I was just reading Time magazine’s article on epigenetics. Very interesting stuff. The basic idea is that scientists are discovering there are a surprising number of genetic characteristics which are both changeable and inheritable. People have a number of epigenes, which can affect how their genes are expressed based on their environment. And then they can pass on the state of that gene to their offspring.
For example, if you smoke it can cause you to experience various health problems. But it can also cause certain genetic changes that you can pass on to your offspring which may cause them health problems, even if they do not smoke.
This is still a developing field but let’s assume for the sake of argument that the current evidence is verified and this becomes the scientific consensus. One major issue will be how this will affect standards of morality.
Let’s say that some behavior is shown to cause the individual who practices that behavior to have a ten percent decrease in life expentancy. And going beyond that, let’s say this behavior causes all his descendants to have a ten percent decrease in life expectancy for the next ten generations. How does this new wider risk pool alter our perception of right and wrong?
A lot of us would argue that people have a right to practice some behavior even if it is self-harmful. But we also draw the line at behavior that endangers others. Does that line encompass future generations?
I think it’ll move some of the responsibility of moral behavior off of individuals and onto environment. And hopefully we will exert more effort to creating healthy environments knowing that this is necessary to have healthy kids who become well functioning adults.
We already allow people with known faulty genes for various diseases and conditions to procreate.
I have the general sense it is frowned upon to consider it inappropriate for them to procreate. When it comes to genes the general rule seems to be that each person decides for themselves whether or not to pass those along. I don’t see how epigenetics changes that general paradigm.
But some states do (not that 100% agree with it) punish women for taking drugs during pregnancy, as the damage it does to the fetus amounts to child abuse.
If it can be shown that drug (or alchohol, or saturated fat, or whatever) use by either parent long before conception will damage childs epigenetic make up how is that any different ?
Isn’t epigenetics at least partly a vindication of Lamarck? I learned about it recently and found it quite astonishing. All that would be needed to turn this into Lamarckism would be some mechanism by which the epigenetic markers can write back permanent changes to the germ-line DNA - which may yet be discovered.
Sorry that’s not really very on-topic. In terms of morality, is it all that different a thing from, say, making choices that may or may not expose your children to direct risks? (things like their diet, whether you expose them to second-hand smoke, whether you make them wear sunscreen, etc)
I too have independently wondered whether or not this lends some truth to the idea of reparations. It’s very well possible that the higher rates of drug abuse and other medical problems (in various social/racial groups not just one) are due to the legacy of discrimination. It is one thing to give money to a group just because of sheer oppression and lack of opportunity, another if the oppression actually causes more diseases.
We also allow people with innumerable shortcomings in every other area to act freely and raise children, why do you think genes are shockingly different? Being raised by inept or malicious parents can cause irreparable damage to a person just as surely as being born with bad genes (and an inept or malicious parent will pass on their low intelligence, laziness, etc. just fine even without getting into epigenetics).
I think we’re simply discovering more and more that the rules of the game here are fucked up top to bottom, and there’s little we can do about it until we can start engineering better beings.
You’re right of course, for the most obviously harmful things. Some countries disallow physical beatings or starvation and so forth. But there is plenty of ineptitude and maliciousness that goes totally unpunished, and we accept that for what it is, just an unavoidable fact of life as we know it. Parents (and as Wesley Clark pointed out, any one of the infinite uncontrollable factors in environment in general) can still fuck up children’s lives in a thousand different ways without breaking a law.
But really, I don’t think epigenetics brings that much of a moral paradigm shift compared to how we already knew things were with ‘normal’ genetics. What are the moral repercussions of a person genetically inclined to a vindictive and miserable disposition procreating? Even if such a disposition weren’t inheritable at all (hypothetically), how much could they pass on to offspring just by raising them?
To be able to stop someone from doing something for fear of harm to a fetus you must prove that the fetus will exist at some point. To stop me from smoking, eating or drinking things that are perfectly legal because some day I might end up having a child goes beyond the power of our legal system.
There was an episode on Law And Order last night of a mother being locked up for her pregnancy because of her acute alcoholism. She already had one child with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and they were able to get the courts to rule that she was harming her fetus. I don’t know if it was legal or just TV legalism? It would seem to be against her rights.
On the other hand if I could remove a cancer or alcoholism gene and not pass it on it would seem like the right thing to do for my child.
They have identified a gene that goes back generations in a family down south, The McCoys? It causes violent behavior. Even if their children had a perfect upbringing they would have a propensity towards violence because of their DNA.
My gut tells me to avoid messing with mother nature. There is good that can come from it but there is also the OctoMom and abuses that could come from it. Multiple births and picking the sex of the child. Or customizing your child like it is a car. I want a blond and blue eyed girl with an above average IQ and no heart disease.
In China they use ultrasounds to selectively abort female babies. Now there are too many men and not enough women leading to abductions of women. It took 20 years but now they have a problem on their hands.
Still it has great potential in treating serious birth defects and bad genetics.
Perciful, I think you’re confusing genetics and epigenetics. This is analogous to arguments about second-hand smoking - what are the limits to what actions you can take if they could harm others? - and asking if that extends into people who haven’t been (and may never be) born.
Off topic, but I don’t agree that morality grows out of religion. There are plenty of people who have a moral code based on something other than divine will.
Having read a bit about it I think it would make me think harder about doing anything that would hury my children and my childrens, children. It isn’t just me I’m hurting.
“My childrens, childrens, children”, reminds me of a comedy skit. Can’t rememeber their names but very funny. I think they were from Australia?