Split from the Election Thread - Body Ethics

[Dominick Destruction]

We're all related if you trace it far enough. Complete non-story.

& some of us you don't have to trace it back that far at all haha... (I am from Norfolk)

I am technically inbred anyway so should prob shut up

[Sperge]

We're all related if you trace it far enough. Complete non-story.

& some of us you don't have to trace it back that far at all haha... (I am from Norfolk)

I am technically inbred anyway so should prob shut up

You're pretty and you don't have three heads or one eye in the middle of your forehead, so I find that hard to believe. Unless you have extra bits that you're keeping very quiet about.

[Dominick Destruction]

I think my inbred deformity consists of out of proportion large ass & 0 tits So think I got off lightly with that... On my mothers side of the family every 3rd female has toes instead of thumbs (I'm not joking)

Also I'm being serrious! My mother's maiden name is the same as it is now she's married
There's 3 (4?) lots of families in the area I live with that same sirname & if you follow them all back they all come from the same on lot from kent back in the day. So as my mother married into one of the other families of the same sirname I am indeed technically inbred.

I hate callign banks & such & answering the 'what is your mothers maiden name?' question... Everytime I answer they say 'No, Her miaden name' & I have to confirm that I gace the correct answer first time around...& then as they can see where I'm from & it's not a common sirname you know full well they are trying notto snicker at me down the line

[Sperge]

On my mothers side of the family every 3rd female has toes instead of thumbs (I'm not joking

So if you have a daughter, she'll have toes instead of thumbs? Or was that your mum?

[Dominick Destruction]

It's funny becuase you don't notice it at first but if it's pointed out you're all
It's like instead of a thumb it's all shorter & more chunky/square at top with a rectangle shape nail (like a toe)
My cousin has it & managed to hide the fact from her partner for months until one of us pointed it out when taking the piss haha... She wasn't pleased at all.

[laurennoodles]

as much as i love you dom, that is fucked upppppp! ahahaha

[Dominick Destruction]

as much as i love you dom, that is fucked upppppp! ahahaha

you're just jealous

anyway... I never claimed to not be fucked up, I think it's pretty apparent that I am

[baldmosher]

I am technically inbred anyway so should prob shut up

You're pretty and you don't have three heads or one eye in the middle of your forehead, so I find that hard to believe. Unless you have extra bits that you're keeping very quiet about.

Inbred genetics are equally likely to produce super-human as sub-human. (Neither, in fact, is likely anyway, without close and persistent interbreeding.)

You don't need a big gene pool to further a species, but you do need to breed some variety to prevent a gene line becoming poisoned by itself. The Windsors have hereditary haemophilia. Many deaf families pass on their genes. I'm sure Peaches Geldof will be a strong individual but with a tendency to self-destruction (she'll have to watch out for that).

I've got a fair chance of genetic baldness owing to skipping a generation, but my mum's dad and my dad both have a full head of hair.

Some 3rd and 4th generation Pakistani families in traditional "white towns" such as Stoke-on-Trent are producing seriously fucked up deformed kids now, because they have married their cousins for so long that the kids are often born with genetic deformities (poor jawlines, oversided foreheads, etc.) and hereditary illnesses. The fact that so many young Pakistanis see marrying your cousins as a good thing to do is very worrying; at least in Dominick's case the inbreeding is accidental. (Not that a Norfolk Destruktion marrying a Norfolk Destruktion should necessarily be seen as inbreeding, of course!)

[Sperge]

Dunno about "superhumans" and "subhumans" being "equally likely" from in-breeding. I would have thought the odds were more in favour of the latter, to be honest, but this isn't a subject I know much about admittedly (I didn't even do O-level biology).

Selective breeding probably works as well with humans as it does with animals and this is something the eugenicists attempted to put into practice in Nazi Germany. The town of Bremen had one of those 'Aryan' breeding camps nearby and is still populated by many of the descendants of that programme, which the locals understandably don't like to talk about. It's said to have a disproportionately high number of blonde, intelligent, athletic types for the size of town - but this could all be urban legend of course.

But plain in-breeding is more likely to bring out genetic defects, surely? There's the problems you mention among Pakistanis marrying cousins too often. It's even more of a problem among Hasidic Jews, who have a really tiny gene pool. I mean, I know what you're saying in that a mutation could lead to something that is benign rather than a defect - but nearly all the cases I've ever heard of have been negative in effect rather than positive.

It's pretty fucked-up that we've gone back to in-breeding in this thread anyway. For the benefit of anyone who's joined this late, it started with a post about a claim that Bush, Cheney and Obama are related.

[baldmosher]

It's pretty fucked-up

Ithankyou.

Dunno about "superhumans" and "subhumans" being "equally likely" from in-breeding.

Depends on your definition of "super" and "sub" really. It's not always physical either.

Non-fatal defects naturally tend to become more prevalent. Crooked (and missing) teeth and misshapen heads are common, obvious results of inbreeding. Seems that those traits aren't enough of a warning sign because inbred adults are still marrying other inbred adults and making doubly-inbred kids. Chances are that those kids will have other less-obvious genetic traits that are positive.

[Magma]

I was going to take that thread wildly off topic after the comments about interbreeding leading to both superhuman and subhuman abnormalities, but I thought it might be worth it's own little thread. One of my favourite topics at the moment....

Whether a difference between a human and the "average human" makes them "Super" and "Sub" is often very difficult to manage objectively, as our society is so geared to the "average" human abilities. You hear of certain cases of Autism and Aspergers Syndrome where the person "disabled" by the condition has access to phenomenal brain power - but because it's not necessarily focussed in the directions that our education establishments test it may never be uncovered and the "difference" becomes a "disability", in the very lucky cases the ability is discovered and harnessed properly and a genius is found.

This leads me onto a lecture I'm going to tonight about "body improvement" - i.e. techniques and technology that is currently being developed to improve people's normal bodies - not necessarily to return them back to normal after illness/injury, but to make them better than nature has allowed them to be. It's a field that's getting more and more popular (especially with the self-experimenters - people putting magnets in their finger tips so that they react with nerves to allow them to sense magnetic fields/live wires etc) and the morals are really interesting.

If you could buy an "upgrade" for your child that would artificially improve them compared to "normal" human beings, would it be right to do it? Does something need to be thought of as an "illness" or "disability" before society can feel ok about "treating" it, or should all of Man's natural failings (weakness, disease, moods, skills etc etc) be attacked with technology?

After my initial "Let people do whatever they want to their own bodies" reaction, I've slowly moved towards supporting more and more legislation where it comes to medical techniques. If this sort of stuff became genuinely advantageous, it could lead to a situation where the rich genuinely do become a super race and the poor languish with not only inferior bank balances, but inferior existences.

[Sperge]

The rest of the "in-breeding" discussion has been moved into this now, to give things context.

You hear of certain cases of Autism and Aspergers Syndrome where the person "disabled" by the condition has access to phenomenal brain power - but because it's not necessarily focussed in the directions that our education establishments test it may never be uncovered and the "difference" becomes a "disability", in the very lucky cases the ability is discovered and harnessed properly and a genius is found.

As one of those people with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (hence the nick), I can confirm that the "phenomenal brainpower" bit is obviously true. Ah, if only. Yes, there are some people with ASDs who do have exceptional abilities - but there are plenty who don't.

It's certainly true that many ASD people have far from a great life, yet it's also something that has undoubtedly benefited humanity as whole, as some of our most successful scientists and other great thinkers are now thought to have had an ASD.

As Professor Temple Grandin put it: "What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool? You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and socialising and not getting anything done!"

[Sperge]

Oh, to get back to your main point - about the super-rich and the poor eventually developing different genetic traits, as forecast by HG Wells, there was someone not long ago who was reported as predicting exactly that: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm *

Humanity may split into two sub-species in 100,000 years' time as predicted by HG Wells, an expert has said.

Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge. The human race would peak in the year 3000, he said - before a decline due to dependence on technology.

People would become choosier about their sexual partners, causing humanity to divide into sub-species, he added.
The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the "underclass" humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.

But in the nearer future, humans will evolve in 1,000 years into giants between 6ft and 7ft tall, he predicts, while life-spans will have extended to 120 years, Dr Curry claims. Physical appearance, driven by indicators of health, youth and fertility, will improve, he says, while men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises.

Women, on the other hand, will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, and even features, he adds. Racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured people. However, Dr Curry warns, in 10,000 years time humans may have paid a genetic price for relying on technology.

Spoiled by gadgets designed to meet their every need, they could come to resemble domesticated animals. Social skills, such as communicating and interacting with others, could be lost, along with emotions such as love, sympathy, trust and respect. People would become less able to care for others, or perform in teams.

Physically, they would start to appear more juvenile. Chins would recede, as a result of having to chew less on processed food. There could also be health problems caused by reliance on medicine, resulting in weak immune systems. Preventing deaths would also help to preserve the genetic defects that cause cancer.

Further into the future, sexual selection - being choosy about one's partner - was likely to create more and more genetic inequality, said Dr Curry. The logical outcome would be two sub-species, "gracile" and "robust" humans similar to the Eloi and Morlocks foretold by HG Wells in his 1895 novel The Time Machine.

(*The author says he was mis-reported, you can see his original essay here if you like: http://www.kingkraal.com/bravo.pdf)

[Magma]

Yeah, that all makes good sense from a genetic point of view and the idea of tending towards a uniform "coffee" race or a fractured group with different genetic lines, maybe even leading to mulitple species... I believe the press decided on the return of the "hobbit" that was discovered a couple of years back semi-coinciding with that study. But what about non-genetic enhancement? What if the rich could buy better brainpower through drug therapy? Or longer life?

Should those kind of enhancements be allowed if they can't be universal? Is it a problem that we could end up being a diverse "species" where you look and act differently depending on what industry you were adapted for? Couple in gene therapy and you end up with human groups that are genetically, physically and mentally different from each other... all a different class of "drone"?

Tonight's thing was really interesting, incidentally.... unfortunately all the people speaking were rather pro advancement, as scientists, so we didn't get into a lot of the morals. All the science is incredibly exciting, but I think there's a fairly important philosophical discussion that needs to take place in society so that we're ready for the changes when they arrive. Obviously lots of the more divisive stuff is a long way off, but there are some advancements that will be here sooner than you'd think...

[CunningStunt]

But what about non-genetic enhancement? What if the rich could buy better brainpower through drug therapy? Or longer life?

Isn't this already happening with the 'postcode lottery' linked to NHS treatment? If you're wealthy enough to pay for the treatment yourself then I can imagine that your chances of recovery are higher.
Does this also add to the fact that people with more money eat better and are better educated so therefore will be healthier anyway?
With the new proposed 'NHS Top Up' scheme if you can afford to upgrade then you will be able to get better care and more effective drugs.

As for Genetic...
Currently doctors can take stem cells from the umbilical cord or bone marrow of babies who are a genetic match of their siblings for use in transplants and presently the law allows parents to use IVF procedures to select embryos that will be a genetic match to older siblings with life-threatening diseases, such as a rare blood disorder.
Although soon couples could be allowed to use so-called "saviour siblings" to treat other family members suffering the kind of serious but non-fatal ailments.
The Government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill will be debated in British Parliament and is expected to become law in 2009. This could lead to children being created for the sole purpose of treating diseases such as sickle-cell anaemia, renal failure, kidney disorders and spinal diseases. Or more controversially creation for the sole purpose of being a live 'host' providing healthy and compatible organs for transplant into older siblings or even family members. Of course this all depends upon the results of the debate in parliament as to what will be passed and what will be rejected but this is the initial proposal as it stands.

It may no longer be down to survival of the fittest, more like survival of the fattest cheque.
Throughout the ages there has always been the odd village idiot (although at the moment I'm sure Stockport has more than it's fair share) but surely we're on our way to creating a sub-human society? I can't help but feel that all of this genetic alchemy will be our downfall in the future.

[baldmosher]

[Speaking slightly simplistically]

One disadvantage of a welfare state is that 'unemployable' people live longer. As long as there are other 'unemployable' people to breed with them, more 'genetically unemployable' children will be produced and raised as a result.

You have to counteract this by ensuring the welfare state also offers opportunity, support and encouragement to all children to become employable. There's always a job that every person can do (most people with Down's Syndrome, autism, cleft pallet, deafness, blindness, etc. are employable) but you have to make working more attractive than not doing working. That takes time, effort, and education - three things that have probably been lacking in schools until the mid-late 1990s but that are now arguably given more focus than improving our brightest students. (Which, in turn, is being addressed since the early 00's.)

There's still a "postcode lottery" with school success and NHS treatment, of course, but where you live in the world is essentially a matter of chance. A child born in M13 (Longsight) has a much longer life expectancy than a child born in the Sudan, so you couldn't possibly blame Western culture for creating a genetic underclass when the same culture provides them with a much improved quality of life to begin with.

I like the over-reliance on technology theory, and I wonder if everyone I know with small jaws was brought up with 2 generations of bad dieting. My jaw is huge, and I know I and my parents have always eaten a varied diet.

As long as opposites attract, genetics will thrive. So Dom, you just need to find a bloke who's mum has massive tits and normal thumbs, and half of your kids will turn out stunning. The other half might well be hobbits though.

[NateDawg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

init

[Beatmonkey]

[Speaking slightly simplistically]



I like the over-reliance on technology theory, and I wonder if everyone I know with small jaws was brought up with 2 generations of bad dieting. My jaw is huge, and I know I and my parents have always eaten a varied diet.

2 generations is much to shorter time for those sort of gentic effects to happen, I'd say the diet of the person as they grow has a much larger effect. Unless of course most of the gene pool eat shitly for more like 10 generations, then they'll just be fucked flappy jawed yokels.

[NateDawg]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7731139.stm
his voice turns me on