Is this eugenics ?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Mar 28, 2015 4:41 pm

In the past year, about 165,000 couples have decided not to get married after receiving test results showing "genetic incompatibilities", the Saudi Gazette website reports. The tests are mandatory for couples who are planning to tie the knot.

Saudi Gazette

Would this ever be allowed in the west ?

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Mar 28, 2015 5:19 pm

I think the test is a good idea.

And should be allowed. Informed decisions are usually best.

I would rather know ahead of time that having children may be a bad idea, were I planning to marry, these days.

Not sure I care for the mandatory part of that, though.

Post by **spot** » Sat Mar 28, 2015 8:23 pm

The tests are mandatory but the decision isn't. The country's health service, if it has one (and I assume Saudi Arabia does have one) has a stake in the decision since genetic mismatches can result in major health expenses.

It's a thin end of a wedge. It's not much farther to say "you're barred by law from passing that gene to a new generation" - the one for sickle-cell anemia springs to mind, it's very specific. The problem with making the tests optional is that most people would refuse to have them made, most people being selfish buggers.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:04 am

Bruv;1476882 wrote: In the past year, about 165,000 couples have decided not to get married after receiving test results showing "genetic incompatibilities", the Saudi Gazette website reports. The tests are mandatory for couples who are planning to tie the knot.

Saudi Gazette

Would this ever be allowed in the west ?

Isn't there something about having to have a blood test in America? I don't know what the system is there, but in movies it always seems to be that they have to get a blood test before getting married, although I've never really understood why.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 6:44 am

FourPart;1476892 wrote: Isn't there something about having to have a blood test in America? I don't know what the system is there, but in movies it always seems to be that they have to get a blood test before getting married, although I've never really understood why.

There was a time when a blood test was required in many states. The tests were to screen for Syphilis, which was fairly common in the early 20th century. Also some screening was done for TB and rubella.

Those were mostly abandoned in the 70s.

Though now some states are wanting to screen for HIV.

Montana is now the only state that still requires a premarital blood test.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 8:02 am

It was the mandatory part that was the concern, if acting on the results is optional then there are a lot of hard decisions being forced on people.

The next question is should we adopt the same sort of practice, especially where we know that there is a hight risk.

I understand the Saudis are more likely to marry cousins than we do, hence the tests.

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 8:34 am

Bruv;1476906 wrote: I understand the Saudis are more likely to marry cousins than we do, hence the tests.I suspect that a Saudi attempting marriage today has a lot more cousins than the average Englishman, what with larger families on average and - what's that word for what Saudi men do, not promiscuity but similar. Polygamy, that's it. If your average potential Saudi grandad with the libido of a racehorse has twenty or thirty children and a dozen similarly-endowed brothers then each of his offspring has a higher chance of marrying a cousin than the mewling spawn of some effete undersexed Home Counties office worker.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 9:06 am

Bruv;1476882 wrote: In the past year, about 165,000 couples have decided not to get married after receiving test results showing "genetic incompatibilities", the Saudi Gazette website reports. The tests are mandatory for couples who are planning to tie the knot.

Saudi Gazette

Would this ever be allowed in the west ?
Goodness! The job of the match-maker and arranged-marriage entrepreneur get tougher by the day. I wonder if Our Lord will be screening all 72 virgins with equal solemnity?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:33 am

High Threshold;1476909 wrote: Goodness! The job of the match-maker and arranged-marriage entrepreneur get tougher by the day. I wonder if Our Lord will be screening all 72 virgins with equal solemnity?
That's another thing I've never understood. If, as per the Religious Credo, sex is for the sole purpose of proceation, then what is the purpose of all those virgins after they're dead?

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:58 am

FourPart;1476912 wrote: what is the purpose of all those virgins after they're dead?

Right now I'd happily settle for a place in Paradise with one mixing my drinks, another easing my shoulders and a group in the corner re-enacting a Floral Dance. I have simple tastes.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:23 pm

FourPart;1476912 wrote: That's another thing I've never understood. If, as per the Religious Credo, sex is for the sole purpose of proceation, then what is the purpose of all those virgins after they're dead?
Now you're using too much logic .... and you're dragging me along with you.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:14 pm

spot;1476907 wrote: I suspect that a Saudi attempting marriage today has a lot more cousins than the average Englishman, what with larger families on average and - what's that word for what Saudi men do, not promiscuity but similar. Polygamy, that's it. If your average potential Saudi grandad with the libido of a racehorse has twenty or thirty children and a dozen similarly-endowed brothers then each of his offspring has a higher chance of marrying a cousin than the mewling spawn of some effete undersexed Home Counties office worker.

Are you seriously saying that a Saudi has more of a libido than the average Englishman ?

Nothing to do with opportunity, due to cultural differences ?

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:53 pm

My word yes, there's not much else to think about when you're stuck on a camel for the best part of a week. What with that and the sand getting everywhere it's only surprising there's not more of them.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:18 pm

spot;1476918 wrote: My word yes, there's not much else to think about when you're stuck on a camel for the best part of a week. What with that and the sand getting everywhere it's only surprising there's not more of them.
Seems to me that an average Friday night in Essex affords unlimited, cultural availability - much more than what you'd find in any other morally uninhibited desert.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 5:06 am

spot;1476918 wrote: My word yes, there's not much else to think about when you're stuck on a camel for the best part of a week. What with that and the sand getting everywhere it's only surprising there's not more of them.

Sorry you are off on one of your whimsical flights of fantasy again, and I thought you was being serious.

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 5:08 am

High Threshold;1476924 wrote: Seems to me that an average Friday night in Essex affords unlimited, cultural availability - much more than what you'd find in any other morally uninhibited desert.
Indeed so. You are quite correct. That's why cultural availability has very little effect on the number of cousins you might have, whereas libido (reinforced when you're stuck on a camel for the best part of a week with sand getting everywhere) gives your grandchildren hundreds of them. Your effete undersexed Home Counties office worker may well be surrounded by rampant totty waving its knickers in the air but prefers an ineffective blitzed drunken punch-up any day, because your effete undersexed Home Counties office worker is a prat.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 6:55 am

Yes, it is eugenics. Why is that necessarily bad word? We've manipulated the genetics of almost every animal on earth except ourselves. It's inevitable.

Doctor: We have discovered that your baby is genetically pre-disposed towards childhood leukemia, would you like us to fix that?

Mother: Yes, please.

A decade later:

Doctor: What color would you like your child's eye's to be? Do you want the extra-intelligence upgrade? What about the beauty package? You do know that good looking people have an advantage in society.

A century from now:

Doctor: We have a new series where your child is born with extra back and chest muscles and a hollow skeleton so that they can supper the angel's wings. Or would you prefer the amphibious package with gills for the new underwater cities?

Don't laugh, don't act surprised...this is all coming. And for better or worse only time will tell.

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 7:04 am

Saint_;1476934 wrote: Doctor: We have discovered that your baby is genetically pre-disposed towards childhood leukemia, would you like us to fix that?I'll tell you what, you come back and bump the thread when a doctor can actually routinely offer that as a treatment - or are you not implying routinely? We could, if you like, have a bet on when it might be. My money's on 2060.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 7:16 am

You do know that medicine is advancing exponentially, right?

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 7:22 am

Saint_;1476936 wrote: You do know that medicine is advancing exponentially, right?

I don't understand your sentence, it appears meaningless. What are you measuring that's exponential? Average lifespan? Cost?

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:10 am

Saint_;1476934 wrote: Yes, it is eugenics. Why is that necessarily bad word? We've manipulated the genetics of almost every animal on earth except ourselves. It's inevitable.

Doctor: We have discovered that your baby is genetically pre-disposed towards childhood leukemia, would you like us to fix that?

Mother: Yes, please.

A decade later:

Doctor: What color would you like your child's eye's to be? Do you want the extra-intelligence upgrade? What about the beauty package? You do know that good looking people have an advantage in society.

A century from now:

Doctor: We have a new series where your child is born with extra back and chest muscles and a hollow skeleton so that they can supper the angel's wings. Or would you prefer the amphibious package with gills for the new underwater cities?

Don't laugh, don't act surprised...this is all coming. And for better or worse only time will tell.
We're safe. Al Qaida and ISIS will never allow it to happen.

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:24 am

High Threshold;1476938 wrote: We're safe. Al Qaida and ISIS will never allow it to happen.

There are various bogus timelines in the world. The only one I can think of that's less accurate than the "we'll all have routine genetic engineering tailored to mend our own personal illness within five years" type comment, which has been running since 1990, is the "If we don't bomb Iran's nuclear facilities they'll have a number of deliverable nuclear devices within five (or two when the rhetoric escalated) years" type comment which as been running even longer. There's a gathering of quotes at Iran’s Ever Imminent Nukes: A History of Hysteria by Muhammad Sahimi -- Antiwar.com - start reeding at "in April 1984, Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that West German intelligence believed that Iran could have a nuclear bomb within two years".

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:36 am

spot;1476939 wrote: ..... There's a gathering of quotes at Iran’s Ever Imminent Nukes: A History of Hysteria by Muhammad Sahimi -- Antiwar.com - start reeding at "in April 1984, Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that West German intelligence believed that Iran could have a nuclear bomb within two years".
I'm clicking as we speak.

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:48 am

Saint_;1476934 wrote: We've manipulated the genetics of almost every animal on earth except ourselves.While I'm at it, I'd estimate as a ball-park figure that the human race has manipulated the genetics of under one thousandth of the animal species on earth.

Species count put at 8.7 million - BBC News : approximate animal species count, 5 million

Domestic Animal Extinction : The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) says there are more than 4,000 breeds of domestic animals and birds in the world.

Note that breeds are not even species.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:03 am

spot;1476937 wrote: I don't understand your sentence, it appears meaningless. What are you measuring that's exponential? Average lifespan? Cost?

lol. By "exponential" I meant that advances in genetics and medicine in general are occurring at an exponentially increasing rate. In addition, the cost of sequencing genomes is falling exponentially. Your estimate of 45 more years in the future for genetic technology to have immediate value to the common man is far too long in light of this trend. I'd guess more like 20 years and even that may be too much. Genetic technology will definitely be both this current generation's greatest moral problem and greatest potential solution.

this article suggests that 15 to 25 years will see remarkable changes. I'd forgotten to add both agricultural genetic advancement (insect and drought resistant crops or example) and environmental genetic advancements (such as changing waste materials to raw materials and biodegradable plastics.)

From:Genetic Engineering: The Past, Present, and Future

By: Norell Hadzimichalis, Phd

Genetic Engineering: The Past, Present, and Future - Page 4 of 5 - The Future of Human Evolution

"With regards to the in utero potential for genetic engineering, future applications are as endless as one’s imagination. From a medical perspective, scientists envision eradication of a majority of inheritable diseases and the need for many vaccinations. From a social perspective, they foresee the ability to make physical (changes in strength, height, and appearance) and cerebral enhancements (changes in intelligence and personality). Similarly, future applications for genetic engineering include the ability to preferentially modify livestock and genetically alter other animals including race horses for desired characteristics. The achievability of this approach, while riddled with ethical concerns, has already been demonstrated in animal models. “Arnold Schwarzenegger mice, developed by Dr. Nadia Rosenthal at Harvard University, are the result of in utero insertion of the insulin-like growth factor type 1 gene into mice embryos. Data indicate that these transgenic mice did not exhibit typical age-related muscular degeneration and were reported to be larger and more muscular than normal mice. While Dr. Rosenthal does not plan to expand this work to human embryos, the exciting future potential for other researchers is clear (Gene Boosts Muscle Strength).

In conclusion, despite practical and ethical roadblocks to the development of genetic engineering, it is clear that these methods will shape the future of world. The applications are infinite and the promises are unprecedented. In just 25 short years, science progressed from possibility to the 1997 public announcement of the cloning of Dolly, the world’s most famous sheep. The 15 years since that announcement have been remarkable in expanding on and refining the field. Currently, gene therapy is being explored therapeutically in clinical trials and also in practice. Agricultural methods are forever changed and the environment is thriving from decreased waste products. While the road ahead to complete elimination of disease and safe enhancements of human characteristics is long and arduous, it will be exciting to see where science takes us in the next 15 to 25 years."

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:06 am

spot;1476942 wrote: While I'm at it, I'd estimate as a ball-park figure that the human race has manipulated the genetics of under one thousandth of the animal species on earth.

OK, I should have said "We have manipulated just about every animal that mattered to us genetically."

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:24 am

Saint_;1476944 wrote: OK, I should have said "We have manipulated just about every animal that mattered to us genetically."

You mean domesticated? It's shameful that you can even think the other 99.9% of animals don't matter to us, whether in terms of their genes or in any other way. That's the sort of blinkered bible-thumping "God put them here for our use" approach which is driving today's human-induced mass extinction event.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:40 am

spot;1476946 wrote: You mean domesticated? It's shameful that you can even think the other 99.9% of animals don't matter to us, whether in terms of their genes or in any other way. That's the sort of blinkered bible-thumping "God put them here for our use" approach which is driving today's human-induced mass extinction event.

Oh not at all, you misread my intent and inferred something that is not there. Just because I mentioned the genetic manipulation of species that we use for food and production doesn't mean that I disregard all the other animals. As a matter of fact, one of the things that eugenics will do is protect and increase endangered species.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:46 am

Saint_;1476934 wrote: Yes, it is eugenics. Why is that necessarily bad word? We've manipulated the genetics of almost every animal on earth except ourselves. It's inevitable.................................................................Don't laugh, don't act surprised...this is all coming. And for better or worse only time will tell.

Who said it was bad ?

Apart from the exaggeration (for effect I suspect) we have been controlling the world and it's wild life since we arrived.

Transforming forests into pasture, burning fossil fuels, tampering with domesticated animals to increase yield, and many more ways.

At the same time we have been genetically tweaking our selves, knowingly or not. You can't immunise a large proportion of any population, introduce antiseptics, antibiotics, allowing survival of many that would otherwise have died without altering evolution and so genetics.

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:00 am

Saint_;1476947 wrote: As a matter of fact, one of the things that eugenics will do is protect and increase endangered species.

I can just imagine Teddy Roosevelt saying that as he headed off on yet another safari with his elephant guns.

eta: the three biggest factors killing wildlife are loss of habitat, loss of habitat and loss of habitat. How the hell eugenics is meant to tackle that I have no idea at all.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Mon Mar 30, 2015 11:17 am

spot;1476939 wrote: ..... There's a gathering of quotes at Iran’s Ever Imminent Nukes: A History of Hysteria by Muhammad Sahimi -- Antiwar.com
My head is swimming. I've read the whole thing now. I suppose we should assume that Iran already has 25 times more nuclear weapons than all other nations of the world put together?

I don't know. I've heard and read so much about the threat from Iran, Al Qaida, ISIS, Hizbollah and the striking American postal workers. I'm a simple guy really. “Obviously you may say. To me it's all a load of “he said, she said and I still (and always will) believe that if you push anyone into a corner he will come out fighting, grabbing anything within reach with which to defend himself. Sorry to speak in high, well-over-my-head tones, but I think Iran deserves to have the bomb. The most treacherous nations upon the earth already have them. Why shouldn't Iran (a nation that has been mistreated more than most others) have the capabilities to defend itself? IT SHOULD. The nuclear bomb in the hands of the Iranians is more a measure of “deterrent than nations as the U.S. and Israel and Russia ¦ all of whom claim their bombs for that purpose.

So speculating on Iran's capabilities is a footnote as far as I'm concerned. More power to them says I.

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 6:08 am

Saint_;1476943 wrote: lol. By "exponential" I meant that advances in genetics and medicine in general are occurring at an exponentially increasing rate. In addition, the cost of sequencing genomes is falling exponentially. Your estimate of 45 more years in the future for genetic technology to have immediate value to the common man is far too long in light of this trend. I'd guess more like 20 years and even that may be too much. Genetic technology will definitely be both this current generation's greatest moral problem and greatest potential solution.

Here we are - from today's SMH, before we get too excited...The Chinese researchers did not plan to produce a baby - they used defective human embryos - but did hope to end up with an embryo with a precisely altered gene in every cell but no other inadvertent DNA damage. None of the 85 human embryos they injected fulfilled those criteria. In almost every case, either the embryo died or the gene was not altered. Even the four embryos in which the targeted gene was edited had problems. Some of the embryo cells overrode the editing, resulting in embryos that were genetic mosaics. And speckled over their DNA was a sort of collateral damage - DNA mutations caused by the editing attempt.

"Their study should give pause to any practitioner who thinks the technology is ready for testing to eradicate disease genes during IVF," said Dr. George Q. Daley, a stem cell researcher at Harvard, referring to in vitro fertilisation. "This is an unsafe procedure and should not be practiced at this time, and perhaps never."

David Baltimore, a Nobel laureate molecular biologist and former president of the California Institute of Technology, said, "It shows how immature the science is," adding, "We have learned a lot from their attempts, mainly about what can go wrong."

Chinese scientists conducted feared experiment, editing genes of human embryos

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 7:19 am

Eugenics is fine in theory, but I can see it being seriously misused by Governments,the military,criminals and unscrupulous private corporations and labs. Running before we can walk?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:49 am

Most things can be fine in theory, but most things are also capable of being abused.

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 11:09 am

FourPart;1478151 wrote: Most things can be fine in theory, but most things are also capable of being abused.

spot quietly puts the packet of Jaffa cakes back into the cupboard.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 11:23 am

spot;1478162 wrote: spot quietly puts the packet of Jaffa cakes back into the cupboard.

Lets be honest ! Who amongst us can, hand on heart, say they have never abused a packet of Jaffa cakes ?

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 3:44 pm

Snowfire;1478166 wrote: Lets be honest ! Who amongst us can, hand on heart, say they have never abused a packet of Jaffa cakes ?

I never have abused a packet of Jaffa Cakes.

I treat them with reverence, and finish every crumb.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Apr 24, 2015 9:38 pm

LarsMac;1478184 wrote: I never have abused a packet of Jaffa Cakes.

I treat them with reverence, and finish every crumb.
Jaffa Cakes abused the Tax Laws. The challenged the VAT laws to prove they were cakes, as opposed to chocolate biscuits, so as to avoid being subject to VAT.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 6:02 am

FourPart;1478191 wrote: Jaffa Cakes abused the Tax Laws. The challenged the VAT laws to prove they were cakes, as opposed to chocolate biscuits, so as to avoid being subject to VAT.

Whether they are cakes or biscuits, or just plain old cookies, makes me no nevermind. They are tasty little morsels of junk food that are hard to come by on this side of the Atlantic. And frankly, y'all have some pretty strange tax laws if you gonna fight over a bunch of cookies.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 6:19 am

LarsMac;1478206 wrote: frankly, y'all have some pretty strange tax laws if you gonna fight over a bunch of cookies.
Hah! The last UK Election back in 2010 was fought primarily on the nature of taxation as applied to the Cornish Pasty.

You don't believe me, do you.

Hang on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasty_tax

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22521314

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 6:25 am

LarsMac;1478206 wrote: Whether they are cakes or biscuits, or just plain old cookies, makes me no nevermind. They are tasty little morsels of junk food that are hard to come by on this side of the Atlantic. And frankly, y'all have some pretty strange tax laws if you gonna fight over a bunch of cookies.

It's what our successive governments seem to be very good at. Finding more and more imaginative ways of extracting our hard earned in the form of taxes.

We used to laugh at school when told of the beard tax imposed on us by Old 'enery back in the days along with....

Brick tax

Hearth tax

Wallpaper tax

Glass tax

Nothing has changed

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 6:33 am

Snowfire;1478209 wrote: We used to laugh at school when told of the beard tax imposed on us by Old 'enery back in the days

There was a tax on how many holes there were in the outer walls of your house. It was euphemistically called a Window Tax but it made no difference whether there was glass in the hole or not, you still got taxed. If you bricked the hole up then it didn't count on the tax bill that year. I think you were allowed four holes before the tax band started so as to keep the majority of the working class outside the tax system altogether - doesn't that sound familiar. I expect two of your four holes had to be doorways though.

You might think all this was before living memory, but it's not ten years since a single woman pensioner in Bristol strapped herself to the outside of her roof and demolished the top two floors of her house stone by stone with her sledgehammer trying to convert it into a bungalow, because the local council refused to reduce her council tax band to one her pension could cover and told her she'd have to move.

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 6:37 am

That's disgraceful. The way we treat older folk in this country is beyond belief!

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Apr 25, 2015 6:38 am

spot;1478211 wrote: There was a tax on how many holes there were in the outer walls of your house. It was euphemistically called a Window Tax but it made no difference whether there was glass in the hole or not, you still got taxed. If you bricked the hole up then it didn't count on the tax bill that year. I think you were allowed four holes before the tax band started so as to keep the majority of the working class outside the tax system altogether - doesn't that sound familiar. I expect two of your four holes had to be doors though.

You might think all this was before living memory but it's not ten years since a single woman pensioner in Bristol strapped herself to the outside of her roof and demolished the top two floors of her house stone by stone with her sledgehammer trying to convert it into a bungalow, because the local council refused to reduce her council tax band to one her pension could cover and told her she'd have to move.

Not forgetting that Liberal based their entire election campaign on opposing the increase of VAT. The first thing they did? Increased VAT.

Don't forget the Window Tax & the Bedroom Tax. Taxes by the backdoor. That's it - let's have a Back Door Tax. If your home has a back door you shall be required to pay £5 / week tax on it.