If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Scientastica)   I'm sorry Mr. Santorum. All 500 of your embryos are gay   (scientastica.com) divider line 29
    More: Scary, eugenics, genetic engineering, implantation, cystic fibrosis, embryos, fertilization, genetic screening, sperm donors  
•       •       •

24418 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 May 2012 at 1:43 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-05-07 12:58:56 PM
4 votes:
Gattaca! Gattaca! Gattaca!
2012-05-07 02:56:46 PM
3 votes:
My dad and brother in law were both adopted. Frankly it really bothers me that people go with in-vitro at all, when there are thousands of kids in foster care at any time and many times that in orphanages outside the country. My family members were lucky, they both had really good homes. I'm sure many of us have known adoptees that didn't.
2012-05-07 02:07:26 PM
3 votes:
oh yea, and
pics.livejournal.com
approves
2012-05-07 02:02:29 PM
2 votes:

Chigau: chaosweaver: The Shatner Incident: If you are paying tens of thousands of dollars to have a a kid that originated in a petri dish, it's just quality control in my mind.

And with the number of slack-jaws, yokels and hill-billies out there breeding like diseaded rabbits, what kind of difference is this brand of 'quality control' supposed to make?

In order for a few test-tube babies to make a difference, we need to also start routinely sterilizing people with fewer teeth than toes.

If i recall correctly, that is where most Eugenics initiatives have lead. It is also the point where most people can seem to agree that the line has been crossed.


Exactly. And now imagine that someone like Rick Santorum gets elected into a position to control that program.
2012-05-07 02:00:47 PM
2 votes:
There's a competitive survival advantage to simply being an aberration.

Take, for example, the left-handed fencer or batter. Let's presume that there is no fundamental superiority of the left-handed brain, it's just the same thing in a mirror image.

Only about 10% of the population is left-handed. Thus a left-handed fencer will have 90% of his experience against right-handed opponents and know how to fight them, but a right-handed fencer will only face a left-handed fencer 10% of the time and will have little experience in this mode.

7 of the 16 top fencers in the world are left-handed, so it basically approaches an equilibrium in the upper leagues. That is, due to this effect, left-handers chew up right-handers due to their experience advantage, until the top ranks where both left-handers and right-handers fight top same-hand and mixed-hand opponents on a 50/50 basis.

In the same way, a left-handed pitcher may confuse both left- AND right-handed batters equally. Regardless of the handedness of the batter, even if they spend weeks training against left-handed pitchers, the bulk of their experience will be with right-handed pitchers and there will be an advantage to the pitcher. This advantage isn't negated against a left-handed batter. The left-handed batter has little experience against left-handed pitchers, but the pitcher still has less experience against left-handed batters.

It's not so much about putting yourself at an advantage, it's about putting the "common" handedness at a disadvantage.
2012-05-07 01:47:41 PM
2 votes:
If you are paying tens of thousands of dollars to have a a kid that originated in a petri dish, it's just quality control in my mind.
2012-05-07 12:46:29 PM
2 votes:

The My Little Pony Killer: Cythraul: I wonder how world filled completely with beautiful, super-intelligent, super-athletic, almost flawless heterosexuals would function?

Ancient Greece would like a word...


"heterosexuality" is not a term that is accurately applied to Ancient Greece.
2012-05-07 12:10:16 PM
2 votes:
Wouldn't it be funny if Santorum's youngest daughter came out as gay? The one that he refused to have aborted?
2012-05-07 11:46:07 AM
2 votes:

Cythraul: I wonder how world filled completely with beautiful, super-intelligent, super-athletic, almost flawless heterosexuals would function?


Ancient Greece would like a word...
2012-05-07 08:29:11 PM
1 votes:
oh for fark's sake.

People are not selecting embryos these days in any accredited ivf center except for:

1) Embryos without genes or variations that cause a fatal disorder and/or
2) Embryos with all 24 chromosomes
3) Sex (yes, sometimes someone wants a girl instead of a boy, or vice versa)

That's it. That's all there is to embryo selection.

Most of the women who cycle don't have enough viable embryos to 'select' on -- they pick the healthiest regardless of sex and hope for the best.

/works in this area
2012-05-07 07:55:50 PM
1 votes:
I recommend Huxley's Brave New World for a read on a society based on genetic conformity.
2012-05-07 04:52:01 PM
1 votes:

This text is now purple: Wayne 985: ladyfortuna: My dad and brother in law were both adopted. Frankly it really bothers me that people go with in-vitro at all, when there are thousands of kids in foster care at any time and many times that in orphanages outside the country. My family members were lucky, they both had really good homes. I'm sure many of us have known adoptees that didn't.

I can understand that. I don't think it bothers me, but I certainly wonder why people don't simply adopt when they're struggling to have kids. HAVING to have your children biological seems kind of narcissistic.

Life is narcissistic.

In most animals, dominant males murder tribe offspring that aren't theirs. Be grateful humans don't practice the natural solution to orphans.


Well, I'm glad we hold ourselves above lions and feral dogs.
2012-05-07 03:57:06 PM
1 votes:
Puppeteer: "When we ask for any member of the Brandt family, every phone in South America rings."

Brant, Brent, Bryant, Bryand, Brandt, Brennt, Bryandt ... let's call the whole thing off!

The thing about breeding for luck is, as one of the characters realises in one of the last of the Ring World novels, is that the people that are lucky don't have to suffer. Nothing really bad ever happens to them. They develop as shallow, narcissitic, aloof individuals who can't empthathize with fallible, unlucky mankind. They become rich sociopathic douchebags even.

Unless they make it to the next level, where luck enrolls you into the School of Hard Knocks and gives you that little touch of humanity, compassion, that gods and demigods so sorely lack.

That's one of the lessons that Star Trek teaches again and again, especially when Khan is involved. His crew of smart asses are sociopaths and pointy-haired bosses (I know that is redundant). They're born back-stabbers and ruthless climbers over the heads of other people.

A society entirely made up of Hawks is doomed to mediocrity because nobody survives long enough to do anything really great. A society entirely made up of Doves will be walked over and destroyed. You need a mixture of Hawks and Doves and the various other types of gameplayers to maximize social value.

If one type prevails, the other type becomes more valuable.

My ancestor in the paternal line and his descendants produced more daughters than sons as a rule. In a society where males are overvalued, daughters can be a clever work-around because they have scarcity value. It's probably no accident that this ancestor was descended from Norsemen and came from a region which produced many lawyers, soldiers and priests. When you upset the natural balance and equilibrium between different values or genetic advantages, the winners can become losers and the losers winners.

Too many priests will destroy a family line, or else give rise to survivors who are largely atheists or businessmen or engineers and scientists--people unconcerned with religion.

Too many soldiers leave all the women at home with the lovers, not the fighters.

And so it goes, and so it goes.

Breeding for luck would enhance the value of certain kinds of lucklessness, namely foolhardiness, courage, experimentalism, and the wisdom that comes from suffering. The logical conclusion would be to produce a Buddha or high stakes gamblers to counter the mediocrity of luck produced by everybody being lucky.

The puppeteers who manipulated the human race, the Hindmost leaders of the Puppeteer Race, were themselves freaks, namely puppeteers who needed a bit of excitement and who could deal with aliens and other risks. They rose to the top by virtue of being insane in Puppeteer terms.

In a similar way, Nietzsche observes that humans value the "virtues" (and "vices) that are most difficult for them. A saint is a person who does something that is hard for everybody else: putting others ahead of himself, eschewing wealth, power, glory, fame, praise, etc., for a dirty, humble and difficult life.

Breeding for any trait is bound to go too far. You get the Boxers with their weak legs, the Collies with their narrow skulls and moronic crushed little brains, and many other unintended consequences, usually what the Greeks would consider "excess".

Indeed, Greeks were great preachers, not of perfection, but perfectability and moderation. As Aristole points out, what is a moderate steak for an athlete in training is not a moderate steak for a philosopher whose only exercise is mild calestentics in the gym and walking in the Agora or Stoia.

For me, a moderate steak is under a pound, even half a pound, and very tender. For you, perhaps a steak four times the size would be just right.

People worrry about idiots outbreeding the intelligent, clever and superior. It'll never happen. The more idiots you get, the more advantage there is to being cleverl, intelligent, and superior. The problem of natural selection tends to be self-correcting. The more stupid people breed, the more stupid people there are for the smart people to govern, rob or care for. The more the value of being one of the smart minority. If you forced really smart people to breed, you know what you'd get? My guess is you are getting it: asthmatic, fat, autistic children. The children of brilliant parents would naturally regress toward the mean, since it is highly unlikely they will be in the small minority of off-spring who combine the best traits of their parents, but they might even be dumber than expected, regressing a lot further than the mean because their fricking parents are both geeks or nerds.

As Albert Einstein is aid to have replied to Marilyn Monroe when she joked about marrying him, "But what if the children got my looks and your brains?"

I expect that is apocryphal. I don't think Norma Jean was as dumb as she looked. For one thing, she wasn't as blonde as she looked.
2012-05-07 03:42:34 PM
1 votes:

Cythraul: I'm not sure what that has to do with genetic stagnation. Seems to me what you used as an example has more to do with the near complete loss of a staple food source.


I'm speaking of the potatoes themselves, not the people.

The Irish Potato Famine was caused because the Irish farmers almost exclusively cultivated a single variety of potato -- a monoculture. While that variety had very good crop yields, it was also completely defenseless against the potato blight fungus. Because that variety represented the vast majority of the species, it was nearly driven to extinction by the blight. Naturally that near-extinction had a cascade effect on other species.
2012-05-07 03:12:29 PM
1 votes:

Khellendros: ladyfortuna:
Couples want to adopt a child they can nurture and raise as their own. Most of them don't want to provide a temporary home to a detached child who will bounce in and out of therapy until age 18. Thus the disconnect. The "damaged" children are pretty easy to place, if someone wants them. There are parents who will happily take a newborn/infant. But these two groups don't meet in the middle. Convincing Betsy Sue to give up her baby at birth won't happen, and convincing Preston and Dakota to adopt a 6 year old with ADD and attachment disorder won't happen. So you have couples without children, and children without parents.


I don't particularly want kids myself and can't have one anyway, but at least minor challenges [for most cases] like ADD (which I have myself) are something I would work around if I actually wanted a kid in my life. That's an incredibly lame reason not to adopt.
2012-05-07 03:02:13 PM
1 votes:

ladyfortuna: My dad and brother in law were both adopted. Frankly it really bothers me that people go with in-vitro at all, when there are thousands of kids in foster care at any time and many times that in orphanages outside the country. My family members were lucky, they both had really good homes. I'm sure many of us have known adoptees that didn't.


There are LOADS of people who want to adopt. Literally tens of thousands who are trying to adopt (through both state and private means). And there are tens of thousands of children in orphanages and temporary foster care. The problem is that the couples want infants, and the orphanages are filled with children that are 4+ years old. Many have tons of mental issues, emotional issues, and physical problems.

Most all of the stories are similar - young couple/single mom has a child, doesn't have the means, experience, or ability to raise the child. Things spiral out of control for a few years until they decide they can't handle it, or the state takes the child away for neglect/abuse/parents in jail. By then the child is seriously damaged, and goes into the system. These kids have attachment disorders, rage problems, physical ailments from all forms of abuse, or have just generally shut down.

Couples want to adopt a child they can nurture and raise as their own. Most of them don't want to provide a temporary home to a detached child who will bounce in and out of therapy until age 18. Thus the disconnect. The "damaged" children are pretty easy to place, if someone wants them. There are parents who will happily take a newborn/infant. But these two groups don't meet in the middle. Convincing Betsy Sue to give up her baby at birth won't happen, and convincing Preston and Dakota to adopt a 6 year old with ADD and attachment disorder won't happen. So you have couples without children, and children without parents.
2012-05-07 03:00:38 PM
1 votes:

ladyfortuna: My dad and brother in law were both adopted. Frankly it really bothers me that people go with in-vitro at all, when there are thousands of kids in foster care at any time and many times that in orphanages outside the country. My family members were lucky, they both had really good homes. I'm sure many of us have known adoptees that didn't.


I can understand that. I don't think it bothers me, but I certainly wonder why people don't simply adopt when they're struggling to have kids. HAVING to have your children biological seems kind of narcissistic.
2012-05-07 02:31:14 PM
1 votes:

psunbird92: Cannot wait until the "gay" trait/gene is discovered. Watch as scores of left leaning individuals turn pro life faster than you can say furious.


I'm pro-abortion. If religious zealots want to abort their fetuses because they are found to have a gene for homosexuality, they should have every right to do so.

ANY woman should at ANY time have the right to abort a fetus growing within her body for ANY reason.
2012-05-07 02:26:00 PM
1 votes:

Donnchadha: Gattaca! Gattaca! Gattaca!


i61.photobucket.com
2012-05-07 02:17:56 PM
1 votes:

Mugato: Hitler really put the kibosh on the whole eugenics thing (as well as that mustache style) and turned everyone off to it but as a function of making our species better and speeding up what natural selection is going to do anyway.....there's little argument against it.


Michael Jordan is taking it back.
2012-05-07 02:17:48 PM
1 votes:

Oznog: Only about 10% of the population is left-handed. Thus a left-handed fencer will have 90% of his experience against right-handed opponents and know how to fight them, but a right-handed fencer will only face a left-handed fencer 10% of the time and will have little experience in this mode.


Comedy is watching two left-handed novice fencers fence each other. They are typically completely ignorant of same-handed fencing tactics, so the result is something akin to a monkey humping a football.
2012-05-07 02:15:06 PM
1 votes:

psunbird92: Cannot wait until the "gay" trait/gene is discovered. Watch as scores of left leaning individuals turn pro life faster than you can say furious.


You mean after the right leaning folks get abortions in record numbers to get rid of teh ghey?
2012-05-07 02:07:55 PM
1 votes:

chaoswolf: I don't believe that being given full control over the genetic makeup of future progeny, as long as each existing human gets to modify their own offspring, will necessarily end up with homogeneity.


It's mostly going to be used for disease prevention, I'd bet. Most people aren't actually all that dickish and are willing to let their kid have whatever hair color or height they want, but now that we can screen for them honestly I'd call intentionally having a kid with a severe genetic disorder pretty severe child abuse.

I mean, the designer children dicks will _exist_, in the same way that there are people that use cosmetic surgery to make themselves look like a cat, but honestly most of the human race is perfectly fine with the natural order so long as it doesn't actually place them at risk or dramatically inconvenience them.
2012-05-07 02:03:43 PM
1 votes:

Leeds: FTFA:

Bioinformatic studies have identified genes contributing to athletic performance, intelligence, height, myopia, mental health, homosexuality, and artistic talent.
Children's attributes are limited by their parent's genetic contributions and rearing environment,

So let me get this "straight," according to this article is homosexuality due to genetics or "rearing?"

// Probably lots and lots of rearing going on in the gay community, which might make this harder to answer...


They're missing a third, possibility more important element: hormones in the womb. As a woman bears more male children, each successive son has a higher chance of being gay. It's been traced to changes in womb hormones as more sons are born. It's probably something to do with increasing the number of helpers and adoptive parents available to therefore increase the likelihood of child survival on a tribe or extended family level.

Sorry folks, your son still might be gay no matter how you tweak the genes.
2012-05-07 02:01:03 PM
1 votes:
Right now this technology is expensive and only the very rich can take advantage.
But it wont be this way forever. within decades the upper middle class will have access to it and soon there the actual middle class.

Once this happens the snowball will get started with the easy things, fatal genetic defects (why would you bring a living thing into the world to suffer? the argument will go).

Then it will get expanded to less fatal but still "bad" genetic "defects" such as diabetes, or slow metabolisms and gland issues that will inevitably cause morbid obesity. Still an easy argument for doing genetic screening, why would you want offspring that will get sick with something, when you can prevent it even before they are born?

Then little by little the less easy traits will start to get consideration...height, intelligence, bad vision. We ALREADY takes steps to correct these "issues". If a kid is in the bottom 5% for height insurance will growth hormone treatment. Its a valid quality of life issue. Same with contacts and eventually lasik... And dont we spend trillions educating our kids and stimulating them intellectually so they are more intelligent?

This is inevitable.
2012-05-07 01:58:46 PM
1 votes:

chaosweaver: The Shatner Incident: If you are paying tens of thousands of dollars to have a a kid that originated in a petri dish, it's just quality control in my mind.

And with the number of slack-jaws, yokels and hill-billies out there breeding like diseaded rabbits, what kind of difference is this brand of 'quality control' supposed to make?

In order for a few test-tube babies to make a difference, we need to also start routinely sterilizing people with fewer teeth than toes.


If i recall correctly, that is where most Eugenics initiatives have lead. It is also the point where most people can seem to agree that the line has been crossed.
2012-05-07 01:53:33 PM
1 votes:
FTA: Careful administration of follicle stimulating hormone can stimulate ovaries to produce as many as 70 mature eggs at once.

I thought women are born with a fixed amount of eggs (400?) and they take their turns to come out. Can a woman "produce" more eggs, or is it a poor choice of word on the author's part?
2012-05-07 12:36:00 PM
1 votes:
blogs.discovermagazine.com
2012-05-07 11:47:14 AM
1 votes:

Cythraul: I wonder how world filled completely with beautiful, super-intelligent, super-athletic, almost flawless heterosexuals would function?


Are you Hilter?
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report