Genetic Defects and New Colonies

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