Are all races equal?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by obiwan18
This is the problem. How can beings who are unqualified to judge the hard cases, are now qualified to judge the so-called 'easy' cases?

Well I'm sure there are cases that are pretty much agreed upon by everyone, don't you think?

Why do the mentally-handicapped suffer from their body?

What I am saying is that they shouldn't be having children. They have the minds of children, so how can they be expected to take care of children of their own?

One point. How do we as human beings determine what is best for the human race?

We haven't always made great decisions in this area, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

The problem with genetic improvement is the division between improvement and enhancement, part of the old proverb, "in the halls of the blind the one-eyed man is king."

IF most can see 20/20, does this mean that those who see 40/20 are defective and should be corrected? If most men are 6', and women 5'6'', are those who are shorter defective?

Of course not, but with my eyesight being as bad as it is, I sure would like to be able to alter the gene that causes it so my kids don't have to suffer from it.

Times change. Evolution selects those who are most suited for their particular environment. What if the environment changes? By introducing wide-scale genetic engineering, will we not lose some of the genetic variation deemed 'defective' by those of the norm?

Why don't you give me a likely scenario in which that would happen?

Where would you draw the line and why?

Draw the line on what? Genetic engineering? I suppose I would draw the line at genetically engineering disabilities. Like a deaf couple using GE to ensure their child is deaf. I would be firmly against that.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by obiwan18


tinyp3nis:

Blind people adapt to their environment in ways different from the rest of people, similar to deaf people as well. Some of the skills learned in compensating for a handicap may be transferred to other areas.

One example would be a deaf person focussing on reading and visual learning simply because they are on an equal footing in this medium.

Oh uhhuh? Thank you Mr. Obvious. It still amazes me how people manage to qoute me and tell me the exact same thing I just said.
OK fine, Is this what was cause of the misunderstanding? :

If I born blind I may _end up_ hearing better, but I don't get anything extra when I am born/developing.

I meant developing inside the womb, the whole process before birth.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Of course not, but with my eyesight being as bad as it is, I sure would like to be able to alter the gene that causes it so my kids don't have to suffer from it.

But if the atmospheric pressure changes, your gene might be the only way to adapt.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Ribannah


But if the atmospheric pressure changes, your gene might be the only way to adapt.

So we should save all genes? I'm sorry, but your scenario is more than a little far-fetched.

[Ribannah]

The essence is that we should preserve variety. Most defective genes will always stay just that, but once we start the purifying there is no limit, and we will eventually weaken because of it even if it looks a great improvement in the beginning.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Ribannah
The essence is that we should preserve variety. Most defective genes will always stay just that, but once we start the purifying there is no limit, and we will eventually weaken because of it even if it looks a great improvement in the beginning.

Good genes have all the variety we need. Also, mutations will still occor, no matter what we do with GE.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Ribannah
The essence is that we should preserve variety. Most defective genes will always stay just that, but once we start the purifying there is no limit, and we will eventually weaken because of it even if it looks a great improvement in the beginning.

Fight the extreme with another extreme? The alternatives are only no touching or so much touching everything will be go very very bad? Come on!

[Ben Kenobi]

OK fine, Is this what was cause of the misunderstanding?

tinyp3nis:

No misunderstanding.

I just wanted to strengthen your point with a concrete example.

caligastia:

They have the minds of children, so how can they be expected to take care of children of their own?

That's not the point you were making earlier. You were saying we should genetically engineer these people to get rid of these genes, on the assumption that these people suffer.

How do they suffer from their handicap?

Secondly, your point is not valid. Many people who are not mentally handicapped have children without being able to take care of them. Should these people be sterilised to ensure that they do not have other children?

I suppose I would draw the line at genetically engineering disabilities. Like a deaf couple using GE to ensure their child is deaf. I would be firmly against that.

Ok. I'm going to use a thought experiment here.

Suppose noise levels continue to increase in our crowded cities, to the point where people who hear well have great difficulties sleeping. Someone who is deaf will sleep perfectly well, in the same environment as the hearing people. Who will function better at work that morning, the deaf person or the sleep-deprived hearing person?

Suppose that deaf person married another deaf person and they have a hearing child. Suppose this child also has a problem sleeping at night due to the noise levels of the busy city. Would not a responsible parent try to improve the life of their child?

Disability is a relative concept. We only consider people to be disabled because they fall short of the apparent norm. However, the norm shifts with changes in the environment. People today are much taller than people 200 years ago due to better nutrition. People who would have been considered normal are considered handicapped as the goalposts shift.

One example of this is in China, where women undergo surgery to increase their height. One women put it very succinctly, 'a taller women will get a better job, a better husband and a better life. I am investing in my future with this surgery.'

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by obiwan18
That's not the point you were making earlier. You were saying we should genetically engineer these people to get rid of these genes, on the assumption that these people suffer.

How do they suffer from their handicap?

It's not so much their suffering, so much as the suffering society goes through. It costs a lot of hard-earned money to take care of those with severe handicaps, and at the end we have nothing to show for it. I'm sure you can see how suffering increases if there are more handicapped people to take care of.

Secondly, your point is not valid. Many people who are not mentally handicapped have children without being able to take care of them. Should these people be sterilised to ensure that they do not have other children?

I would like to see that, yes, but I know it's not possible in the current political climate.

Suppose noise levels continue to increase in our crowded cities, to the point where people who hear well have great difficulties sleeping. Someone who is deaf will sleep perfectly well, in the same environment as the hearing people. Who will function better at work that morning, the deaf person or the sleep-deprived hearing person?

The people who used ear-plugs.

Suppose that deaf person married another deaf person and they have a hearing child. Suppose this child also has a problem sleeping at night due to the noise levels of the busy city. Would not a responsible parent try to improve the life of their child?

Come on now, this scenario is just silly. Intentionally having a deaf child instead of buying ear-plugs is overkill don't you think?

Disability is a relative concept. We only consider people to be disabled because they fall short of the apparent norm. However, the norm shifts with changes in the environment. People today are much taller than people 200 years ago due to better nutrition. People who would have been considered normal are considered handicapped as the goalposts shift.

One example of this is in China, where women undergo surgery to increase their height. One women put it very succinctly, 'a taller women will get a better job, a better husband and a better life. I am investing in my future with this surgery.'

I don't think you can compare being a bit short with being deaf. If you are deaf, you are without one of your major senses, simply being a bit shorter than others is far less restricting. I know which I would rather be.

[Japher]

Not being able to sleep because the traffic is too loud is not a handicap.

Being able to sleep in loud traffic because you are deaf is a handicap.

You are confusing not being able to do something with not having the capacity to be able do something.

Running with your little experiment. What if the deaf person and the person who could hear both applied for the same job? Who would sooner get the job? How many jobs out there require one to hear? How many low-skilled jobs require one to hear?

In most/many cases the deaf person would not be able to perform the job. So while they got more sleep, they wouldn't need it because they have no job to go to. Thus, since the person can't hear they do not have capacity to be able to work in certain settings. While the person who can hear has the ability to sleep.

[Caligastia]

Thank you Japher.

[Ben Kenobi]

The people who used ear-plugs.

Precisely, Caligastia.

Now lets help deaf people do the same to overcome their disability, without resorting to genetic engineering.

If you are deaf, you are without one of your major senses, simply being a bit shorter than others is far less restricting.

If you had a choice to undergo genetic engineering to make you taller or shorter, which would you choose, Caligastia? The issue at hand is not whether deafness is worse than height, but whether being short is a disability.

[Quote]I would like to see that, yes, but I know it's not possible in the current political climate.

Why not, Caligastia? How would you determine which parents are fit, and which parents were unfit?

Japher:

You are confusing not being able to do something with not having the capacity to be able do something.

Do redundant abilities help or hinder organisms?

In most/many cases the deaf person would not be able to perform the job. So while they got more sleep, they wouldn't need it because they have no job to go to.

Name the job that cannot be performed by a deaf person.
Note, I am comparing a sleep deprived person with the deaf person as well. You also have to take that into account.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Now lets help deaf people do the same to overcome their disability, without resorting to genetic engineering.

We'll have traffic lights at all crossings.
And voice for the blind.
And both lights and voice for people who are both deaf and blind!

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Precisely, Caligastia.

Now lets help deaf people do the same to overcome their disability, without resorting to genetic engineering.

What difference does it make? It seems like a waste of resources to expend all this effort to accommodate a disability when we could just eliminate deafness altogether.

If you had a choice to undergo genetic engineering to make you taller or shorter, which would you choose, Caligastia?

Considering that I'm 6'5", I think I could stand to lose a couple of inches actually. It sure would make those long flights home to NZ a lot more comfortable.

The issue at hand is not whether deafness is worse than height, but whether being short is a disability.

IMO being short only becomes a disability when you are really short, like a dwarf.

Why not, Caligastia? How would you determine which parents are fit, and which parents were unfit?

With Hitler's eugenic antics still fresh in the minds of those in western society, any restrictions on reproduction will be unfairly associated with nazism.

I would have a tough time determining who is fit and who isn't, but I think we could all agree that a crack whore that has had 11 kids, all damaged for life by her drug use while she was pregnant with them, is not fit to be a parent.

Name the job that cannot be performed by a deaf person.

Music producer.

[Zero]

This one surfaced again! Its reaching 500 soon btw.

Beethoven went deaf.

[ottok]

I says that usa want war,and why?

Because Iraq helps palestines!I says that usa want war,and why?

Because Iraq helps palestines!I says that usa want war,and why?

Because Iraq helps palestines!

[Az]

rrrrrrrrright.

[Ben Kenobi]

IMO being short only becomes a disability when you are really short, like a dwarf.

Cali, like 5'6'' for a guy?

It seems like a waste of resources to expend all this effort to accommodate a disability when we could just eliminate deafness altogether.

Couple points. How expensive are earplugs? The measures needed for deaf people need not be expensive.

Secondly, can we eliminate further mutations that produce deafness?

Finally, how expensive will genetic engineering be compared with the alternatives?

Got anymore jobs?

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by ottok
I says that usa want war,and why?

Because Iraq helps palestines!I says that usa want war,and why?

Because Iraq helps palestines!I says that usa want war,and why?

Because Iraq helps palestines!

Actually the only ones to ever get help from this Iraqi regime were the USA.
But what has this to do with the topic?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Cali, like 5'6'' for a guy?

Nahh...more like under 5 foot.

Couple points. How expensive are earplugs? The measures needed for deaf people need not be expensive.

I believe that in the long run it will always be more expensive to accomodate disabilities than to eliminate them.

Secondly, can we eliminate further mutations that produce deafness?

Not entirely, as mutations are constantly occuring, but we can at least stop existing mutations from being passed down to the next generation.

Finally, how expensive will genetic engineering be compared with the alternatives?

Expensive in the short term, but much cheaper in the long term IMO.

Got anymore jobs?

There are a lot of others I could come up with, some that could be more easily accomodated than others, but the point is that I think it's cheaper in the long run to just get rid of as many negative mutations as we can. Not only that, but I also think a person's chances of having a full life with a wide range of experiences would definitely be hindered by disabilities.

[OliverFA]

No. They have different skin colours.

Besides that yes, they are all equal

[Ben Kenobi]

a person's chances of having a full life with a wide range of experiences would definitely be hindered by disabilities.

Who decides what counts as a 'full' life? People who are deaf can certainly have a full live; they can marry, have kids, raise a family, hold a decent job. What more must they need to do to 'fill' their life?

Not entirely, as mutations are constantly occuring, but we can at least stop existing mutations from being passed down to the next generation.

So we will never eliminate disabilities, even with genetic engineering?

Nahh...more like under 5 foot.

How much harder is it for someone who is 5'0'' than one who is 5'1''?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Who decides what counts as a 'full' life? People who are deaf can certainly have a full live; they can marry, have kids, raise a family, hold a decent job. What more must they need to do to 'fill' their life?

It's not that they can't have a full life, it's that having this disability is going to limit the range of experiences they can have. If you really think being deaf doen't limit a person, then why don't you give it a try?

So we will never eliminate disabilities, even with genetic engineering?

I won't say never, but I think it would take a very long time.

How much harder is it for someone who is 5'0'' than one who is 5'1''?

It's not that fine a line, but you can definitely say that life for someone who is 4'10" will be more difficult than someone who is 5'3". Why do you think dwarfs go through limb-lengthening procedures?

[Ben Kenobi]

If you really think being deaf doen't limit a person, then why don't you give it a try?

You don't want to go this way. Trust me.

You will lose harshly.

I won't say never, but I think it would take a very long time.

That's looking to be very expensive.

Why do you think dwarfs go through limb-lengthening procedures?

These dwarfs feel they would be better off with the procedure. I mentioned that in my earlier posts.

Now, if the dwarfs modify themselves, why shouldn't people who are 5'5'' who are a full foot shorter than you also try to lengthen their limbs?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by obiwan18


You don't want to go this way. Trust me.

You will lose harshly.

Yeah, sure. I thought we were having an intelligent discussion till you said this. It's not about winning or losing to me.

That's looking to be very expensive.

Less expensive than allowing every negative mutation to be passed on to subsequent generations. Do you want a world of invalids?

These dwarfs feel they would be better off with the procedure. I mentioned that in my earlier posts.

Now, if the dwarfs modify themselves, why shouldn't people who are 5'5'' who are a full foot shorter than you also try to lengthen their limbs?

There's no reason why they shouldn't. It's up to the individual.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's a very weak argument, that's all.

What if I happened to be deaf?

Less expensive than allowing every negative mutation to be passed on to subsequent generations. Do you want a world of invalids?

Negative mutations... Isn't that how evolution is supposed to work? No mutation is negative without the underlying environmental factors. You change the environment, you change the efficiency of a mutation.

Sickle-cell is an example used earlier in this thread, of how a detrimental effect can be positive given a suitable environment.

There's no reason why they shouldn't. It's up to the individual.

Should we pay for this service? Is it ameliorating a disability?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by obiwan18
It's a very weak argument, that's all.

If you think being deaf doesn't come with any limitations...pfff...that's just irrational. From where I'm standing, you're the one with the weak argument my friend.

What if I happened to be deaf?

Perhaps if you were I could understand your position a bit more. After all, you wouldn't have experienced what it's like to hear things, so you wouldn't know what you're missing. Are you?

Negative mutations... Isn't that how evolution is supposed to work? No mutation is negative without the underlying environmental factors. You change the environment, you change the efficiency of a mutation.

Sickle-cell is an example used earlier in this thread, of how a detrimental effect can be positive given a suitable environment.

Positive in one way, negative overall. Also, a natural immunity to malaria would be far more desirable than having SC.

Should we pay for this service? Is it ameliorating a disability?

Now you're getting into the politics of nationalized health, I won't touch that one I'm afraid. Of course, I don't have a problem accommodating those with existing disabilities, I just think we should also be looking at prevention.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you think being deaf doesn't come with any limitations...pfff...that's just irrational. From where I'm standing, you're the one with the weak argument my friend.

No limitations?
I never said that. Sure, deaf people can't do some things as well as hearing persons, but they can do lots more than you think they can.

I still question your idea of a full life. Could a deaf person raise a family, hold a decent job? I think this is a pretty full life. What more do they need?

Secondly, throughout this thread I have been arguing that a person's value is based on who they are, not on what they can do. This is the only way to ensure an equality of value among human persons. Any other standard allows for notions of 'fullness' or 'completeness' to make some peoples' lives worth less.

After all, you wouldn't have experienced what it's like to hear things, so you wouldn't know what you're missing.

Still ad hominem Caligastia. You are not deaf, so how can you know whether a deaf person can enjoy life? Shouldn't we err on the side of caution rather than condemnation?

Are you?

Deaf? No. Not in the way you are thinking.

[Caligastia]

Repeat after me obiwan18 - "Caligastia does not think deaf people are useless or incapable of leading full and productive lives, he simply recognises that being deaf is a disability."