View Poll Results: Societal and Scientific Emphasis on Genetics

Voters
6. You may not vote on this poll
  • Science/Society lays far too much importance on Genetics! Environmental Factors are of equal, if not greater, significance

    0 0%
  • Science/Society places the right amount of emphasis upon Genetics, realizing the information that our genes withhold, yet also seeing its inability to dictate everything.

    1 16.67%
  • Research Regarding Genetics is too restricted to the Medical/Health Field, whereas the influence in genetics expands far beyond simply that.

    5 83.33%
  • Other.

    0 0%
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Emphasis Placed Upon Genetics in Society

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 27th, 2006 @ 09:12 AM
    Subrace
    Other
    Gender
    Politics
    Race Realism/Hereditarian
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    598
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Question Emphasis Placed Upon Genetics in Society

    Elaboration on your choice is encouraged.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, December 11th, 2006 @ 02:51 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    2,312
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Trønder
    Elaboration on your choice is encouraged.
    Today a friend told me the following on IM which shows how restricted the freedom of man and the application of gene-technology even in the US is, not to mention Europe:

    >I was just reading an article about genetic selection yesterday!
    >Some clinics on the East Coast were expermenting with this procedure to remove a certain defective, disease-causing gene from these women who were patients at fertility clinincs..
    >The women consented, but the FDA found out about it and forced them to stop.
    >The experiment Doctors were doing something to help the parents select the healthiest/least diseased embryo to implant. The woman they interviewed for the article said that they had been trying for years to get pregnant and she had had 7 miscarriages before this clinic helped her get and stay pregnant (she had a son).
    >It sounded just fine to me... everyone consented and now these people have the healthy brats that they wanted.
    >So why on earth the FDA had to swoop in and screw things up is beyond my ability to understand.
    >The FDA said that the Docs first had to go through the FDA experiment application/procedure and get their work approved for experiment...
    >Well, every American knows that it takes *years* for the FDA to approve anything...
    >Even experimental studies can take forever to get the rubber stamp from the Feds, and in the mean time, people die and people loose forever their chance to have children.
    >The article was in Ladies Home Journal.
    .

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 27th, 2006 @ 09:12 AM
    Subrace
    Other
    Gender
    Politics
    Race Realism/Hereditarian
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    598
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post On a side, but relevent, note...

    I recall watching a documentary on whether or not extensive Genetic Research should be conducted upon the indigenous population of Iceland, as their gene pool was thought to be the world's most homogeneous(recent studies say otherwise?).

    Regardless, the case against the research being done was based around the fact that a disadvantage would be placed upon those shown to have special and unique conditions.

    One women who had a history of medical problems who vehemently opposed the pending study voiced concern over the possibility of her descendents being denied medical insurance in the future if it was indeed discovered that her genes were responsible for her run of bad health.

    I suppose it could be deemed "unfair" for one to be denied medical insurance based around something that is beyond their realm of control, yet when put in perspective, the practice can be justified.

    There is a partial, if not significant, correlation between
    intelligence and genetics. If one fails at attaining a moderate standard of living, or is rejected after applying at a post-secondary institution, it could also be said that it truly isn't their fault. After all, they had no say in their genetic composition.

    Thoughts?

  4. #4
    Senior Member Stríbog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Last Online
    Wednesday, January 12th, 2005 @ 11:45 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid-Baltid (Aistin)
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Where Rust Belt meets Farm Belt
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Occupation
    college student
    Politics
    Environmentalism and eugenics
    Religion
    occultism & Nature worship
    Posts
    2,163
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Post

    This is a complex issue. I think progress in genetics is great and that situations like the one Thorburn described are stupid and avoidable. However, I'm not sure how to reconcile personal freedoms with the growing intrusion that corporate knowledge of one's genetic makeup would cause. My instinct right now is to keep genetic testing voluntary, allowing parents to make embryo decisions based on genetic results, etc. but not to force people to divulge their genetic profile for insurance, academic applications, etc. I think that such would violate a right to privacy.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, December 11th, 2006 @ 02:51 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    2,312
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post

    Surely, the use of genetic information and the authorization of changes in the genetic structure of one's body or offspring must stay voluntary, but they ought in no way be forbidden, restricted or prohibited.

    And with that I refer not only to eugenic modifications, such as the elimination of defective genes and genetic diseases, or eugenic embryonic selections. If someone wants to give his child blonde hair or blue eyes (the nightmare of all Christians, leftists and egalitarians), or a combo of 200 genes related to brain structure which was discovered in highly gifted children, that's perfectly fine, as far as it concerns me.

    In the end, everyone wants the strongest, most healthy, beautiful, talented and intelligent children with the best character, so the issue will sort itself out for the best of humanity.

    I am absolutely against "singling out" people with genetic defects or otherwise negative predispostions for insurance purposes, though. I would consider that unfair and inhuman, and their "burden" should be carried by the society, i. e. the collective of people with health insurance. In fact, in most European countries such practices of "singling out" persons based on a bad health record or negative genetic patterns would be already now downright illegal.
    .

Similar Threads

  1. Why Do You Put So Much Emphasis on Being "Germanic"?
    By UnregisteredGuest in forum Questions About Germanics
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: Sunday, August 29th, 2010, 09:36 AM
  2. Albanian Genetics
    By Dukagjin in forum Population Genetics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, February 15th, 2007, 02:11 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: Tuesday, October 26th, 2004, 12:15 PM
  4. Jewish Genetics
    By Prodigal Son in forum Population Genetics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, October 2nd, 2003, 04:53 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •