Bad Genes Causing Decline in Human Genetic Health?

[coolhead]

i'll talk about my thoughts on human rights, euthanasia, bad genes=> cancer, quality of the human race and probably abit of the superior race thingy..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First, i'll touch on how medical science has helped us improve the quality of our lifes, how natural selection let us live to who we are today, followed by how medical science may lead to our downfall in genetic health, possible solution to this decline in genetic health and finally, a backlash to this possible solution. Finally, you have the choice of making a decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, we all agree that medical science has allowed us to achieve miracles untold or probably not even dreamt before half a decade ago. These huge leaps in technological advancements have allowed humans a reality to live past 100s, be cured of diseases, be cured of cancers which have saved millions of lives, which otherwise may not have their dreams realised. These advancements has given us more time, security to fulfil our everyday tasks, achieve dreams which may take a lifetime and for some, a second chance to enjoy life more sweetly and wholesomely once again. In the midst of all the good times which are rolling in, there lies a probably dark side to all these events. That is high-tech medical science may eventually be a victim unto itself as it tries to bring us better health.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everyone of us feels good that medical science act as a backup when we have illnesses, flus, colds, viral infections etc. However, the point will be more deep-rooted->genes. Each of us have genes. Of course, almost all the important genes are good, otherwise, we will be dead before we even reach infancy or adulthood. Some of these bad genes at some point in our life may start to show itself in many forms. Some take on as minor problems where other genes may cause more serious forms of health impact such as cause cancer, increased risk of chronic illness such as hypertension, diabetes type1, abnormally thin arteries and veins etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By natural selection, where the notion of 'survival of the fittest' holds, people with these life-threatening illnesses will die as these diseases ulitmately ravage their body to the point of no return, where they cease to live. Only people with relatively minor disabilites such as asthma, colour blindness, lactose intolerance, albinism will tend to be able to survive with the fittest. In this way, humanity will continue to prosper with natural selection helping to bring us up the genetic ladder as the people with serious disabilites are not able to condition their bodies to live as well as those who are the fittest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, with the help of medical science, it seems that overall population of human health has prospered and benefited greatly from it. In helping humankind 'benefit', we have medical detection devices which help us identify illnesses before they get serious such as the blood pressure counter, colonoscopy to detect cancers in the colon(nearing the gut after the large intestine), mammograms(to detect breast cancers), blood test(to check for any abnormalities in the blood) etc. In addition, we have another branch of medical science which deals with the treatment of such illnesses such chemotherapy to kill cancer cells, surgery to remove cancerous tissues, oral medication(medicine taken orally) to lower high blood pressure, injections of insulin to cope with diabetes etc. Ultimately, the aim is to provide these patients a better life.

 

 

 

Such illnesses may be caused by many factors such as environments or genetics, but i'll touch on these points later.

 

 

 

If these patients were to procreate(reproduce to give birth to more offsprings), they would create a next generation of humans who bear the genetic defects of their parents. This is especially so if the parent has these serious illness due to spoiled genes. Then their offsprings would be likely to carry on having this serious illness which would then be passed on to the next generation. We have heard of families whose generations have suffered from a peculiar illness such as hypertension/diabetes/breast or liver cancers or people who die young naturally and have passed these to the younger generations, who are very likely to catch these illness, unless by a miraculous miracle, their spoiled genes become good again. If these families are cured off these illness by their symptoms(their genes are the root of the problem), it will create a whole new generation of people who have these bad genes. There has been alot of research done by scientists by conducting clinical studies on people with certain genes which produce a certain trait or have increased chance or certain chance ofcontracting cancers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From the above paragraph, we would have seen that bad genes in humankind will be allowed to propagate due to medical science, which are supposed to lead us a better life. However, because it opposes natural selection, a better life for everyone due to human rights has led to a general decline in the genetic health of our humans. Of course, this problem is one that will threaten us or even in the near future as we are not rabbits who multiply generations quickly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition, we do not forget that such genetic problems are not caused by simply a pass from one generation to another. This is because there are a host of other catalysts which hasten such propagation of defective genetic effects. Even genetically healthy humans are not spared from these catalysts as mutations are random and these catalyst hasten genetic mutations. Just to name a few, they are a possible nuclear fallout, increase in atmospheric pollution, higher degree of DNA damage due to free radicals from heavier consumption of richer foods and cigarette smoking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One solution to this problem would be to advocate the research of genetic engineering, where people with defective genes would now gain new healthy genes to replace those defective genes. Therefore, the ill population would be back in the race of the 'survival of the fittest' with the ill people being genetically healthy again. They too would help to propagate a healthy human race.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, a backlash from such an approach would be that controling the normal genetic mutations from happening would lead to decrease in biodiversity among the human population. That means that for example(ONLY as an EXAMPLE), out of 10 eye colours, 3 eye colours were found to be in some ways more superior than the other eye colours. In that case, people might want to change their eye colour to those 3 for their own good. In that case, the human population would be more and more populated with people with those 3 eye colours. In the event of a random genetic mutation or virus attack which affects one of these eye colour, a large population of the human race would be affected. Note that such an occurence as happened in rice species. For those who took geography, you would have known that genetic engineering in Green Revolution has led to production of a few strains of rice plants which have much higher productivities, more resistant to pestilence and germs. Therefore, Genetically Modified(GM) rice plants are more in favour of being grown than traditional rice plants due to lesser rice output. There are a few cases where these GM rice plants are not as able to cope well from new strains of germs and have been wiped out, resulting in mass famine. Similarly, this is what might occur due to genetic engineering where there is a loss of biodiversity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note that i did not include physical disabilites and intellectual disabilities as it would be an outright rejection of human rights.

 

 

 

Let's imagine you as someone chairing this discussion and you have a few options available to you, would you:

 

 

 

---1) allow human rights to prosper and allow medical science to treat the symptoms of the person with bad genes and allow him to reproduce at the possible expense of the human genetic health

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---2) stop medical science from advancing and be a hard-core advocate of natural selection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---3) sacrifice human rights(such as stopping reproduction) and adopt measures which prevent humans with bad genes to reproduce for the betterment of human genetic health.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---4) adopt genetic engineering as an approach in addition to medical science while trying to take measures to ensure genetic biodiversity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If u choose any options above, you may like to explain why or if u have better or alternative options, better still, voice them out here!

[pault]

Modern medicine does not exist to improve quality of life. It exists to make money. For example, my grandfather was prescribed oxycontin and I had to fight with his doctor and his rehab center to convince them it was having terrible effects on his health. They didn't care. I could literally see hundreds of people in this rehab center trying to get better, but unable to improve because of all the drugs they were on. Dumb them down, and take their money...sickening. Doctors really have no idea what they are doing half the time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All of your statements are based on the false assumption that doctors are actually trying to help people. Sure if you break your arm you should go to a doctor, but medicine for depression, ADD, old age, high cholestoral...etc. it's mostly crap.

[One Too Far]

i think 4 but make it only available for very serious stuf (btw nice tread)

[coolhead]

To Pault:

 

 

 

Your point is true that most pharmaceutical companies create drugs that helps to relieve a person's symptoms at the expense of another person's health. Afterall, they are more profit-oriented than spent lumps of research funds futilely finding a wonder drug that does all good and no harm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, as we grow old, our body degenerate and being prescribed with drugs may just be a necessity becoz we don't treat our bodies well when we are young or simply the process of natural aging. Your grandpa has past his prime and requires medication to continue living. If u r able to fight with the doctor for your grandpa's life, it shows that your grandpa has lived to a ripe old age and i congratulate your grandpa for that!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point is that patients can benefit from those medical science technologies to treat the symptoms of serious illness but does not treat the root of the problem which is due to bad genes and that allowing bad genes to propagate only declines the overall genetic health of humanity. In this case, more human problems due to genetic defects occur and isn't the function of medical science contradicting itself? of course there are other solutions to this such as genetic engineering or others i have not thought of.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With regard to your point that it is false to assume that doctors are actually trying to save people, i believe it only represents a minority of all the doctors. If u have bought a large batch of fresh eggs, a few of the eggs may have gone bad, if u know what i mean. If most of the doctors are bad eggs, then it's a problem with the government or their education and upbringing or perhaps other factors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's true that medication for ADD, high cholesterol etc are 'crap' in the sense that they are only treating superficial symptoms. I'm diving deeper into the fact that if such illness are caused by bad genes and are allowed to propagate, won't it cause the decline of overall genetic human health?

[Barihawk]

So you would rather have Eugenics and deny basic human rights versus tainting the gene pool like .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not worth it. At all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Who's the one making the decision if another has good enough genes, anyways? Too much control.

[Tigra00]

Noone has "good genes"...Everyone has at LEAST one thing you could consider "wrong" about them. Like me...I like myself, but my father passed a crappy skin gene to me. Meaning, my skin is less-elastic than most peoples. It's only a problem if you're overweight (stretch marks) which I'm not, but still, it could be considered a "bad" gene.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think he means genes of people who are...Umm...You know, stupid. You know who I'm talking about. The family with 10 kids and no income but welfare. Those kinda' people. :P

[coolhead]

Tigra, these 2 counter-arguments are to what u have just mentioned. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To your 1st point:

 

 

 

By natural selection, where the notion of 'survival of the fittest' holds, people with these life-threatening illnesses will die as these diseases ulitmately ravage their body to the point of no return, where they cease to live. Only people with relatively minor disabilites such as asthma, colour blindness, lactose intolerance, albinism will tend to be able to survive with the fittest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To your 2nd point:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note that i did not include physical disabilites and intellectual disabilities as it would be an outright rejection of human rights.

[Faux]

Noone has "good genes"...Everyone has at LEAST one thing you could consider "wrong" about them. Like me...I like myself, but my father passed a crappy skin gene to me. Meaning, my skin is less-elastic than most peoples. It's only a problem if you're overweight (stretch marks) which I'm not, but still, it could be considered a "bad" gene.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks to science, our future (albeit wealthy) society will be comprised of perfect human beings 8-)

[Tigra00]

"Survival of the Fittest" hasn't applied to humans for many many years now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you have something medically wrong with you, chances are they can fix it or at least make it better. Cancer is a severe genetic flaw, if you will, but people with cancer survive all the time. Humans always over-come natural selection due to their technology. Humans are perhaps some of THE weakest, most defenseless creatures on this Earth, but as soon as their technology comes into play (anything from stone tools/weapons, to a satellite guided laser beam pewpew missle), they become one of the strongest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We're not working on perfecting the human genome, we're working on fixing the ones that aren't perfect...Which is every single one. I'd dare to say that you, or anyone here, couldn't look at themselves at themselves and not find something wrong...Intellectually, physically, or health-wise. It's just what humans do best...Using technology to make the best of our extremely sad situation.

[Adam007]

This isn't an issue that suddenly sprung up. We've had decent medicine for awhile now that people have been treated with, thereby 'spoiling' the gene pool as you said. The thing is, natural selection is based off how well an individual survives and passes down genes. Since we have the medicine to help people with illnesses survive, they are no longer 'bad genes' since the illness is treatable. Granted the genes might still be 'spoiled,' we still have the technology to make the person's life normal, so it's ok if he/she passes down those genes. In general, people with 'bad genes' don't reproduce anyways. Natural selection not only favors the ability to survive, but the ability to find a mate and reproduce. Ill people tend to reproduce a lot less than people who are fine. Genetic engineering will help with the issues you're talking about, but we can't rely on that. We don't need to take any action - if anything you should be worried about genetic engineers accidentally bringing in genes with unintended adverse effects to people in the future that could potentially mess up aspects of the gene pool.

[Faux]

"Survival of the Fittest" hasn't applied to humans for many many years now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you have something medically wrong with you, chances are they can fix it or at least make it better. Cancer is a severe genetic flaw, if you will, but people with cancer survive all the time. Humans always over-come natural selection due to their technology. Humans are perhaps some of THE weakest, most defenseless creatures on this Earth, but as soon as their technology comes into play (anything from stone tools/weapons, to a satellite guided laser beam pewpew missle), they become one of the strongest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We're not working on perfecting the human genome, we're working on fixing the ones that aren't perfect...Which is every single one. I'd dare to say that you, or anyone here, couldn't look at themselves at themselves and not find something wrong...Intellectually, physically, or health-wise. It's just what humans do best...Using technology to make the best of our extremely sad situation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, put it this way. You're in the future and you're imperfect? You won't even be born so there's no need for any fixin' 8-)

[assassin_696]

So what about all those diseases or problems that are not caused due to poor genes and are purely based on circumstance or random chance? Do we treat those but not the genetic diseases?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point is, yes in theory we're spoiling whatever gene pool we might have. But, we don't need natural selection in the same way that other species do. It got us started, but our science is now protecting these "poor genes" that would previously have been lost in the process of natural selection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's face it, natural selection will inevitably continue to some extent within our species. The truly weak genes will die out, medical science is still finite and limited.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not like we're losing the good genes either in our advancement, they're being retained just as strongly (if not more) than the poor genes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In short, not a problem.

[fat_hobbit22]

you and hitler think the same. he chose option 3! his only flaw in my eyes was his researchers who told him tings like people with blonde hair nd blue eyes were superior nd jews were inferior. that nd he wasnt humain in dealing with fings :shame:

[Parabola]

Good post, Herr von Verschuer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like communism - potentially good idea in theory, but it will never work.

[lawrencekill]

you and hitler think the same. he chose option 3! his only flaw in my eyes was his researchers who told him tings like people with blonde hair nd blue eyes were superior nd jews were inferior. that nd he wasnt humain in dealing with fings :shame:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

???

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do they think the same?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hitler thinks about appearance, he's thinking beyond that into the root causes. Though I guess that part about poor genes and such show some similarity.

[Zonorhc]

you and hitler think the same. he chose option 3! his only flaw in my eyes was his researchers who told him tings like people with blonde hair nd blue eyes were superior nd jews were inferior. that nd he wasnt humain in dealing with fings :shame:

 

 

 

I'm just curious... Have you actually read Mein Kampf? You should. It's an interesting read. He wrote it before he had the resources of the Chancellorship at his disposal.

[warri0r45]

Interesting topic. This fits in perfectly with an assignment I did on the question 'will humans continue to evolve?' for grade 12 biology. I'd say the biggest winners out of the continued evolution of the human race are Africans. I had many other possible evolutionary outcomes so I'll see if I can fit some of those in here at a later date or even post my assignment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Besides that, I'd definately agree with the idea that natural selection in western culture has taken a back step. Artificial selection is a nice modern term to use. Unfortunately (in terms of evolutionary progress made) aftrifical selection engages us to help every weak and feeble human with drugs, thereby giving them an opportunity to pass thier genes on. Now you may think of breeding dogs and crops when I say artificial selection. You'd be spot on, as cultures have been (without the modern science, of course) artificially selecting crops and animals for thousands of years. A good example of this is the cultivation of banannas. Wild banannas are small and have black rock hard seeds. Therefore, farmers chose the best of the crop and spred them down to furthur generations. Artificial selection in a nutshell.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry for trailling off a bit there or if I'm a bit too off topic by the way. :oops:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the option I choose, I would like to offer a different one - The formation of multiple embryo's in a lab for every parent couple and then the mandatory choice of the one with the least genetic defaults (note that this has NOTHING to do with choosing the 'prettyest' embryo). Added to this, we could use the excess embryos for stem cell research.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a disclaimer directed at pro-lifers - I am fully aware of your position, so please, hold back comments of 'murderer' and so forth.