higher than the actual capacity n of the
ship.
> Then, to fill you ship, you *randomly* choose your n passengers
among the N
> candidates.
>
> Random choice may sound complete devoid of sense for a proponent
of eugenics
> like you, but that is precisely what is used in many applications
where you
> have to maintain a compromise between the quality and the
diversity of your
> population. In Genetic Programming algorithms, for example,
migration of
> individuals between different populations is done randomly in
order to
> preserve diversity and therefore avoid stagnation or loss of
quality in the
> long range.
>
> If debating, I would suggest that there may be some personality
traits
> that are unsuitible for the demands of life on a space colony, and
that
> carefull screening should be considered. Naturally, skin color
would not be
> one of these traits since I view all humans as being members of
the same
> race. :-) Afterall, we all originated from Africa between 100,000
and
> 200,000 years ago, right?
> [snikt]
> Tom - This is good for life on earth, but life on a space
colony, at
> least for the first settlers, may be very demanding and may
require high
> skills for most if not all members. Low-skill jobs may be rare
IMO. I
> suppose that one could always pull weeds on a vast O Neil colony,
but in a
> more compact colony with solar powered air conditioning/recycling,
working
> in the hydroponic greenhouse may be the lowest skill job available
and even
> here not being able to tell the difference between a week and the
shoot of a
> food plant would be no good.
>
> The question here is that you see the life in a space colony as
> fundamentally different from life on Earth. However, in societal
terms, I
> see a space colony as nothing more than a city -- a city located
in space,
> yes, but anyway a city for most of societal and cultural purposes.
(The only
> exception would be an interstellar worldship, which would be a
completely
> isolated city -- indeed a situation much different from that of
earthling
> cities.)
>
> As for your argument about low-skill jobs, I dont see much
difference
> between that and the current urban life on Earth. Even in a
third-world
> country like mine, 80% of the population lives in cities, where
the number
> of low-skill jobs drops dramatically along time and ability to
read/write,
> and even computer skills, are more and more and more required for
virtually
> all kinds of jobs. Now, the 20% of the population still living in
rural
> areas: agriculture gets more and more mechanized, in such a way
that
> "pulling weeds" will be an obsolete profession on Earth itself in
a very
> short time.
>
> Now, this is the situation in a third world country, Brazil. But
if you
> take, for example, Europe, you have a population of hundreds of
millions of
> people where just a minuscule fraction of them have low-skill
jobs. The same
> in Japan. However, Europeans and Japaneses did not have to undergo
a
> eugenics program in order to accommodate to this new situation.
They simply
> invested massively in education, social programs and employment
policies.
> The point is that human behavior and abilities are much more
conditioned by
> the society and culture where we are grow (our "memes", as Richard
Dawkins
> would say) than by our genes.
>
> However, since I consider space colonies equivalent (in terms of
society
> dynamics) to any city on Earth (I even like to call them
"uranopolis", a
> Greek-Roman term for "heavenly city"), all this discussion about
eugenics in
> space sounds completely theoretical for me. I think that the
criteria for
> admitting a new citizen/resident in a colony will be as varied
(and probably
> as free of genetic criteria) as laws controlling immigration in
all current
> countries.
>
> Tom - Sounds nice, but the devil is always in the details, isn't
it? So, lets distill t his down to basics. Given a list of hundreds of
genetic defect that are agreed to exist medically, and which can be
repaired or suppressed, would you or would you not support efforts to
have these measures taken on space colonies that choose to follow a
path of minimal passage of genetic defects to future generations?
>
> You appear to have side-steped the issue of drug affected babies
that are
> sometimes born blind and which require massive investments in
post-birth
> care since they are often born under-weight and premature.
Studies show
> that these children never catch-up. Wouldn't it be better for
these souls
> to be born to a drug-free family?
>
> Probably. But, again, we fall in my argument regarding conclusive
links
> between genetics and drug addiction for all drugs -- and the lack
of a
> culturally perennial definition of "drug".
>
> Tom - OK, lets define the obvious. A drug is: herone, cocaine,
Meth. Now what is you opinion on parents who are addicted to these
substances?
>
> What if the above scenario were to be combined with cloning and
what if
> many thousands of clones were available to choose from? Perhaps
each zygot
> that is suitible for implantation is first cloned a hundred times
and the
> balance frozen for later use either by the original donors or
perhaps for
> donation to the public?
> What if medical insurance was universally available and that
implantation
> of a "genetic defect free" egg was covered for all? Parents could
choose
> from a picture book of what their children would look like based
upon past
> births of the " series".
>
> Widespread use of cloning would be the worst-case scenario for
loss of
> diversity in a population. Let suppose that you seeds 10 million
copies of
> one of your ber-babies among the population. Now, suppose that a
few years
> latter a new virus spreads in the population. You didnt know at
the time of
> the production of your ber-babies (because the virus didnt exist
at that
> time), but your ber-babies are lethaly susceptible to the new
virus strand.
> As a result, you have a massive number of dead children and a
serious
> problem in the continuity of your population.
>
> That is the problem with loss of diversity: it makes your
population
> unprepared for circumstances that our limited, narrow and biased
human minds
> cannot foresee. Cloning of human beings should be used only in
rare
> circumstances (for example, in the case of sterile individuals
that do want
> to have children of their own), but never as a industrial process
of
> reproduction...
>
> Tom - OK, lets not seed 10 million, but perhaps just a hundred of
each clone over many years spread over many colonies? Perhaps we could
limit clones in both time and place to minimize them running into each
other. These details await discussion.
>
> Given the choice, don't you think that future generations would
prefer to be born into healthier bodies?
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>
> [snikt]
> Regards,
> [snikt]
>
> Regards,
>
> Lucio.
>

If we had to stick what we can do today, then what point is there in discussing space colonies?

With cloning, the public waited until it was a reality before attempting to discuss it. Should we do the same with genetic repair? I guess you answer is "yes".
From:
bill t
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent:
Tuesday, December 26, 2000 4:53 PM
Subject:
[spacesettlers] Re: Genetic Defects and New Colonies
This thread is becoming stupid.
Tom - Yes, I agree, you being unscientific an emotional, and so we are not able to compare hypothesis, facts, or anything else.
Tom, lets stick with science that we can do. This means we can't cure
genetic diseases. So your choice becomes one of, should the choice to
give birth to a child with genetic defects be left to the parents, or
be given over to a steering committee.
Tom - No Bill, my question is hypothestical and based upon the constraints of past letters, which basically means that defects WOULD be fixed, and abortions would not happen because the selection would be part of the test tube process before implantation, unless, of course, you believe that all fertilized eggs are human beings, which, if true, would have saved us lots of bits if you had disclosed this bit of information before.
Furthermore, a birth with a defective gene can't happen if the donors elect not to have the egg implanted.
The second question is should the up bringing of children be left in
the parents hands or should they be institutionalized.
We can't fix genetic code today, and if technology gets to that point
we will be able to continually fix our own bodies and won't have to
reproduce.
Tom - There is no basis for your hopeful conclusion that I am aware of. Fixing a gene that controls the devleopment of the brain, for example can't be fixed after birth or after the defect is manifest since the damage will already have been done during the window of activity of the gene while in the womb.
So can we please stick to reality
Tom - My reality is science and it's likely/possible future. If you prefer to stay with what is today, that to is fine, but then it makes no sense for you to continue to comment on a subject that you obviously would prefer not to discuss and are offended at.
Bill
--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dr. Omni
> To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
> Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 9:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies
>
> From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 5:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies
>
> [snikt]
> Tom - A discussion of the definition of a defect is naturally
personal and
> relative and so might be best left for a separate thread. For the
purpose of
> this thread, lets define a genetic defect as:
> a) A gene that produces a mal-functioning protein that results
in the
> manifestation of a medically recognized disease.
> b) The known result significantly shortens the life of the
subject, and
> may also have an advese affect on the qulaity of life of the
subject.
>
> Here are but a few of the well over one hundred examples of
genetic
> defects:
> 1) Defective gene resulting in high cholesterol and death by age
45. If
> both genes are inherited, death occurs by age 35.
> 2) Downs syndrome,
> 3) Lou Geregs disease.
> 4) Suseptability to cancers.
>
> Your definition of genetic defect does not matches the examples.
Down
> Syndrome is not caused by a gene that produces a malfunctioning
protein
> (your item a), it is simply an error during replication of the
chromosomes -
> a child with Down Syndrome has an extra copy of the 23rd
chromosome, if I
> remember correctly. In fact, Ive heard that an individual with
Down
> Syndrome can give birth to normal children, though Im not able to
confirm
> this information at the moment.
>
> To - OK, I didn't pick a clear example, so lets use Lupus instead
or any of the hundreds of other genetic disorders (e.g. obesity) that
plague humanity? Perhaps at the test tube stage we could remove the
extra chromosome or make it inactive? Lets give science the chance,
shall we?
>
> Tom - The decision making body of each colony should be able to
make a
> rational decision about what is a defect and what is not, and I
understand
> that this will vary over time and space. We should not presume to
make that
> decision for others now.
>
> This invalidates your argument in another message, when you say
that we
would be "helping" evolution by practicing eugenics. Evolution is
a process
> that takes tens of thousands of years to produce some measurable
effect in a
> species with slow reproduction like humans, and cultural concepts
can vary
> wildly in just a few decades. (Yet another example: homosexuality,
a
> characteristic that many scientists nowadays believe to be
> biological/genetic in some extent, was considered a psychological
disease
> until the 70s, while nowadays it is progressively being accepted
by
> society.) Therefore, much of the influence of our cultural
decisions will
> most likely annihilate each other along the hundreds of centuries
needed to
> make a difference in evolutionary terms. (Except, of course, in
the cases
> where your population of bermenschen will be isolated from the
rest of
> Humanity, like in an interstellar travel.)
>
> Tom - Yes, we focusing on the frontier of interstellar travel when
we discuss space colonies, aren't we? Each colony that leaves the
solar system will be effectively isolated from the rest of humanity
and may, over hundreds of thousands of years, become quite different
from the root stock here on earth. Like it or not, anything that we
can imagine happening to better adapt to the environment, will likely
happen whether we like it or not, hence, the more we prepare now, the
better.
>
> I would fully expect some, if not many "societies" in our first
space colonies around sol, to strive to advance themselves while the
more primitive cultures remain on earth. For example, cultures that
place religious scriptures over the study of science are least likley
to make it in space, let alone to another star or to inhabit the
galaxy. I would guess that even in devleoped nations, only one out of
1000 will be ready, willing and able to become a member of as space
colony. What do you think?
>

> Tom - Interesting point of discussion. Just what do you mean be
"diverse".
> Are you speaking of racial or skin color, or are you referring to
> personality types such a: natural football players, natural
soldiers,
> professior types, boxers, hot heads, cool heads, intellectuals,
laggards,
> attention deficit disorder, suseptable to pleasure/drugs,
criminality,
> psychopaths, etc?
>
> When I used the word "diverse", I meant a population completely
detached
> from our culture-based judgments, values and biases. In order to
clarify my
> concept, consider the example of the population to be put in an
interstellar
> ship. First of all, we should chose, obviously, just people who
are willing
> to endure this travel. Lets suppose that there is a list of
volunteers with
> a number N of people much higher than the actual capacity n of the
ship.
> Then, to fill you ship, you *randomly* choose your n passengers
among the N
> candidates.
>
> Random choice may sound complete devoid of sense for a proponent
of eugenics
> like you, but that is precisely what is used in many applications
where you
> have to maintain a compromise between the quality and the
diversity of your
population. In Genetic Programming algorithms, for example,
migration of
> individuals between different populations is done randomly in
order to
> preserve diversity and therefore avoid stagnation or loss of
quality in the
long range.
>
> If debating, I would suggest that there may be some personality
traits
> that are unsuitible for the demands of life on a space colony, and
that
> carefull screening should be considered. Naturally, skin color
would not be
> one of these traits since I view all humans as being members of
the same
> race. :-) Afterall, we all originated from Africa between 100,000
and
> 200,000 years ago, right?
> [snikt]
> Tom - This is good for life on earth, but life on a space
colony, at
> least for the first settlers, may be very demanding and may
require high
> skills for most if not all members. Low-skill jobs may be rare
IMO. I
> suppose that one could always pull weeds on a vast O Neil colony,
but in a
> more compact colony with solar powered air conditioning/recycling,
working
> in the hydroponic greenhouse may be the lowest skill job available
and even
> here not being able to tell the difference between a week and the
shoot of a
> food plant would be no good.
>
> The question here is that you see the life in a space colony as
> fundamentally different from life on Earth. However, in societal
terms, I
> see a space colony as nothing more than a city -- a city located
in space,
> yes, but anyway a city for most of societal and cultural purposes.
(The only
> exception would be an interstellar worldship, which would be a
completely
> isolated city -- indeed a situation much different from that of
earthling
> cities.)
>
> As for your argument about low-skill jobs, I dont see much
difference
> between that and the current urban life on Earth. Even in a
third-world
> country like mine, 80% of the population lives in cities, where
the number
> of low-skill jobs drops dramatically along time and ability to
read/write,
> and even computer skills, are more and more and more required for
virtually
> all kinds of jobs. Now, the 20% of the population still living in
rural
> areas: agriculture gets more and more mechanized, in such a way
that
> "pulling weeds" will be an obsolete profession on Earth itself in
a very
> short time.
>
> Now, this is the situation in a third world country, Brazil. But
if you
> take, for example, Europe, you have a population of hundreds of
millions of
people where just a minuscule fraction of them have low-skill
jobs. The same
> in Japan. However, Europeans and Japaneses did not have to undergo
a
> eugenics program in order to accommodate to this new situation.
They simply
> invested massively in education, social programs and employment
policies.
> The point is that human behavior and abilities are much more
conditioned by
> the society and culture where we are grow (our "memes", as Richard
Dawkins
> would say) than by our genes.
>
> However, since I consider space colonies equivalent (in terms of
society
> dynamics) to any city on Earth (I even like to call them
"uranopolis", a
> Greek-Roman term for "heavenly city"), all this discussion about
eugenics in
space sounds completely theoretical for me. I think that the
criteria for
> admitting a new citizen/resident in a colony will be as varied
(and probably
> as free of genetic criteria) as laws controlling immigration in
all current
> countries.
>
> Tom - Sounds nice, but the devil is always in the details, isn't
it? So, lets distill t his down to basics. Given a list of hundreds of
genetic defect that are agreed to exist medically, and which can be
repaired or suppressed, would you or would you not support efforts to
have these measures taken on space colonies that choose to follow a
path of minimal passage of genetic defects to future generations?
>
> You appear to have side-steped the issue of drug affected babies
that are
> sometimes born blind and which require massive investments in
post-birth
care since they are often born under-weight and premature.
Studies show
> that these children never catch-up. Wouldn't it be better for
these souls
> to be born to a drug-free family?
>
> Probably. But, again, we fall in my argument regarding conclusive
links
> between genetics and drug addiction for all drugs -- and the lack
of a
> culturally perennial definition of "drug".
>
> Tom - OK, lets define the obvious. A drug is: herone, cocaine,
Meth. Now what is you opinion on parents who are addicted to these
substances?
>
> What if the above scenario were to be combined with cloning and
what if
> many thousands of clones were available to choose from? Perhaps
each zygot
> that is suitible for implantation is first cloned a hundred times
and the
> balance frozen for later use either by the original donors or
perhaps for
> donation to the public?
> What if medical insurance was universally available and that
implantation
> of a "genetic defect free" egg was covered for all? Parents could
choose
> from a picture book of what their children would look like based
upon past
> births of the " series".
>
> Widespread use of cloning would be the worst-case scenario for
loss of
> diversity in a population. Let suppose that you seeds 10 million
copies of
> one of your ber-babies among the population. Now, suppose that a
few years
> latter a new virus spreads in the population. You didnt know at
the time of
> the production of your ber-babies (because the virus didnt exist
at that
> time), but your ber-babies are lethaly susceptible to the new
virus strand.
> As a result, you have a massive number of dead children and a
serious
problem in the continuity of your population.
>
> That is the problem with loss of diversity: it makes your
population
> unprepared for circumstances that our limited, narrow and biased
human minds
> cannot foresee. Cloning of human beings should be used only in
rare
> circumstances (for example, in the case of sterile individuals
that do want
> to have children of their own), but never as a industrial process
of
> reproduction...
>
> Tom - OK, lets not seed 10 million, but perhaps just a hundred of
each clone over many years spread over many colonies? Perhaps we could
limit clones in both time and place to minimize them running into each
other. These details await discussion.
>
> Given the choice, don't you think that future generations would
prefer to be born into healthier bodies?
Cheers,

> With cloning, the public waited until it was a reality before
attempting to discuss it. Should we do the same with genetic repair?
I guess you answer is "yes".

That was not the question you were asking. And that hasn't been the
question everyone has been debating.

For the record, I have no problem with cloning or genetic repair. I do
have a problem with eugenics, which is in fact the thread in this
topic. The question posed was:
Does a society have a right to regulate the genetic content of its
members?

Bill

> From: bill t
> To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 4:53 PM
> Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Genetic Defects and New Colonies
>
> This thread is becoming stupid.
>
> Tom - Yes, I agree, you being unscientific an emotional, and so we
are not able to compare hypothesis, facts, or anything else.
>
> Tom, lets stick with science that we can do. This means we can't
cure
> genetic diseases. So your choice becomes one of, should the choice
to
> give birth to a child with genetic defects be left to the parents,
or
> be given over to a steering committee.
>
> Tom - No Bill, my question is hypothestical and based upon the
constraints of past letters, which basically means that defects WOULD
be fixed, and abortions would not happen because the selection would
be part of the test tube process before implantation, unless, of
course, you believe that all fertilized eggs are human beings, which,
if true, would have saved us lots of bits if you had disclosed this
bit of information before.
> Furthermore, a birth with a defective gene can't happen if the
donors elect not to have the egg implanted.
>
> The second question is should the up bringing of children be left
in
> the parents hands or should they be institutionalized.
>
> We can't fix genetic code today, and if technology gets to that
point
> we will be able to continually fix our own bodies and won't have
to
> reproduce.
>
> Tom - There is no basis for your hopeful conclusion that I am
aware of. Fixing a gene that controls the devleopment of the brain,
for example can't be fixed after birth or after the defect is manifest
since the damage will already have been done during the window of
activity of the gene while in the womb.
>
> So can we please stick to reality
>
> Tom - My reality is science and it's likely/possible future. If
you prefer to stay with what is today, that to is fine, but then it
makes no sense for you to continue to comment on a subject that you
obviously would prefer not to discuss and are offended at.
>
> Bill
>
> --- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
> wrote:
> >
> > From: Dr. Omni
> > To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 9:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies
> >
> >
> > From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 5:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies
> >
> >
> > [snikt]
> > Tom - A discussion of the definition of a defect is
naturally
> personal and
> > relative and so might be best left for a separate thread. For
the
> purpose of
> > this thread, lets define a genetic defect as:
> > a) A gene that produces a mal-functioning protein that
results
> in the
> > manifestation of a medically recognized disease.
> > b) The known result significantly shortens the life of the
> subject, and
> > may also have an advese affect on the qulaity of life of the
> subject.
> >
> > Here are but a few of the well over one hundred examples of
> genetic
> > defects:
> > 1) Defective gene resulting in high cholesterol and death by
age
> 45. If
> > both genes are inherited, death occurs by age 35.
> > 2) Downs syndrome,
> > 3) Lou Geregs disease.
> > 4) Suseptability to cancers.
> >
> > Your definition of genetic defect does not matches the
examples.
> Down
> > Syndrome is not caused by a gene that produces a
malfunctioning
> protein
> > (your item a), it is simply an error during replication of the
> chromosomes -
> > a child with Down Syndrome has an extra copy of the 23rd
> chromosome, if I
> > remember correctly. In fact, Ive heard that an individual
with
> Down
> > Syndrome can give birth to normal children, though Im not
able to
> confirm
> > this information at the moment.
> >
> > To - OK, I didn't pick a clear example, so lets use Lupus
instead
> or any of the hundreds of other genetic disorders (e.g. obesity)
that
> plague humanity? Perhaps at the test tube stage we could remove
the
> extra chromosome or make it inactive? Lets give science the
chance,
> shall we?
> >
> >
> > Tom - The decision making body of each colony should be able
to
> make a
> > rational decision about what is a defect and what is not, and
I
> understand
> > that this will vary over time and space. We should not
presume to
> make that
> > decision for others now.
> >
> > This invalidates your argument in another message, when you
say
> that we
> > would be "helping" evolution by practicing eugenics. Evolution
is
> a process
> > that takes tens of thousands of years to produce some
measurable
> effect in a
> > species with slow reproduction like humans, and cultural
concepts
> can vary
> > wildly in just a few decades. (Yet another example:
homosexuality,
> a
> > characteristic that many scientists nowadays believe to be
> > biological/genetic in some extent, was considered a
psychological
> disease
> > until the 70s, while nowadays it is progressively being
accepted
> by
> > society.) Therefore, much of the influence of our cultural
> decisions will
> > most likely annihilate each other along the hundreds of
centuries
> needed to
> > make a difference in evolutionary terms. (Except, of course,
in
> the cases
> > where your population of bermenschen will be isolated from
the
> rest of
> > Humanity, like in an interstellar travel.)
> >
> > Tom - Yes, we focusing on the frontier of interstellar travel
when
> we discuss space colonies, aren't we? Each colony that leaves the
> solar system will be effectively isolated from the rest of
humanity
> and may, over hundreds of thousands of years, become quite
different
> from the root stock here on earth. Like it or not, anything that
we
> can imagine happening to better adapt to the environment, will
likely
> happen whether we like it or not, hence, the more we prepare now,
the
> better.
> >
> > I would fully expect some, if not many "societies" in our
first
> space colonies around sol, to strive to advance themselves while
the
> more primitive cultures remain on earth. For example, cultures
that
> place religious scriptures over the study of science are least
likley
> to make it in space, let alone to another star or to inhabit the
> galaxy. I would guess that even in devleoped nations, only one
out of
> 1000 will be ready, willing and able to become a member of as
space
> colony. What do you think?
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom - Interesting point of discussion. Just what do you mean
be
> "diverse".
> > Are you speaking of racial or skin color, or are you referring
to
> > personality types such a: natural football players, natural
> soldiers,
> > professior types, boxers, hot heads, cool heads,
intellectuals,
> laggards,
> > attention deficit disorder, suseptable to pleasure/drugs,
> criminality,
> > psychopaths, etc?
> >
> > When I used the word "diverse", I meant a population
completely
> detached
> > from our culture-based judgments, values and biases. In order
to
> clarify my
> > concept, consider the example of the population to be put in
an
> interstellar
> > ship. First of all, we should chose, obviously, just people
who
> are willing
> > to endure this travel. Lets suppose that there is a list of
> volunteers with
> > a number N of people much higher than the actual capacity n of
the
> ship.
> > Then, to fill you ship, you *randomly* choose your n
passengers
> among the N
> > candidates.
> >
> > Random choice may sound complete devoid of sense for a
proponent
> of eugenics
> > like you, but that is precisely what is used in many
applications
> where you
> > have to maintain a compromise between the quality and the
> diversity of your
> > population. In Genetic Programming algorithms, for example,
> migration of
> > individuals between different populations is done randomly in
> order to
> > preserve diversity and therefore avoid stagnation or loss of
> quality in the
> > long range.
> >
> > If debating, I would suggest that there may be some
personality
> traits
> > that are unsuitible for the demands of life on a space colony,
and
> that
> > carefull screening should be considered. Naturally, skin color
> would not be
> > one of these traits since I view all humans as being members
of
> the same
> > race. :-) Afterall, we all originated from Africa between
100,000
> and
> > 200,000 years ago, right?
> > [snikt]
> > Tom - This is good for life on earth, but life on a space
> colony, at
> > least for the first settlers, may be very demanding and may
> require high
> > skills for most if not all members. Low-skill jobs may be
rare
> IMO. I
> > suppose that one could always pull weeds on a vast O Neil
colony,
> but in a
> > more compact colony with solar powered air
conditioning/recycling,
> working
> > in the hydroponic greenhouse may be the lowest skill job
available
> and even
> > here not being able to tell the difference between a week and
the
> shoot of a
> > food plant would be no good.
> >
> > The question here is that you see the life in a space colony
as
> > fundamentally different from life on Earth. However, in
societal
> terms, I
> > see a space colony as nothing more than a city -- a city
located
> in space,
> > yes, but anyway a city for most of societal and cultural
purposes.
> (The only
> > exception would be an interstellar worldship, which would be a
> completely
> > isolated city -- indeed a situation much different from that
of
> earthling
> > cities.)
> >
> > As for your argument about low-skill jobs, I dont see much
> difference
> > between that and the current urban life on Earth. Even in a
> third-world
> > country like mine, 80% of the population lives in cities,
where
> the number
> > of low-skill jobs drops dramatically along time and ability to
> read/write,
> > and even computer skills, are more and more and more required
for
> virtually
> > all kinds of jobs. Now, the 20% of the population still living
in
> rural
> > areas: agriculture gets more and more mechanized, in such a
way
> that
> > "pulling weeds" will be an obsolete profession on Earth itself
in
> a very
> > short time.
> >
> > Now, this is the situation in a third world country, Brazil.
But
> if you
> > take, for example, Europe, you have a population of hundreds
of
> millions of
> > people where just a minuscule fraction of them have low-skill
> jobs. The same
> > in Japan. However, Europeans and Japaneses did not have to
undergo
> a
> > eugenics program in order to accommodate to this new
situation.
> They simply
> > invested massively in education, social programs and
employment
> policies.
> > The point is that human behavior and abilities are much more
> conditioned by
> > the society and culture where we are grow (our "memes", as
Richard
> Dawkins
> > would say) than by our genes.
> >
> > However, since I consider space colonies equivalent (in terms
of
> society
> > dynamics) to any city on Earth (I even like to call them
> "uranopolis", a
> > Greek-Roman term for "heavenly city"), all this discussion
about
> eugenics in
> > space sounds completely theoretical for me. I think that the
> criteria for
> > admitting a new citizen/resident in a colony will be as varied
> (and probably
> > as free of genetic criteria) as laws controlling immigration
in
> all current
> > countries.
> >
> > Tom - Sounds nice, but the devil is always in the details,
isn't
> it? So, lets distill t his down to basics. Given a list of
hundreds of
> genetic defect that are agreed to exist medically, and which can
be
> repaired or suppressed, would you or would you not support efforts
to
> have these measures taken on space colonies that choose to follow
a
> path of minimal passage of genetic defects to future generations?
> >
> > You appear to have side-steped the issue of drug affected
babies
> that are
> > sometimes born blind and which require massive investments in
> post-birth
> > care since they are often born under-weight and premature.
> Studies show
> > that these children never catch-up. Wouldn't it be better for
> these souls
> > to be born to a drug-free family?
> >
> > Probably. But, again, we fall in my argument regarding
conclusive
> links
> > between genetics and drug addiction for all drugs -- and the
lack
> of a
> > culturally perennial definition of "drug".
> >
> > Tom - OK, lets define the obvious. A drug is: herone,
cocaine,
> Meth. Now what is you opinion on parents who are addicted to these
> substances?
> >
> > What if the above scenario were to be combined with cloning
and
> what if
> > many thousands of clones were available to choose from?
Perhaps
> each zygot
> > that is suitible for implantation is first cloned a hundred
times
> and the
> > balance frozen for later use either by the original donors or
> perhaps for
> > donation to the public?
> > What if medical insurance was universally available and that
> implantation
> > of a "genetic defect free" egg was covered for all? Parents
could
> choose
> > from a picture book of what their children would look like
based
> upon past
> > births of the " series".
> >
> > Widespread use of cloning would be the worst-case scenario for
> loss of
> > diversity in a population. Let suppose that you seeds 10
million
> copies of
> > one of your ber-babies among the population. Now, suppose
that a
> few years
> > latter a new virus spreads in the population. You didnt know
at
> the time of
> > the production of your ber-babies (because the virus didnt
exist
> at that
> > time), but your ber-babies are lethaly susceptible to the new
> virus strand.
> > As a result, you have a massive number of dead children and a
> serious
> > problem in the continuity of your population.
> >
> > That is the problem with loss of diversity: it makes your
> population
> > unprepared for circumstances that our limited, narrow and
biased
> human minds
> > cannot foresee. Cloning of human beings should be used only in
> rare
> > circumstances (for example, in the case of sterile individuals
> that do want
> > to have children of their own), but never as a industrial
process
> of
> > reproduction...
> >
> > Tom - OK, lets not seed 10 million, but perhaps just a hundred
of
> each clone over many years spread over many colonies? Perhaps we
could
> limit clones in both time and place to minimize them running into
each
> other. These details await discussion.
> >
> > Given the choice, don't you think that future generations
would

From: Dr. Omni
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Genetic Defects and New Colonies

From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
To:
Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Genetic Defects and New Colonies
[snikt]
Tom - Bill, Bill, please! We are going over the same territory again!
No, they would still have been born, only without the genetic defects, OK?
[snikt]

No, they wouldnt. As far as I remember, you were advocating forbidding
reproduction/immigration of people with genetic defects in your space
colonies. That would rule out the parents of Tesla and Hawking, since their
families would have a history of genetic disease. Perhaps you would also
rule out Beethoven, whose father was alcoholic.

Tom - Posing a question for discussion and taking a position are two different subjects. I predict that each colony will debate these issues and that there will be a time when many different policies will exist for a period of time. I also predict that the colonies that are most successful at reducing their health care costs and at encouraging the births of successful citizens will have a head start in colonizing the galaxy which, IMO, is the great prize awaiting humanity whether we recognize it yet or not. Many colonies will merely copy their culture from their home on earth this is fine too with me.

Maybe youll say that youre not advocating "selective reproduction"
anymore; maybe youll say that the embryos of Tesla and Hawking would be
fixed by genetic engineering and they would still be born, but without their
defects. However, again youre revealling some ingenuity or lack or
knowledge in genetics: how can you guarantee that, without the aleles for
haemophilia and Lou Gherig disease, they would still be the same people?

Tom - First of all, this thread is intended to stimulate discussion, and not to merely provide a forum for my particular perspective. All points of view are welcome IMO.
Personally, I happen to believe in reincarnation and that the soul brings with it a significant set of desires and goals to achieve during their lifetime. These abilities can be used to overcome any minor changes that the soul encounters if the body isn't exactly what it predicted that it would be before genetic surgery has been done IMO.
Also, usually, a gene codes for a single purpose and if it is defective, then it is clear what needs to be fixed, however, there are infact cases where a gene may code for two or more functions and so, you are correct, we can not guarantee that one repair may not prevent the inadvertent change of another trait. Hopefully, by the time these forms of repairs are attempted, we will have a better idea of the full functionality of each gene.

Unlike what is pictured in popular imagination, genes are not "modular"
functional entities, independent from each other; instead, they interact
with each other and with the environment in almost unpredictable ways. (And
that makes the production of transgenic animals and plants specially
tricky...) For example: the gene for eye albinism should affect only the
color of the eyes but, through probably a series of cascade interactions
with other genes, it also affects brain visual processing, in such a way
that people with eye albinism are almost blind because their brains cant
interpret images properly. This is an example of a gene coding a physical
characteristic affecting also a *cognitive* characteristic -- and this
example only suffices to cast serious doubts that healthy versions of Tesla
and Hawking would guarantedly be the same persons. And Im not even
considering the fact that, without their diseases (which have strong effects
in the way that they lived their lives), their lives could even follow
completely different stories, leading again to completely different
personalities.

Lucio

From:
Dr. Omni
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent:
Monday, December 25, 2000 9:39 PM
Subject:
Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Genetic Defects and New Colonies
From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)" <
tntucker@...
>
To: <
spacesettlers@egroups.com
>
Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Genetic Defects and New Colonies
[snikt]
Tom - Bill, Bill, please! We are going over the same territory again!
No, they would still have been born, only without the genetic defects, OK?
[snikt]
No, they wouldnt. As far as I remember, you were advocating forbidding
reproduction/immigration of people with genetic defects in your space
colonies. That would rule out the parents of Tesla and Hawking, since their
families would have a history of genetic disease. Perhaps you would also
rule out Beethoven, whose father was alcoholic.

Tom - Posing a question for discussion and taking a position are two different subjects. I predict that each colony will debate these issues and that there will be a time when many different policies will exist for a period of time. I also predict that the colonies that are most successful at reducing their health care costs and at encouraging the births of successful citizens will have a head start in colonizing the galaxy which, IMO, is the great prize awaiting humanity whether we recognize it yet or not. Many colonies will merely copy their culture from their home on earth this is fine too with me.
Maybe youll say that youre not advocating "selective reproduction"
anymore; maybe youll say that the embryos of Tesla and Hawking would be
fixed by genetic engineering and they would still be born, but without their
defects. However, again youre revealling some ingenuity or lack or
knowledge in genetics: how can you guarantee that, without the aleles for
haemophilia and Lou Gherig disease, they would still be the same people?
Tom - First of all, this thread is intended to stimulate discussion, and not to merely provide a forum for my particular perspective. All points of view are welcome IMO.
Personally, I happen to believe in reincarnation and that the soul brings with it a significant set of desires and goals to achieve during their lifetime. These abilities can be used to overcome any minor changes that the soul encounters if the body isn't exactly what it predicted that it would be before genetic surgery has been done IMO.
Also, usually, a gene codes for a single purpose and if it is defective, then it is clear what needs to be fixed, however, there are infact cases where a gene may code for two or more functions and so, you are correct, we can not guarantee that one repair may not prevent the inadvertent change of another trait. Hopefully, by the time these forms of repairs are attempted, we will have a better idea of the full functionality of each gene.
Unlike what is pictured in popular imagination, genes are not "modular"
functional entities, independent from each other; instead, they interact
with each other and with the environment in almost unpredictable ways. (And
that makes the production of transgenic animals and plants specially
tricky...) For example: the gene for eye albinism should affect only the
color of the eyes but, through probably a series of cascade interactions
with other genes, it also affects brain visual processing, in such a way
that people with eye albinism are almost blind because their brains cant
interpret images properly. This is an example of a gene coding a physical
characteristic affecting also a *cognitive* characteristic -- and this
example only suffices to cast serious doubts that healthy versions of Tesla
and Hawking would guarantedly be the same persons. And Im not even
considering the fact that, without their diseases (which have strong effects
in the way that they lived their lives), their lives could even follow
completely different stories, leading again to completely different
personalities.
Lucio

From: bill t
To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 6:43 AM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Genetic Defects and New Colonies

> With cloning, the public waited until it was a reality before
attempting to discuss it. Should we do the same with genetic repair?
I guess you answer is "yes".

That was not the question you were asking. And that hasn't been the
question everyone has been debating.

For the record, I have no problem with cloning or genetic repair. I do
have a problem with eugenics, which is in fact the thread in this
topic. The question posed was:
Does a society have a right to regulate the genetic content of its
members?

Tom - Well, Bill, yes, if society is responsible for the care, feeding, and education of all of it's citizens, then why should it not also regulate the formation of it's citizens? We now know that women who are alcoholic while pregnant are harming their babies and we have, on rare occasions, arrested them for child abuse. Same if they are cocane addicts. Some offer money to prostitutes who are also drug addicts who contnue to have child after child... So, if these measures are OK, then what would be wrong with a society/space colony, offering an incentive to prospective parents to particpate in genetic screening and to recieve various incentives in exchange for allowing genetic repairs?
Please do not read into the above that I would advocate what the Chinese do (e.g. annual X-Rays to assure that IUDs are still in-place for women of child bearing age who already have one child). I really prefer incentives over compulsion, but the opportunities are there are so they should be rationally discussed.
So, if society has the responsibility to care for children, doesn't it also have some rights?

Bill

> From: bill t
> To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 4:53 PM
> Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Genetic Defects and New Colonies
>
> This thread is becoming stupid.
>
> Tom - Yes, I agree, you being unscientific an emotional, and so we
are not able to compare hypothesis, facts, or anything else.
>
> Tom, lets stick with science that we can do. This means we can't
cure
> genetic diseases. So your choice becomes one of, should the choice
to
> give birth to a child with genetic defects be left to the parents,
or
> be given over to a steering committee.
>
> Tom - No Bill, my question is hypothestical and based upon the
constraints of past letters, which basically means that defects WOULD
be fixed, and abortions would not happen because the selection would
be part of the test tube process before implantation, unless, of
course, you believe that all fertilized eggs are human beings, which,
if true, would have saved us lots of bits if you had disclosed this
bit of information before.
> Furthermore, a birth with a defective gene can't happen if the
donors elect not to have the egg implanted.
>
> The second question is should the up bringing of children be left
in
> the parents hands or should they be institutionalized.
>
> We can't fix genetic code today, and if technology gets to that
point
> we will be able to continually fix our own bodies and won't have
to
> reproduce.
>
> Tom - There is no basis for your hopeful conclusion that I am
aware of. Fixing a gene that controls the devleopment of the brain,
for example can't be fixed after birth or after the defect is manifest
since the damage will already have been done during the window of
activity of the gene while in the womb.
>
> So can we please stick to reality
>
> Tom - My reality is science and it's likely/possible future. If
you prefer to stay with what is today, that to is fine, but then it
makes no sense for you to continue to comment on a subject that you
obviously would prefer not to discuss and are offended at.
>
> Bill
>
> --- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
> wrote:
> >
> > From: Dr. Omni
> > To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 9:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies
> >
> >
> > From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 5:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies
> >
> >
> > [snikt]
> > Tom - A discussion of the definition of a defect is
naturally
> personal and
> > relative and so might be best left for a separate thread. For
the
> purpose of
> > this thread, lets define a genetic defect as:
> > a) A gene that produces a mal-functioning protein that
results
> in the
> > manifestation of a medically recognized disease.
> > b) The known result significantly shortens the life of the
> subject, and
> > may also have an advese affect on the qulaity of life of the
> subject.
> >
> > Here are but a few of the well over one hundred examples of
> genetic
> > defects:
> > 1) Defective gene resulting in high cholesterol and death by
age
> 45. If
> > both genes are inherited, death occurs by age 35.
> > 2) Downs syndrome,
> > 3) Lou Geregs disease.
> > 4) Suseptability to cancers.
> >
> > Your definition of genetic defect does not matches the
examples.
> Down
> > Syndrome is not caused by a gene that produces a
malfunctioning
> protein
> > (your item a), it is simply an error during replication of the
> chromosomes -
> > a child with Down Syndrome has an extra copy of the 23rd
> chromosome, if I
> > remember correctly. In fact, Ive heard that an individual
with
> Down
> > Syndrome can give birth to normal children, though Im not
able to
> confirm
> > this information at the moment.
> >
> > To - OK, I didn't pick a clear example, so lets use Lupus
instead
> or any of the hundreds of other genetic disorders (e.g. obesity)
that
> plague humanity? Perhaps at the test tube stage we could remove
the
> extra chromosome or make it inactive? Lets give science the
chance,
> shall we?
> >
> >
> > Tom - The decision making body of each colony should be able
to
> make a
> > rational decision about what is a defect and what is not, and
I
> understand
> > that this will vary over time and space. We should not
presume to
> make that
> > decision for others now.
> >
> > This invalidates your argument in another message, when you
say
> that we
> > would be "helping" evolution by practicing eugenics. Evolution
is
> a process
> > that takes tens of thousands of years to produce some
measurable
> effect in a
> > species with slow reproduction like humans, and cultural
concepts
> can vary
> > wildly in just a few decades. (Yet another example:
homosexuality,
> a
> > characteristic that many scientists nowadays believe to be
> > biological/genetic in some extent, was considered a
psychological
> disease
> > until the 70s, while nowadays it is progressively being
accepted
> by
> > society.) Therefore, much of the influence of our cultural
> decisions will
> > most likely annihilate each other along the hundreds of
centuries
> needed to
> > make a difference in evolutionary terms. (Except, of course,
in
> the cases
> > where your population of bermenschen will be isolated from
the
> rest of
> > Humanity, like in an interstellar travel.)
> >
> > Tom - Yes, we focusing on the frontier of interstellar travel
when
> we discuss space colonies, aren't we? Each colony that leaves the
> solar system will be effectively isolated from the rest of
humanity
> and may, over hundreds of thousands of years, become quite
different
> from the root stock here on earth. Like it or not, anything that
we
> can imagine happening to better adapt to the environment, will
likely
> happen whether we like it or not, hence, the more we prepare now,
the
> better.
> >
> > I would fully expect some, if not many "societies" in our
first
> space colonies around sol, to strive to advance themselves while
the
> more primitive cultures remain on earth. For example, cultures
that
> place religious scriptures over the study of science are least
likley
> to make it in space, let alone to another star or to inhabit the
> galaxy. I would guess that even in devleoped nations, only one
out of
> 1000 will be ready, willing and able to become a member of as
space
> colony. What do you think?
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom - Interesting point of discussion. Just what do you mean
be
> "diverse".
> > Are you speaking of racial or skin color, or are you referring
to
> > personality types such a: natural football players, natural
> soldiers,
> > professior types, boxers, hot heads, cool heads,
intellectuals,
> laggards,
> > attention deficit disorder, suseptable to pleasure/drugs,
> criminality,
> > psychopaths, etc?
> >
> > When I used the word "diverse", I meant a population
completely
> detached
> > from our culture-based judgments, values and biases. In order
to
> clarify my
> > concept, consider the example of the population to be put in
an
> interstellar
> > ship. First of all, we should chose, obviously, just people
who
> are willing
> > to endure this travel. Lets suppose that there is a list of
> volunteers with
> > a number N of people much higher than the actual capacity n of
the
> ship.
> > Then, to fill you ship, you *randomly* choose your n
passengers
> among the N
> > candidates.
> >
> > Random choice may sound complete devoid of sense for a
proponent
> of eugenics
> > like you, but that is precisely what is used in many
applications
> where you
> > have to maintain a compromise between the quality and the
> diversity of your
> > population. In Genetic Programming algorithms, for example,
> migration of
> > individuals between different populations is done randomly in
> order to
> > preserve diversity and therefore avoid stagnation or loss of
> quality in the
> > long range.
> >
> > If debating, I would suggest that there may be some
personality
> traits
> > that are unsuitible for the demands of life on a space colony,
and
> that
> > carefull screening should be considered. Naturally, skin color
> would not be
> > one of these traits since I view all humans as being members
of
> the same
> > race. :-) Afterall, we all originated from Africa between
100,000
> and
> > 200,000 years ago, right?
> > [snikt]
> > Tom - This is good for life on earth, but life on a space
> colony, at
> > least for the first settlers, may be very demanding and may
> require high
> > skills for most if not all members. Low-skill jobs may be
rare
> IMO. I
> > suppose that one could always pull weeds on a vast O Neil
colony,
> but in a
> > more compact colony with solar powered air
conditioning/recycling,
> working
> > in the hydroponic greenhouse may be the lowest skill job
available
> and even
> > here not being able to tell the difference between a week and
the
> shoot of a
> > food plant would be no good.
> >
> > The question here is that you see the life in a space colony
as
> > fundamentally different from life on Earth. However, in
societal
> terms, I
> > see a space colony as nothing more than a city -- a city
located
> in space,
> > yes, but anyway a city for most of societal and cultural
purposes.
> (The only
> > exception would be an interstellar worldship, which would be a
> completely
> > isolated city -- indeed a situation much different from that
of
> earthling
> > cities.)
> >
> > As for your argument about low-skill jobs, I dont see much
> difference
> > between that and the current urban life on Earth. Even in a
> third-world
> > country like mine, 80% of the population lives in cities,
where
> the number
> > of low-skill jobs drops dramatically along time and ability to
> read/write,
> > and even computer skills, are more and more and more required
for
> virtually
> > all kinds of jobs. Now, the 20% of the population still living
in
> rural
> > areas: agriculture gets more and more mechanized, in such a
way
> that
> > "pulling weeds" will be an obsolete profession on Earth itself
in
> a very
> > short time.
> >
> > Now, this is the situation in a third world country, Brazil.
But
> if you
> > take, for example, Europe, you have a population of hundreds
of
> millions of
> > people where just a minuscule fraction of them have low-skill
> jobs. The same
> > in Japan. However, Europeans and Japaneses did not have to
undergo
> a
> > eugenics program in order to accommodate to this new
situation.
> They simply
> > invested massively in education, social programs and
employment
> policies.
> > The point is that human behavior and abilities are much more
> conditioned by
> > the society and culture where we are grow (our "memes", as
Richard
> Dawkins
> > would say) than by our genes.
> >
> > However, since I consider space colonies equivalent (in terms
of
> society
> > dynamics) to any city on Earth (I even like to call them
> "uranopolis", a
> > Greek-Roman term for "heavenly city"), all this discussion
about
> eugenics in
> > space sounds completely theoretical for me. I think that the
> criteria for
> > admitting a new citizen/resident in a colony will be as varied
> (and probably
> > as free of genetic criteria) as laws controlling immigration
in
> all current
> > countries.
> >
> > Tom - Sounds nice, but the devil is always in the details,
isn't
> it? So, lets distill t his down to basics. Given a list of
hundreds of
> genetic defect that are agreed to exist medically, and which can
be
> repaired or suppressed, would you or would you not support efforts
to
> have these measures taken on space colonies that choose to follow
a
> path of minimal passage of genetic defects to future generations?
> >
> > You appear to have side-steped the issue of drug affected
babies
> that are
> > sometimes born blind and which require massive investments in
> post-birth
> > care since they are often born under-weight and premature.
> Studies show
> > that these children never catch-up. Wouldn't it be better for
> these souls
> > to be born to a drug-free family?
> >
> > Probably. But, again, we fall in my argument regarding
conclusive
> links
> > between genetics and drug addiction for all drugs -- and the
lack
> of a
> > culturally perennial definition of "drug".
> >
> > Tom - OK, lets define the obvious. A drug is: herone,
cocaine,
> Meth. Now what is you opinion on parents who are addicted to these
> substances?
> >
> > What if the above scenario were to be combined with cloning
and
> what if
> > many thousands of clones were available to choose from?
Perhaps
> each zygot
> > that is suitible for implantation is first cloned a hundred
times
> and the
> > balance frozen for later use either by the original donors or
> perhaps for
> > donation to the public?
> > What if medical insurance was universally available and that
> implantation
> > of a "genetic defect free" egg was covered for all? Parents
could
> choose
> > from a picture book of what their children would look like
based
> upon past
> > births of the " series".
> >
> > Widespread use of cloning would be the worst-case scenario for
> loss of
> > diversity in a population. Let suppose that you seeds 10
million
> copies of
> > one of your ber-babies among the population. Now, suppose
that a
> few years
> > latter a new virus spreads in the population. You didnt know
at
> the time of
> > the production of your ber-babies (because the virus didnt
exist
> at that
> > time), but your ber-babies are lethaly susceptible to the new
> virus strand.
> > As a result, you have a massive number of dead children and a
> serious
> > problem in the continuity of your population.
> >
> > That is the problem with loss of diversity: it makes your
> population
> > unprepared for circumstances that our limited, narrow and
biased
> human minds
> > cannot foresee. Cloning of human beings should be used only in
> rare
> > circumstances (for example, in the case of sterile individuals
> that do want
> > to have children of their own), but never as a industrial
process
> of
> > reproduction...
> >
> > Tom - OK, lets not seed 10 million, but perhaps just a hundred
of
> each clone over many years spread over many colonies? Perhaps we
could
> limit clones in both time and place to minimize them running into
each
> other. These details await discussion.
> >
> > Given the choice, don't you think that future generations
would
> prefer to be born into healthier bodies?
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> > [snikt]
> > Regards,
> > [snikt]
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Lucio.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

From:
bill t
To:
spacesettlers@egroups.com
Sent:
Wednesday, December 27, 2000 6:43 AM
Subject:
[spacesettlers] Re: Genetic Defects and New Colonies
> With cloning, the public waited until it was a reality before
attempting to discuss it. Should we do the same with genetic repair?
I guess you answer is "yes".
That was not the question you were asking. And that hasn't been the
question everyone has been debating.
For the record, I have no problem with cloning or genetic repair. I do
have a problem with eugenics, which is in fact the thread in this
topic. The question posed was:
Does a society have a right to regulate the genetic content of its
members?

Tom - Well, Bill, yes, if society is responsible for the care, feeding, and education of all of it's citizens, then why should it not also regulate the formation of it's citizens? We now know that women who are alcoholic while pregnant are harming their babies and we have, on rare occasions, arrested them for child abuse. Same if they are cocane addicts. Some offer money to prostitutes who are also drug addicts who contnue to have child after child... So, if these measures are OK, then what would be wrong with a society/space colony, offering an incentive to prospective parents to particpate in genetic screening and to recieve various incentives in exchange for allowing genetic repairs?
Please do not read into the above that I would advocate what the Chinese do (e.g. annual X-Rays to assure that IUDs are still in-place for women of child bearing age who already have one child). I really prefer incentives over compulsion, but the opportunities are there are so they should be rationally discussed.
So, if society has the responsibility to care for children, doesn't it also have some rights?
Bill
> From: bill t
> To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 4:53 PM
> Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Genetic Defects and New Colonies
>
> This thread is becoming stupid.
>
> Tom - Yes, I agree, you being unscientific an emotional, and so we
are not able to compare hypothesis, facts, or anything else.
>
> Tom, lets stick with science that we can do. This means we can't
cure
> genetic diseases. So your choice becomes one of, should the choice
to
> give birth to a child with genetic defects be left to the parents,
or
> be given over to a steering committee.
>
> Tom - No Bill, my question is hypothestical and based upon the
constraints of past letters, which basically means that defects WOULD
be fixed, and abortions would not happen because the selection would
be part of the test tube process before implantation, unless, of
course, you believe that all fertilized eggs are human beings, which,
if true, would have saved us lots of bits if you had disclosed this
bit of information before.
> Furthermore, a birth with a defective gene can't happen if the
donors elect not to have the egg implanted.
>
> The second question is should the up bringing of children be left
in
> the parents hands or should they be institutionalized.
>
> We can't fix genetic code today, and if technology gets to that
point
> we will be able to continually fix our own bodies and won't have
to
> reproduce.
>
> Tom - There is no basis for your hopeful conclusion that I am
aware of. Fixing a gene that controls the devleopment of the brain,
for example can't be fixed after birth or after the defect is manifest
since the damage will already have been done during the window of
activity of the gene while in the womb.
>
> So can we please stick to reality
>
> Tom - My reality is science and it's likely/possible future. If
you prefer to stay with what is today, that to is fine, but then it
makes no sense for you to continue to comment on a subject that you
obviously would prefer not to discuss and are offended at.
>
> Bill
>

> --- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
>
> >
> > From: Dr. Omni
> > To: spacesettlers@egroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 9:16 PM
> > Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies
> >
> >
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tom Tucker (Olympia)"
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 5:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Genetic Defects and New Colonies
> >
>
> > [snikt]
> > Tom - A discussion of the definition of a defect is
naturally
> personal and
> > relative and so might be best left for a separate thread. For
the
> purpose of
> > this thread, lets define a genetic defect as:
> > a) A gene that produces a mal-functioning protein that
results
> in the
> > manifestation of a medically recognized disease.
> > b) The known result significantly shortens the life of the
> subject, and
> > may also have an advese affect on the qulaity of life of the
> subject.
> >
> > Here are but a few of the well over one hundred examples of
> genetic
> > defects:
> > 1) Defective gene resulting in high cholesterol and death by
age
> 45. If
> > both genes are inherited, death occurs by age 35.
> > 2) Downs syndrome,
> > 3) Lou Geregs disease.
> > 4) Suseptability to cancers.
> >
> > Your definition of genetic defect does not matches the
examples.
> Down
> > Syndrome is not caused by a gene that produces a
malfunctioning
> protein
> > (your item a), it is simply an error during replication of the
> chromosomes -
> > a child with Down Syndrome has an extra copy of the 23rd
> chromosome, if I
> > remember correctly. In fact, Ive heard that an individual
with
Down
> > Syndrome can give birth to normal children, though Im not
able to
> confirm
> > this information at the moment.
> >
> > To - OK, I didn't pick a clear example, so lets use Lupus
instead
> or any of the hundreds of other genetic disorders (e.g. obesity)
that
> plague humanity? Perhaps at the test tube stage we could remove
the
> extra chromosome or make it inactive? Lets give science the
chance,
shall we?
> >
> >
> > Tom - The decision making body of each colony should be able
to
> make a
> > rational decision about what is a defect and what is not, and
I
> understand
> > that this will vary over time and space. We should not
presume to
> make that
> > decision for others now.
> >
> > This invalidates your argument in another message, when you
say
> that we
> would be "helping" evolution by practicing eugenics. Evolution
is
> a process
> > that takes tens of thousands of years to produce some
measurable
> effect in a
> > species with slow reproduction like humans, and cultural
concepts
> can vary
> > wildly in just a few decades. (Yet another example:
homosexuality,
> a
> > characteristic that many scientists nowadays believe to be
> > biological/genetic in some extent, was considered a
psychological
> disease
> > until the 70s, while nowadays it is progressively being
accepted
> by
> > society.) Therefore, much of the influence of our cultural
> decisions will
> > most likely annihilate each other along the hundreds of
centuries
> needed to
> > make a difference in evolutionary terms. (Except, of course,
in
> the cases
> > where your population of bermenschen will be isolated from
the
> rest of
> > Humanity, like in an interstellar travel.)
>
> > Tom - Yes, we focusing on the frontier of interstellar travel
when
> we discuss space colonies, aren't we? Each colony that leaves the
> solar system will be effectively isolated from the rest of
humanity
> and may, over hundreds of thousands of years, become quite
different
> from the root stock here on earth. Like it or not, anything that
we
> can imagine happening to better adapt to the environment, will
likely
happen whether we like it or not, hence, the more we prepare now,
the
> better.
> >
> > I would fully expect some, if not many "societies" in our
first
> space colonies around sol, to strive to advance themselves while
the
> more primitive cultures remain on earth. For example, cultures
that
> place religious scriptures over the study of science are least
likley
> to make it in space, let alone to another star or to inhabit the
> galaxy. I would guess that even in devleoped nations, only one
out of
> 1000 will be ready, willing and able to become a member of as
space
> colony. What do you think?
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom - Interesting point of discussion. Just what do you mean
be
> "diverse".
> > Are you speaking of racial or skin color, or are you referring
to
> > personality types such a: natural football players, natural
> soldiers,
> > professior types, boxers, hot heads, cool heads,
intellectuals,
> laggards,
> > attention deficit disorder, suseptable to pleasure/drugs,
> criminality,
> > psychopaths, etc?
> >
> When I used the word "diverse", I meant a population
completely
> detached
> > from our culture-based judgments, values and biases. In order
to
> clarify my
> > concept, consider the example of the population to be put in
an
> interstellar
> > ship. First of all, we should chose, obviously, just people
who
> are willing
> > to endure this travel. Lets suppose that there is a list of
> volunteers with
> > a number N of people much higher than the actual capacity n of
the
> ship.
> > Then, to fill you ship, you *randomly* choose your n
passengers
> among the N
> > candidates.
> >
> > Random choice may sound complete devoid of sense for a
proponent
> of eugenics
> > like you, but that is precisely what is used in many
applications
> where you
> have to maintain a compromise between the quality and the
> diversity of your
> > population. In Genetic Programming algorithms, for example,
> migration of
> > individuals between different populations is done randomly in
> order to
> > preserve diversity and therefore avoid stagnation or loss of
> quality in the
> > long range.
> >
> > If debating, I would suggest that there may be some
personality
> traits
> > that are unsuitible for the demands of life on a space colony,
and
> that
> > carefull screening should be considered. Naturally, skin color
> would not be
> > one of these traits since I view all humans as being members
of
> the same
> > race. :-) Afterall, we all originated from Africa between
100,000
> and
> > 200,000 years ago, right?
> > [snikt]
> > Tom - This is good for life on earth, but life on a space
> colony, at
> > least for the first settlers, may be very demanding and may
> require high
> > skills for most if not all members. Low-skill jobs may be
rare
> IMO. I
> > suppose that one could always pull weeds on a vast O Neil
colony,
> but in a
> > more compact colony with solar powered air
conditioning/recycling,
> working
> > in the hydroponic greenhouse may be the lowest skill job
available
> and even
> > here not being able to tell the difference between a week and
the
> shoot of a
> > food plant would be no good.
> >
> > The question here is that you see the life in a space colony
as
> > fundamentally different from life on Earth. However, in
societal
> terms, I
> > see a space colony as nothing more than a city -- a city
located
> in space,
> > yes, but anyway a city for most of societal and cultural
purposes.
> (The only
> > exception would be an interstellar worldship, which would be a
> completely
> > isolated city -- indeed a situation much different from that
of
> earthling
> > cities.)
> >
> > As for your argument about low-skill jobs, I dont see much
> difference
> > between that and the current urban life on Earth. Even in a
> third-world
> > country like mine, 80% of the population lives in cities,
where
> the number
> > of low-skill jobs drops dramatically along time and ability to
> read/write,
> > and even computer skills, are more and more and more required
for
> virtually
> > all kinds of jobs. Now, the 20% of the population still living
in
> rural
> > areas: agriculture gets more and more mechanized, in such a
way
> that
> > "pulling weeds" will be an obsolete profession on Earth itself
in
> a very
> > short time.
> >
> > Now, this is the situation in a third world country, Brazil.
But
if you
> > take, for example, Europe, you have a population of hundreds
of
> millions of
> > people where just a minuscule fraction of them have low-skill
> jobs. The same
> > in Japan. However, Europeans and Japaneses did not have to
undergo
> a
> > eugenics program in order to accommodate to this new
situation.
> They simply
> > invested massively in education, social programs and
employment
> policies.
> > The point is that human behavior and abilities are much more
> conditioned by
> > the society and culture where we are grow (our "memes", as
Richard
> Dawkins
> > would say) than by our genes.
> >
> > However, since I consider space colonies equivalent (in terms
of
> society
> > dynamics) to any city on Earth (I even like to call them
> "uranopolis", a
> > Greek-Roman term for "heavenly city"), all this discussion
about
> eugenics in
> > space sounds completely theoretical for me. I think that the
> criteria for
> > admitting a new citizen/resident in a colony will be as varied
> (and probably
> > as free of genetic criteria) as laws controlling immigration
in
> all current
> > countries.
> >
> > Tom - Sounds nice, but the devil is always in the details,
isn't
> it? So, lets distill t his down to basics. Given a list of
hundreds of
> genetic defect that are agreed to exist medically, and which can
be
> repaired or suppressed, would you or would you not support efforts
to
> have these measures taken on space colonies that choose to follow
a
> path of minimal passage of genetic defects to future generations?
> >
> > You appear to have side-steped the issue of drug affected
babies
> that are
> > sometimes born blind and which require massive investments in
> post-birth
> > care since they are often born under-weight and premature.
> Studies show
> > that these children never catch-up. Wouldn't it be better for
> these souls
> to be born to a drug-free family?
> >
> > Probably. But, again, we fall in my argument regarding
conclusive
> links
> > between genetics and drug addiction for all drugs -- and the
lack
> of a
> > culturally perennial definition of "drug".
> >
> > Tom - OK, lets define the obvious. A drug is: herone,
cocaine,
> Meth. Now what is you opinion on parents who are addicted to these
> substances?
> >
> What if the above scenario were to be combined with cloning
and
> what if
> many thousands of clones were available to choose from?
Perhaps
> each zygot
> > that is suitible for implantation is first cloned a hundred
times
> and the
> > balance frozen for later use either by the original donors or
> perhaps for
> > donation to the public?
> > What if medical insurance was universally available and that
> implantation
> > of a "genetic defect free" egg was covered for all? Parents
could
> choose
> > from a picture book of what their children would look like
based
> upon past
> > births of the " series".
> >
> > Widespread use of cloning would be the worst-case scenario for
> loss of
> > diversity in a population. Let suppose that you seeds 10
million
> copies of
> > one of your ber-babies among the population. Now, suppose
that a
> few years
> > latter a new virus spreads in the population. You didnt know
at
> the time of
> > the production of your ber-babies (because the virus didnt
exist
> at that
> > time), but your ber-babies are lethaly susceptible to the new
> virus strand.
> > As a result, you have a massive number of dead children and a
> serious
> > problem in the continuity of your population.
>
> > That is the problem with loss of diversity: it makes your
> population
> > unprepared for circumstances that our limited, narrow and
biased
> human minds
> cannot foresee. Cloning of human beings should be used only in
> rare
> > circumstances (for example, in the case of sterile individuals
> that do want
> > to have children of their own), but never as a industrial
process
> of
> > reproduction...
> >
> > Tom - OK, lets not seed 10 million, but perhaps just a hundred
of
> each clone over many years spread over many colonies? Perhaps we
could
> limit clones in both time and place to minimize them running into
each
> other. These details await discussion.
> >
> > Given the choice, don't you think that future generations
would