# Universal Genetic Health? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 10, 2023, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-genetic-health/977959 "2023-01-10T09:01:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2023, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-genetic-health/977959/21 "2023-01-10T15:54:18Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Genetic modification of humans is to eugenics what weather engineering is to praying for rain (or perhaps more accurately, sacrificing humans to the rain god). I don’t really think it’s a fair comparison. Eugenics is the goal, whether you do it by breeding or by engineering. You’re being needlessly pedantic. ---
**Author:** ![Celtic\_Kitsune](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/celtic_kitsune/32/12086_2.png) [@Celtic\_Kitsune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Celtic_Kitsune)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2023, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-genetic-health/977959/22 "2023-01-10T15:54:22Z")
> [@Horatius](#): > > Yes, but as with all such hypotheticals, the devil is in the details. We know some people will _want_ designer children, so the question is, _how_ do we implement general genetic editing without allowing designer kids? That’s an entirely different debate though. > [@Babale](#): > > Well, I think that in such a world modifying the human genome would absolutely be the moral thing to do. How much human suffering and death is caused by some random quirk of biology? Evolution isn’t isn’t concerned with morality, or comfort, or suffering. It selects for only one thing - the ability to pass on our genes to the next generation. It isn’t sacred, or intrinsically valuable in any way (besides any survival advantages it may give us, as noted by @MrDibble). So if we can engineer away sickle cell anemia while fighting malaria a different way (we have mastery over genetic code in this scenario, I’m sure we can figure something out), I say DO IT, and I can hardly believe we’re even debating the question. I agree with you, but I can certainly see how it could cause a problem from the law of unintended consequences. Maybe there would be a voluntary population of unmodified humans to keep the gene pool ‘natural’, but then how is that fair on their children who don’t have a choice. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2023, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-genetic-health/977959/23 "2023-01-10T15:58:25Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Eugenics is the goal, whether you do it by breeding or by engineering. You’re being needlessly pedantic Well, for one major difference, under Eugenics people with genes you don’t like must not reproduce, which is going to be morally sketchy whether you are talking about people with life-threatening illnesses that manifest later in life or about people who aren’t blonde haired and blue eyed enough. With genetic modification, any couple can have a baby (hell, even LGBT couples, or groups of more than 2 people, could mix their genetic code and have a baby with this technology). ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2023, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-genetic-health/977959/24 "2023-01-10T15:58:43Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > We may accidentally breed out the one trait that would have protected us from the Great Humanity-Ending Plague of 2199 this way, just because it was linked to one that rendered current people allergic to pickle juice and that was something we wanted eliminated in our kids. > [@Bill\_Door](#): > > Correctly said. Were you to give Australopithecus genetic engineering do you think Homo Sapiens would be the result, or would Lucy have gone for bigger teeth, sharper claws, and warmer fur? Who needs brains and speech if you’ve got physical attributes? We’re not qualified to decide where to go next. This is Luddism applied to biotechnology. Evolution got us here - agonizingly slowly, with a lot of good luck, since the vast majority of species went extinct - through random mutation and natural selection. But that paradigm is not the future of mankind, we can do much better than the glacially slow and uncertain course of random mutation and natural selection. When we have the level of technology to do what OP envisions (which we will), then when faced with the Great Plague of 2199, we will solve _that_ through biotechnology. The idea that as a matter of policy we should hope to survive some future plague because of the chance existence of an unusual natural mutation in a small subset of the population is gruesome. Because the way natural selection works in this scenario is that _everyone else dies_. We are smarter than that, we can do much better than that. Other things being equal, genetic diversity in a population is healthy, and part of the biotech approach envisioned in the OP should be to maintain diversity. But that does not imply that a population that is more diverse _only because of the presences of more deleterious alleles_ is healthier than one without. ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2023, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-genetic-health/977959/25 "2023-01-10T16:00:08Z")
> [@Celtic\_Kitsune](#): > > Maybe there would be a voluntary population of unmodified humans to keep the gene pool ‘natural’, but then how is that fair on their children who don’t have a choice. Really, sci-fi has addressed all these questions already. There was another story (might have been Heinlein?) in which some families were encouraged to be “Control Naturals” by giving them life-long economic incentives to offset their genetic disadvantages. Each generation had to decide for the next whether to stick with that, and know that the kids will always have enough money to live on, or to join in on the genetic engineering. ---
**Author:** ![Chingon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chingon/32/17645_2.png) [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2023, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-genetic-health/977959/26 "2023-01-10T16:00:23Z")
Like moths to the flame, so flock nerds to eugenics. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2023, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-genetic-health/977959/27 "2023-01-10T16:00:30Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > When we have the level of technology to do what OP envisions (which we will), then when faced with the Great Plague of 2199, we will sole _that_ through biotechnology. Not to mention that odds are good that the Great Plague of 2199 is a bioengineered plague that would shred through all natural defenses and can only be stopped by an engineered solution. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2023, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-genetic-health/977959/28 "2023-01-10T16:02:20Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > The idea that as a matter of policy we should hope to survive some future plague because of the existence of an unusual natural mutation in a small subset of the population is gruesome. Because the way natural selection works in this scenario is that _everyone else dies_. We are smarter than that, we can do much better than that Plus, we should certainly catalgoue and store as many genes (and as much information about gene expression) as possible before we make these changes to our genome, so that when the Great Plague does arrive we can look for solutions sitting unutilized in our great genetic library, which we can then deploy using things like engineered retroviruses (see: COVID vaccine). ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2023, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-genetic-health/977959/29 "2023-01-10T16:02:52Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > With genetic modification, any couple can have a baby If the government is _mandating_ that kids be defect-free (even if their parents are not), how is that _not_ eugenics? E.g., see arguments in the deaf community about [intentionally deaf children](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11019-019-09922-6). ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2023, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-genetic-health/977959/30 "2023-01-10T16:03:59Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > But that paradigm is not the future of mankind, we can do much better than random mutation. Sure. Like I said, I’m not opposed to the practice. Just cautious. ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2023, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-genetic-health/977959/31 "2023-01-10T16:04:01Z")
> [@Chingon](#): > > Like moths to the flame, so flock nerds to eugenics. I think a lot of that is because we nerds all have things we’d like to edit out of ourselves. Bad eyesight, overweight, underweight, asthma, nerdlinger syndrome, you name it. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2023, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-genetic-health/977959/32 "2023-01-10T16:06:37Z")
> [@Horatius](#): > > I suspect that within a few generations, only Amish-like religious cults would still be refusing such genetic treatments. Except for some autistic and hearing-impaired people (and possibly other groups) who think their conditions are advantageous and would refuse “Universal Genetic Health”\*. Achieving freedom from genetic diseases through DNA modification (although not universally) is an achievable goal at some time in the future. There’d have to be a way to monitor and correct for continuing mutations due to unstable genomes and environmental mutagens. \*reminds me of Universal Export, the British company that was actually a front for James Bond and his group of merry pranksters. ---
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2023, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-genetic-health/977959/33 "2023-01-10T16:10:49Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Except for some autistic and hearing-impaired people (and possibly other groups) who think their conditions are advantageous and would refuse “Universal Genetic Health”\*. Interesting thing about communities like that - every generation would get a vote for the next generation. If it turns out the current generation decides the previous generation’s decision to not engineer their kids was a mistake, then the next generation will be engineered. I suspect that over time, these communities would gradually shrink, as in every generation, there will be at least a few who think their parents made a mistake, and decide to engineer their own kids. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2023, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-genetic-health/977959/34 "2023-01-10T16:11:48Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > If the government is _mandating_ that kids be defect-free (even if their parents are not), how is that _not_ eugenics? E.g., see arguments in the deaf community about [intentionally deaf children](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11019-019-09922-6) I certainly wouldn’t suggest that the government mandate genetic therapy; I think the benefits are so clear and obvious that widespread adoption within a generation or two wouldn’t require coercion, any more than electrifying your house does. However, even if the government DID mandate genetic therapy, I think there is a big difference between directly targeting harmful genes, and targeting people who possess traits you don’t like. Imagine for a moment that the government engineered a retrovirus which they put into the water supply. Anyone coming into contact with it has their gametes targeted, removing any instances of the genes that cause Huntington’s disease and replacing them with “healthy” genes. People who carry the disease still have their original genome in most of their cells, but any sperm or egg cells they produce will now no longer carry the gene. The disease is gone within a generation. To be clear - I do NOT think the government should do this; I think it would be wrong to impact people in this or any way without their knowledge or consent. I am NOT saying this is a good idea. HOWEVER, I also do not think it is equivalent to eugenics. For example, if the government released a similar retrovirus that sterilized anyone carrying the Huntington’s gene, that would be eugenics, and an order of magnitude more immoral. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2023, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-genetic-health/977959/35 "2023-01-10T16:12:14Z")
> [@Chingon](#): > > Like moths to the flame, so flock nerds to eugenics. The misguided ethical values and bad science of historical advocates of eugenics does not imply that biotechnology is inherently evil and harmful. ---
**Author:** ![Chingon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chingon/32/17645_2.png) [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2023, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-genetic-health/977959/36 "2023-01-10T16:12:36Z")
I find nerds are much more interested in editing others. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2023, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-genetic-health/977959/37 "2023-01-10T16:28:36Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > I certainly wouldn’t suggest that the government mandate genetic therapy But that was the only context in which I was using the word eugenics there. > [@Babale](#): > > HOWEVER, I also do not think it is equivalent to eugenics. Of course it’s still eugenics. “_All_ agencies under human control”, remember? ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2023, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-genetic-health/977959/38 "2023-01-10T16:34:25Z")
Nvm… 5char ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2023, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-genetic-health/977959/39 "2023-01-10T16:37:01Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > > [@Chingon](#): > > > > Like moths to the flame, so flock nerds to eugenics. > > The misguided ethical values and bad science of historical advocates of eugenics does not imply that biotechnology is inherently evil and harmful. Agreed. But it does pretty thoroughly imply that unless the first thing we reengineer is human nature, the very next thing that will be done with many (most?) uses of biotech is apply it in service of misguided ethics and bad science. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2023, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-genetic-health/977959/40 "2023-01-10T16:41:44Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Of course it’s still eugenics. “_All_ agencies under human control”, remember? To me, eugenics involves controlling human reproduction by targeting the humans doing the reproduction, and the targeting of specific genes through gene therapy does not seem to qualify. Certainly, I don’t think individual genes have human rights, so something that targets them directly (like gene therapy) seems qualitatively different than targeting people. But I recognize that this is a semantic difference, and we both agree that government mandated gene therapy is wrong, so I don’t think there’s much point to continue discussing semantics. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-genetic-health/977959.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/universal-genetic-health/977959.md?page=3)