# Your opinion on Eugenics and Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia?



## NoNAND (Jun 5, 2020)

Hello there GBAtempers, my fellows.
There was something I always wished to discuss with you about regarding this touchy and controversial subject. Apologies if this belongs in the general section or somewhere else.
What are your opinions on them being practised.
Personally I'm strongly against anything being enforced to a minority or demographics of people.
I'm so against the Nazi idea of getting rid of unfit people. It is obvious and clear that no matter how many times man has tried to play nature and God things have messed up pretty bad in the past. It was a time where the human genome hadn't been fully sequenced and mapped yet so they didn't have much understanding on how genes work. (Save for the few research done by Darwin and Mendelian Inheritance)

That said. I'm not saying what Darwin said was entirely wrong. I believe that eugenics happens naturally somehow on a regular basis, and we do it unconsciously all the time by manifesting it on different behaviours and manners.
Most people who are "unfit" as some proclaim them to be will not get to "pass off their genes" if they are that "unfit"
Natural and sexual selection doesn't just work for work for those kinds of people but for everyone. Be it able bodied/minded or not everyone is somehow subject to competition and natural selection. Even amongst disabled people there is some sort of competition and the "fittest" of them gets to succeed. So enforcing things isn't natural and healthy in my opinion
Let nature do it's thing.


As for the assisted suicide and euthanasia thing it's a can of worms of its own and bringing up such discussion is well.. not seen a good thing.
In my opinion anyone who wishes to commit suicide should be allowed to end their pain
I strongly believe in free will and the act to pursue your wishes dreams till the very end. However, that said, it's something that can be easily taken advantage of.
And doctors would start to kill from the left to the right anyone they chose to.
So again this is something really tricky and could easily get abused with seeing as how evil human nature is.


By the way, I do not wish to offend anyone by any means here. I apologize if this seems offensive to you in some way or another.
I just want to hear out your opinions.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 5, 2020)

If they are old and want to end their life already then ya. If they are young and want to end their life already then no. Get them help.


----------



## AmandaRose (Jun 5, 2020)

SG854 said:


> If they are old and want to end their life already then ya. If they are young and want to end their life already then no. Get them help.


But what if they are young and have absolutely zero hope of a recovery? Age shouldn't come into this. If you are terminal and decide when the time is right you want help in ending your life then you should be allowed to no matter how old you are.


----------



## Teslas Fate (Jun 5, 2020)

To me incurable diseases is the only way I see euthanasia being perfectly acceptable just like @AmandaRose said age doesn’t matter.


----------



## notimp (Jun 5, 2020)

On your "natural and sexual selection" point, but rather on 'natural selection' in general:

This doesnt work how you presume it does.  There is no process of natural selection that has everyone 'huddle around' an accepted, desired trait, and then (implied) people getting more one way, or the other way.

What natural selection basically covers is, that you have a bunch of chance mutations, and the ones that are condusive to survival (humans in western societies usually dont have a 'survival' problem in the first place so natural selection wouldnt 'strike') in a region 'win out' in the long run.

Prerequisites are first - some pretty wierd mutations, and second natural selection (so the ones that adept less well, die out).

This in my understanding says _nothing_ about (temporary) societal values, or cultural choices. [In Rubens days the beauty ideal was for women to be more 'robust'. Doesnt mean that humans became more robust as a result.] As in absolutely nothing. There is no 'clever' or conscious element to it. And everyone that uses it to imply as much (natural selection as a cultural concept), is just making stuff up. (Cultural darwinism is not a science, its philosophy.)
-

Second, I'm not aware of western societies killing people for 'behavioral or genetic traits', past birth (please not another abortion discussion, if you (the reader who reads this) wants it, look up the last one..  ).

Assisted suicide, euthanasia, is only discussed as a concept, in case people want to go that way themselves. And the discussion there is extremely problematic, because of abuse potential (more specifically the high cost of abuse potential in that instance), and because the more you talk about that stuff, people actually get depressed ideas.

So in a liberal sense, it would probably be good, if we dont make it a taboo, but to get there is such a huge problem, that I dont see how you could basically ever take society to a place where this is just normal.


edit: Third point, and this one is more uplifting. Eugenics, usually doesnt work so well as a predictor for f.e. life choices..  If you leave in reproduction.  (Monsanto f.e. usually doesnt.  ) In the end you always end up with a third of people out of the very best environmental circumstances (social status, upbringing, ..., genetics, ..  ) being unhappy, and a third of people growing out of the worst circumstances, becoming happy and productive individuals. And no one knows why.  (Its certainly not beauty, or one specific personal trait.)


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 5, 2020)

That is two very different topics from where I sit but 2 for 1 is fine by me.

Eugenics then being the thing where certain traits are selected for, and presumably in the modern world that includes the likes of CRISPR, stem cells used for more than repair, bacteriological approaches, in vitro manipulation and possibly cloning as well.
First I do have to say it is a thing that can be done. It appears some seem to erroneously believe it can not be done for humans. Humans are animals and thus are able to be manipulated. Long reproduction cycles and serious obvious effects of negative traits make it a bit harder than say something that can breed after 18 months and has a few month pregnancy that people can happily kill by the millions in their proverbial back garden.

The more traits that get understood and any negative repercussions understood and either mitigated or reworked then you end up in an arms race, not least of all because cybernetics will also come into play around the same time. At the same time if CRISPR and some of the bacteria stuff gets as easy as I imagine it to be then I also struggle to see an elites vs plebs scenario (looking at the genetics patents stuff in the US I am sure some will try but sequencing is getting cheap so you then only need a sample or the research) so much scifi likes to ponder, had we not had CRISPR or something to alter full adults then that is a different matter.
Anyway your body, can do what you like to it. Anything available for purchase I would want treated like medicine (or better than some medicine). Doing it to someone else is a bit of a shitty thing to do, your own kids is a fun one too though far more scope there. Requiring it for a job or something gets really tricky, especially as there are so many "well if you happened to get" even without the "this job obviously requires someone in good shape" stuff.

The potential for screw ups certainly exists but the solution to that is more science -- most people could not live in nature and even if they could most people (as in population) could not exist within the calorie count nature provides per unit area so if we are already out of the natural world then whoo.


Euthanasia we did before.
Anyway your life, your right to end it. However if you are going to get medics involved for medical reasons then 2 need to sign off and a cooldown period or something along that level of difficulty. Usual quality of life, meaningful recovery and whatever else provisos medical ethics boards can debate and refine.
More generally is fun. Doug Stanhope had a line once about if you life sucks for 50 years the last 30 are probably not going to be much better. At the same time if someone, even one I don't know, is about to dine upon a bullet I will go talk to them and not consider it a wasted day if I am there for the next however many hours.


----------



## notimp (Jun 5, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Eugenics then being the thing where certain traits are selected for, and presumably in the modern world that includes the likes of CRISPR, stem cells used for more than repair, bacteriological approaches, in vitro manipulation and possibly cloning as well.
> First I do have to say it is a thing that can be done. It appears some seem to erroneously believe it can not be done for humans. Humans are animals and thus are able to be manipulated. Long reproduction cycles and serious obvious effects of negative traits make it a bit harder than say something that can breed after 18 months and has a few month pregnancy that people can happily kill by the millions in their proverbial back garden.


Lets fence this in a little. 

First human understanding about the genome doesnt extend to a point where selective editing would be 'risk free', actually quite the opposite. In a sense, we just know enough to get ourselves into real trouble. 

Its one thing to look for certain markers, its another thing to change a genome you understand is responsible for something and then has an interplay with something you didnt expect, or which leads to a certain propensity for undesired mutation a few generations down the road.

Crisper, while certainly the most popular tool (because of its relative ease of use) as of now, still is sequence editing, and not 'genetical design (implies 'we understand it all', and 'we can do it all' - with crisper, we cant).

Big data will help to develop 'individual medicine' but there you are still talking about a group of maybe a 1000, not individual, individual. And its a best guess (correlation based) affair.

So you still have to differentiate between hype and potential.

Some of these qualifiers might not hold in the long run, but they do currently.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 5, 2020)

notimp said:


> Lets fence this in a little.
> 
> First human understanding about the genome doesnt extend to a point where selective editing would be 'risk free', actually quite the opposite. In a sense, we just know enough to get ourselves into real trouble.
> 
> ...



Risk free? Most certainly not, if I implied otherwise it was certainly not my meaning?

In line with risk individuals are already inclined to assume for themselves with regards to various work types, relationships, drugs taken, hobbies and the like? Probably relatively safe actually. Something they might pass on to their kids? I am sure some will think that way, plenty will not though (social services departments, counselling/therapy, psychiatrists and religions are rarely small or lacking in work). If artificial wombs and whatever else also catch up (we are at the complex mammalian life stage as of... actually several years ago and it is being funded in a big way with an eye to getting a clinical prototype https://www.theguardian.com/society...ch-researchers-given-29m-to-develop-prototype , note that is 2.9 not 29 as the URL might imply) then rubbing one out into a test tube or having some eggs sucked* before embarking on a genetics trip might be the order of the day.

*not sure if necessary there if you are more or less born with them. No great shake either way.

Total understanding? Of course not. However much like I have no clue about the chemistry of... Osmium and yet still manage to design, build and have built things made of metal you can plunder on regardless of whether you are operating in single expression singular (or near as does not matter) genetic traits or complicated interdependent ones. Actually plastics would probably be a better analogy still -- I have no clue about the properties of SMMA (Styrene Methyl Methacrylate Copolymer)...
First still will probably be in corrective areas, next relatively safe areas (just like psychopharmacology today gets all reticent about messing with glutamate (what PCP messes with so you know it is potent if messed with) you can probably mess with a few things that you know are limited in scope), next (or maybe around the same time) will probably be observable traits from certain people (maybe the nice blood oxygen trait from those runners from that tribe up the mountain in Africa).

On a different note. Most here are probably not biologists (it by far my weakest science) but probably familiar with computers. To that end "DNA through the eyes of a coder" is good stuff to read here for a grounding in what goes.
https://berthub.eu/amazing-dna/

I also eagerly await the interplay between lawless nations, garage biohackers (they are already doing pretty sweet stuff), religious countries, scientifically forward countries that are more inclined to allow things and those that are not (see the US and its problem with stem cells, anti vax types and whatever else) as far as dragging some populations kicking and screaming into this fancy new world lest they be left behind... actually poke space tourism I am going for medical tourism as my next big venture.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 5, 2020)

AmandaRose said:


> But what if they are young and have absolutely zero hope of a recovery? Age shouldn't come into this. If you are terminal and decide when the time is right you want help in ending your life then you should be allowed to no matter how old you are.


Yes


----------



## notimp (Jun 6, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Risk free? Most certainly not, if I implied otherwise it was certainly not my meaning?


You didn't, but as with all futurist perspectives, that mainly focus in on possibilities, a wide propensity of usage implies, that the risk model is solved. So far it isnt. (Even china is 'disappearing' their scientists, who just try it on humans, because they have no idea, what it f.e. does to the gene pool a few generations down the road.)

I wanted the discussion more grounded (currently its not happening), thats why I focused in on that aspect.

I didn't want to imply, that you overlooked it.


----------



## notimp (Jun 7, 2020)

Scandinavian countries have made euthanasia somewhat of a societal 'normal', so you could read up on something like this:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11963448/

Or look around that complex for a while.  If you are purely academically interested. If its more of an emotional interest, I'd say, don't.


----------



## Zyvyn (Jun 7, 2020)

NoNAND said:


> Hello there GBAtempers, my fellows.
> There was something I always wished to discuss with you about regarding this touchy and controversial subject. Apologies if this belongs in the general section or somewhere else.
> What are your opinions on them being practised.
> Personally I'm strongly against anything being enforced to a minority or demographics of people.
> ...


I mean if the person is dying or in horrible pain and they are pretty much just waiting for death then yes if they want it


----------



## notimp (Jun 7, 2020)

@FAST6191: Read your posting more actively. I wasn't aware that there is genetical sequencing of mountaintribes, that would be interpretable (and searchable) in that way - but now that you said it, it sounds at least plausible. 

Risk profile wise, I'm still not sure how you would jump over the dissociative gap, "if those were your children". Would you want to play with that, on that level, not knowing with a very high degree of certainty, what the risks were (cross generational).

And its at 'cross generational' where this thought experiment becomes really eerie... Which is exactly the point where I'd leave it usually. 

I chuckled over your description of 'international competition'.


----------



## realtimesave (Jun 7, 2020)

It's touchy.

Doctor Jack Kevorkian has had patients back out at the last minute after being hooked up. Scary shit.  Imho!


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 7, 2020)

notimp said:


> @FAST6191: Read your posting more actively. I wasn't aware that there is genetical sequencing of mountaintribes, that would be interpretable (and searchable) in that way - but now that you said it, it sounds at least plausible.
> 
> Risk profile wise, I'm still not sure how you would jump over the dissociative gap, "if those were your children". Would you want to play with that, on that level, not knowing with a very high degree of certainty, what the risks were (cross generational).
> 
> ...



There is sequencing being done of most genetic groups on the planet, even more so when said traits see them routinely produce the best runners in the world at way way way over chance odds.

Why would it not work that way? It is how we find all sorts of traits, positive and negative, normally. Sequence enough of them, sequence any that don't express it and sequence kids of same, if you want to have some fun with epigenetics then that too. Prices of full (though partial could still get stuff done) sequencing have dropped through the floor as well. The more data you have generally the easier it gets to find commonalities.

Cross generational I would happily dismiss with either "more science needed at that point" (to say nothing of people routinely living a century or more and presumably being hyper intelligent to boot making a nice feedback loop for advancement) or before untested things happen then go spunk in this bottle and when you want to have kids unfreeze and go. You might also be able to screen embryos or gametes to see if they gained the traits in question if you do find them less than great to be allowed to propagate "naturally".
Even today we still allow old people, radiation workers and any number of other things that do a number on your sperm to breed (in some cases it is even hypothesised that is why some women find quite old men attractive).


----------



## notimp (Jun 7, 2020)

Fascinating.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 20, 2020)

really depends on the view point you see it from.
Say if the person had a really REALLY shitty past with most, if not, all the family betraying them in one way or another. And at that point, they have no will at all to live, and the person is young. (say near 20s)
At that point the only discussion is the hold out for a good future for that person. The person is valid in saying that they would rather die, than continue on. Since everything up that point, has nothing but been dog shit. They may be experiencing forms of ptsd. restlessness, and just overall, struggling to function as human being. Only barely able to keep it together.
However, people who hold out on the future, or optimistic people, would tell that person to look forward, and hope for the better.
As I see it there isn't a right or wrong. The only time I could possibly fathom being wrong. is if the person genuinely doesn't have a good reason to die. their life is in shape, and they aren't mentally or physically sick, or terminally ill. Then really they shouldn't be allowed.
I think it really should only apply if everything for that person is absolutely grim. Even then "the future" could be a really hard thing to argue with, and also be equally weak at the same time.


----------



## notimp (Jun 21, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> However, people who hold out on the future, or optimistic people, would tell that person to look forward, and hope for the better.


Hey I'm not one of those optimistic people, and even I would tell them that. 

If you are 20 all of your life and perspectives can and will change 20 times over.  Even if you are 40 or older, and dont suffer from severe health issues, chances are pretty good.. 

Head up.


----------



## J-Machine (Jun 21, 2020)

honestly? If they are otherwise healthy and pass a psyche assessment let em pay for it. If they are sick or old and they were given 2 weeks to think it over? let em have it. anyone who can't function at all without 24hr care (the non verbal, immobile types or the bedridden with chronic issues) should be similar to life support in that when there is no hope of recovery to "pull the plug" as it were and allow comfort while they pass. I think it's just cruel to allow a life to exist when they just cannot function in any way. if their mind is still functioning you know it's a prison for them and it also ties up a lot of resources.


----------



## Deleted User (Jun 21, 2020)

notimp said:


> Hey I'm not one of those optimistic people, and even I would tell them that.
> 
> If you are 20 all of your life and perspectives can and will change 20 times over.  Even if you are 40 or older, and dont suffer from severe health issues, chances are pretty good..
> 
> Head up.


Oh I don't intend to keep my head down. But I am giving it as I see it. Past and Present tense.


----------



## notimp (Jun 21, 2020)

Oh those are impactful words..  (Past and present tense.) Outlooks change, words will become less heavy with it. 

Most of it is perspective, and I can assure everyone in here, that perspective changes with time.


----------



## Supernova89 (Jul 1, 2020)

It's one of them topics, there is no right or wrong answer, it's all about perspective.


----------



## Viri (Jul 2, 2020)

If someone is suffering from an incurable disease and just want to be let out of their misery, just give it to them as painless as possible.


For example, if I found out I had Fatal Insomnia, I'd probably try and find the fastest and easiest way to end my self, before I suffer from that. If you don't know what that is, you can basically never ever ever ever fall asleep ever again. You'll basically go crazy and die within a month or so, it's scary as fuck. Thankfully, it's very very very rare. And you only inherit it. Also, there is NO cure. You're FUCKED.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_insomnia

As for Eugenics, if I found out I had a chance of having Fatal Insomnia, I would never have a kid. I'd get my self chemically castrated. I would never want to pass on that suffering to anyone. I don't think Eugenics is that bad of a thing, just the US and Germany took it in a racist approach. If we used it as a way to clear awful disease from our gene pool, it would be a good thing. But if someone does have a disease in their gene, you'd have to find a way to get them to agree to chemical castration, and not force it on them, lol. Perhaps offer some money? I dunno, lol.

But hey China is gene editing babies, it's pretty much Eugenics but much faster, and a lot less racist. Perhaps in 10 to 20 years they'll perfect it. If they did perfect it, and if I found out I was a gene baby, never had to worry about cancel, or old people diseases, I'd be thrilled!


----------



## omgcat (Jul 2, 2020)

euthenasia is fine, if one's quality of life it total shit, let them choose to end it. One should have bodily autonomy. Eugenics is a crock of shit and is flawed when it comes to epigenetics and any real genetic research in the last 20 years. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





This is the reason racists and other people who try to claim superior genes are actually stupid. There is an entire genetic super-system that controls our genes, let alone the fact that multiple (polyallelic, 2+ genes) or extremely large subsections of genes (omni-allelic 10,000+ genes) control most of how we develop and function.




Viri said:


> If someone is suffering from an incurable disease and just want to be let out of their misery, just give it to them as painless as possible.
> 
> 
> For example, if I found out I had Fatal Insomnia, I'd probably try and find the fastest and easiest way to end my self, before I suffer from that. If you don't know what that is, you can basically never ever ever ever fall asleep ever again. You'll basically go crazy and die within a month or so, it's scary as fuck. Thankfully, it's very very very rare. And you only inherit it. Also, there is NO cure. You're FUCKED.
> ...



Crisper is causing real issues when used in humans including multi-chromosomal truncation (damage). we do not currently have the ability to reasonably treat whole body issues with crispr without extensive collateral damage.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09006-2


----------



## Viri (Jul 2, 2020)

omgcat said:


> Crisper is causing real issues when used in humans including multi-chromosomal truncation (damage). we do not currently have the ability to reasonably treat whole body issues with crispr without extensive collateral damage.
> 
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09006-2


In that situation, I wouldn't feel right telling someone if they can or cannot end their own life. I'm not the one suffering from a disease that cannot be treated without wrecking their body.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 2, 2020)

omgcat said:


> Eugenics is a crock of shit and is flawed when it comes to epigenetics and any real genetic research in the last 20 years.
> 
> This is the reason racists and other people who try to claim superior genes are actually stupid. There is an entire genetic super-system that controls our genes, let alone the fact that multiple (polyallelic, 2+ genes) or extremely large subsections of genes (omni-allelic 10,000+ genes) control most of how we develop and function.
> 
> ...


That seems like a definitional issue rather than a conceptual one, and if many traits are multi gene expressed that just means more science/testing needed. Epigenetics is great fun too but if it is more on the nurture side of the equation then that is reasonably controlled for.

Likewise that article suggests alternative pathways that may offer better outcomes if CRISPR is ultimately a dead end, assuming there are no "well you are fucked anyway, might as well give it a go" options.


----------

