Genetic Defects and New Colonies

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,