Genetic Sexual Orientation

[stormrider]

I would agree for severe diseases like those mentioned, but I think it would require some strict guidelines as to what could be done and what could not. Homosexuality wouldnt be one of those cases, it isnt cut and dried. Spinal Bifida is. Perhaps the guideline is sever physical/mental handicap ?

It would probably be almost impossible to find a satisfactory guideline, though. I think the idea of "curing" or manipulating conditions/diseases before birth is intensely alarming. If it’s a condition that’s inherently fatal, it’s justifiable. But beyond that, deciding what constitutes a severe physical or mental handicap could be difficult because the issue is so subjective. And there are a few serious conditions which, in my opinion, shouldn’t be stamped out – and, given enough time, research, and money, that could easily happen.

And I'm almost hesitant to post this on a public forum, but this sort of thing is especially disconcerting to me because I’m bipolar. Oddly enough, I’m glad my parents didn’t have the option of “fixing” that particular mental illness. But they would have been out of their minds not to fix it if they’d had the chance. It brought them a lot of grief. From my perspective, it’s certainly resulted in numerous long-term setbacks, and it helped turn my life into a veritable train wreck (off and on) for about four years. It has the potential to cause an enormous amount of damage in the future. On an everyday basis, even with medication, it still causes problems. And yet, were it possible, I wouldn’t have it fixed – I have probably learned more and experienced more than most people my age, and I don’t regret any of those experiences. Although I am not defined by my mental illness, it is an inextricable part of who I am.

Of course, one could easily make the argument that if I’d never had it, I wouldn’t miss it, and it wouldn’t have become a part of who I am. In that case, the obvious question is, if I don’t miss it and if it doesn’t play into the person I eventually become, why should it even matter? (The same might be said of homosexuality.) But, somehow, it does matter. The idea of someone changing who/what I am/was (even if I might never know the difference) really bothers me. It really is an identity question. On the other hand, what parent could justify not fixing it? People with severe mental illnesses can be dangerous to themselves and others. If parents opted not to intervene, and their child killed him/herself (or someone else) one day, how could they avoid blaming themselves? And many (perhaps the vast majority of) people who suffer from mental illnesses would disagree with me – they would get rid of their conditions if they could.

But mental illness has played an important role in history – particularly in artistic circles. Many highly regarded writers and musicians suffered from various mental illnesses, and it undoubtedly influenced their work profoundly. Maybe this is why genetic counseling in general makes me so nervous. My aunt was actually advised against having children because of her mental illness. From the time she was a kid, her main goal in life was to “get married and have three children.” She has none.

[Avatar]

Excellent post Stormrider. I absolutely agree. I wouldn't have it fixed, but how could a parent not fix it if they could.

We won't turn our offspring into something that we perceive as inhuman. That's where it stops.

But the boudaries will eventually blur...every small change within the acceptable pushes back the limits of what would be outside it.

--A

[wayfriend]

In that case, the obvious question is, if I don’t miss it and if it doesn’t play into the person I eventually become, why should it even matter? (The same might be said of homosexuality.) But, somehow, it does matter. The idea of someone changing who/what I am/was (even if I might never know the difference) really bothers me. It really is an identity question.

S' what I'm sayin.

From the point of view of a species, diversity is critical to survival. When individuals are identical, they can all be wiped out by the same thing. There's no chance to discover something new that can be strengthened in the world's test tube and eventually be merged into the genomes.

From the point of view of a society, the same thing. Differences are a strength. Nothing changes and grows without someone who can imagine something new.

When you edit someone's identity, you don't know what you could be losing forever. And when you endeavor to enforce sameness on people, even the kind of sameness where no one is bipolar, you are destroying the society, and the species.

[Zarathustra]

The obvious: this is a complex issue.

Another obvious: it's going to happen. People don't build tools and then not use them. We will be genetically modifying our offspring.

On the ethical issue, this really isn't a big deal. Parents already shape their kids in every way imaginable. They shape their identities by taking them to church and indoctrinating them in their belief system. It's not a coincidence that most people of religion x come from parents (and societies) of religion x. It is the rare individual who breaks out of this conditioning. Is that conditioning unethical? Try telling that to a parent. We raise our kids in our own image. There's also politics, music, art, etc. which is shaped by the influence of parents. Genetic tweaking is just a physical example of this practice which has been going on for thousands of years.

On the homosexuality issue: I know this isn't very popular to say nowadays, and it gets a person branded "homophobic" when they say it . . . but homosexuality IS a deviation from the biological norm. Not a societal norm. Not a religious norm. But a biological norm. From a reproductive standpoint, homosexuality is a dead end. The fact that it continues to exist points to something other than an adaptive model of mutation, since this can't be an adaptation which leads to better reproduction. (What can be more obvious than the fact that homosexuality is a detriment to reproduction? It's the single definitive characteristic of this mutation.) Thus, it is more like a genetic "disease," which continues in our population despite the fact that it harms reproductive success at passing on one's genes. Even describing it as a "recessive trait" seems inappropriate. This isn't something like blue eyes which in no way harms your ability to pass on your genes.

I must point out that I'm not making a value judgment, or a moral argument. All of us are a bundle of mutations. That's how we evolved from single-celled creatures into what we are now. But the adaptations we "kept" were ones that were useful to our survival and specifically our survival relative to reproducing. Homosexuality isn't like this. From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is a harmful mutation because it harms genetic reproduction, rather than benefits it. And the fact that it keeps showing up in the gene pool despite the fact that it creates a reproductive detriment is why I compare it to a genetic disease; I don't know what else to call it. I'm trying to describe this behavior in a purely scientific view. Take the politics out of it, and that's what you're left with.

So it's not entirely clear that parents who want their kids to partake in a biological norm and be reproductively successful are themselves being immoral. Not in the slightest. We are so worried about hurting someone's feelings, we have lost all rationality on this issue. Sure, being able to reproduce isn't the final goal for us as individuals. But it is the means by which we exist. We can't just toss out the logic of evolution and natural selection when we're talking specifically about reproduction.

By the way, even if this genetic mutation is corrected in the womb, a person can still choose to be homosexual. The only difference is that they will no longer be able to argue with the righteous indignation of, "I was born this way! You can't discriminate against me based on my genes--things I can't help!" No, it will truly be a choice at that point.

Genetic engineering in no way removes a person's freewill. And it doesn't alter their identity. Your identity isn't those things you can't help, but rather the choices you make. What you do with your freewill defines you; your identity is something you continually construct as you live. It's not your genetic code--no more than it is your environment. Your identity is how you transcend both your genetic code and your environment, and become something more: a person.

[Zarathustra]

From the point of view of a species, diversity is critical to survival.

So is homosexuality critical to our survival? I'd love to hear a scientific theory for that one. In what possible way could it improve reproductive success?

I agree that we need diversity. In fact, that's one of the reasons why genetic experiments don't scare me in the slightest. Our test tubes are merely one small part of the world's Test Tube. Whatever we create, Nature will decide whether or not it continues.

Differences are a strength. Nothing changes and grows without someone who can imagine something new.

This is much too general. Some differences weaken society. Child molesters definitely add a bit of diversity to the population. But we shouldn't advocate keeping their genes in the pool simply for the sake of diversity.

When you edit someone's identity, you don't know what you could be losing forever. And when you endeavor to enforce sameness on people, even the kind of sameness where no one is bipolar, you are destroying the society, and the species.

This is a bit melodramatic. Society in no way will crumble at the loss of bipolar disease. No will it crumble from the loss of the flu, or AIDS.

Also, it's impossible to "edit" someone's identity, even with genetics. As I said in my last post, our identity isn't our genetic code. That's just the blueprint; the starting point. Our identity is in our choices.

I don't become a new person every time I trim my fingernails, and lose a little bits of genetic material. Genes and environment must be viewed as "external" factors on your selfhood. They impose restrictions and context, but they don't define you. Wherever you are, there you are. You might face difference circumstances, buy you still have the power to choose who you will be.

[stormrider]

From the point of view of a species, diversity is critical to survival. When individuals are identical, they can all be wiped out by the same thing. There's no chance to discover something new that can be strengthened in the world's test tube and eventually be merged into the genomes.

Exactly. And society already does enough to encourage conformity. Eliminating diversity on a genetic level is just the next step. This might start out as a way to “cure diseases,” but as you said before, it could easily evolve into a method of ensuring that traits which our current society finds unappealing (like poor athletic performance) are automatically selected against.

Another obvious: it's going to happen. People don't build tools and then not use them. We will be genetically modifying our offspring.

Absolutely.

On the ethical issue, this really isn't a big deal. Parents already shape their kids in every way imaginable. They shape their identities by taking them to church and indoctrinating them in their belief system. It's not a coincidence that most people of religion x come from parents (and societies) of religion x. It is the rare individual who breaks out of this conditioning. Is that conditioning unethical? Try telling that to a parent. We raise our kids in our own image. There's also politics, music, art, etc. which is shaped by the influence of parents. Genetic tweaking is just a physical example of this practice which has been going on for thousands of years.

The difference being that, at this point, children still have a choice. Parents try to condition their children, but I don’t know that it’s necessarily rare for people to break out of that conditioning. I was raised Episcopalian, but I rejected it and became a deist when I was 13. Most people I know heartily disagree with many of their parents’ beliefs. Everyone is influenced, of course, but that’s unavoidable – even if parents didn’t make such an effort to manipulate their children, they would still be influenced (for better or worse) by the society in which they exist. But genetic manipulation is potentially detrimental to an individual’s capacity for choice.

On the homosexuality issue: I know this isn't very popular to say nowadays, and it gets a person branded "homophobic" when they say it . . . but homosexuality IS a deviation from the biological norm. Not a societal norm. Not a religious norm. But a biological norm. From a reproductive standpoint, homosexuality is a dead end. The fact that it continues to exist points to something other than an adaptive model of mutation, since this can't be an adaptation which leads to better reproduction. (What can be more obvious than the fact that homosexuality is a detriment to reproduction? It's the single definitive characteristic of this mutation.) Thus, it is more like a genetic "disease," which continues in our population despite the fact that it harms reproductive success at passing on one's genes. Even describing it as a "recessive trait" seems inappropriate. This isn't something like blue eyes which in no way harms your ability to pass on your genes.

But in my opinion, homosexuality isn’t prevalent enough to be a widespread reproductive concern. And there are numerous traits which could inhibit reproduction, and we shouldn’t necessarily eliminate them. And if homosexuals deviate from a biological norm, why does it matter that they don’t reproduce? Nature has always taken care of that sort of thing – the individuals who are unsuited (not that homosexuals are unfit parents, but because it’s impossible for two men to have a child together) to have children don’t pass their genes on. So what? And this may sound insensitive, but we already have plenty of children. The fact that homosexuals sometimes adopt children because they can’t have their own is a good thing – they can provide a stable home for kids who might otherwise spend their formative years in a less loving environment. And some homosexuals do end up reproducing – lesbian couples can use artificial insemination.

I must point out that I'm not making a value judgment, or a moral argument. All of us are a bundle of mutations. That's how we evolved from single-celled creatures into what we are now. But the adaptations we "kept" were ones that were useful to our survival and specifically our survival relative to reproducing

In which case nature will deal with it, as it always has.

By the way, even if this genetic mutation is corrected in the womb, a person can still choose to be homosexual. The only difference is that they will no longer be able to argue with the righteous indignation of, "I was born this way! You can't discriminate against me based on my genes--things I can't help!" No, it will truly be a choice at that point.

I honestly don’t think homosexuality has ever been, or ever will be, a choice.

Genetic engineering in no way removes a person's freewill. And it doesn't alter their identity. Your identity isn't those things you can't help, but rather the choices you make. What you do with your freewill defines you; your identity is something you continually construct as you live. It's not your genetic code--no more than it is your environment. Your identity is how you transcend both your genetic code and your environment, and become something more: a person.

But the ability to transcend one’s environment is partially dependent on (or influenced by) one’s genetic code. You said that many children are incapable of escaping the indoctrination imposed by their parents. All environmental circumstances being equal, one can assume that it’s some genetic predisposition that enables certain people to fight and break free. By selecting against certain traits, it’s possible to destroy or damage the internal mechanisms which allow an individual to “fight back” and shape their own identities. A lot of homosexuals I know rebelled against their parents’ belief systems because they were incongruent with their lifestyles and experiences. Manipulating genes will inevitably lead to a more uniform society, and not necessarily in a good way.

[Zarathustra]

Stormrider, thanks for your reasoned response to my admittedly controversial remarks. I'm not trying to be an ass, I promise! (It's genetic . . . just kidding.)

I don't think that most people fear genetic engineering as great equalizer, causing mass conformity. The fear we always see dramatized in anti-G.E. rants is that we'll create classes of super humans who will compete with regular old humans. This fear of conformity is strange, given the opposite fear. Surely there will be experimentation which leads to greater diversity. We don't have to fear G.E. for its potential to create conformity. You might as well fear hospitals because they (potentially) make everyone healthy and healed.

The difference being that, at this point, children still have a choice. Parents try to condition their children, but I don’t know that it’s necessarily rare for people to break out of that conditioning. I was raised Episcopalian, but I rejected it and became a deist when I was 13. Most people I know heartily disagree with many of their parents’ beliefs. Everyone is influenced, of course, but that’s unavoidable – even if parents didn’t make such an effort to manipulate their children, they would still be influenced (for better or worse) by the society in which they exist. But genetic manipulation is potentially detrimental to an individual’s capacity for choice.

Children will still have a choice to partake in whatever behavior they deem appropriate, no matter what your genes are. Genes in no way stop you from any action, except those physically impossible. Anyone can experiment.

Also, I think the billions of religious people on the planet are evidence to counter your claim that many break out of their religious conditioning. Atheists and agnostics are a very tiny minority, even after the Age of Enlightenment. And if, as you theorize, it is our genes which makes us able to break out of this conditioning, then the opposite must also be the case: genes are responsible for those who don't break out. So if there's no genetic manipulation, conformity will continue to be the norm.

But in my opinion, homosexuality isn’t prevalent enough to be a widespread reproductive concern. And there are numerous traits which could inhibit reproduction, and we shouldn’t necessarily eliminate them. And if homosexuals deviate from a biological norm, why does it matter that they don’t reproduce? Nature has always taken care of that sort of thing – the individuals who are unsuited (not that homosexuals are unfit parents, but because it’s impossible for two men to have a child together) to have children don’t pass their genes on. So what? And this may sound insensitive, but we already have plenty of children. The fact that homosexuals sometimes adopt children because they can’t have their own is a good thing – they can provide a stable home for kids who might otherwise spend their formative years in a less loving environment. And some homosexuals do end up reproducing – lesbian couples can use artificial insemination.

True, homosexuality isn't going to threaten our survival. I'm not saying it should be eliminated. I'm saying parents should have that choice, if they want. If parents can decide whether or not a pregnancy ends in a baby or a dumpster outside the abortion clinic, then they should be able to decide if the baby ends up with or without genetic "defects." In evolutionary, reproductive terms, homosexuality is a genetic defect. Of course, you can look at genes in different terms than their evolutionary significance (which eliminates this "defect" interpretation). But that is a personal choice. It shouldn't preclude others from taking that significance seriously with regards to their own offspring. I'm not advocating changing society, or eliminating gays. I'm advocating parents' rights to have and raise their children as they see fit. That includes their children's medical decisions . . . which would also include deciding whether or not to medicate their children for something like bipolar disease. If parents can medicate their children and mask the symptoms, why can't they also decide to get at the source?

But the ability to transcend one’s environment is partially dependent on (or influenced by) one’s genetic code. You said that many children are incapable of escaping the indoctrination imposed by their parents. All environmental circumstances being equal, one can assume that it’s some genetic predisposition that enables certain people to fight and break free. By selecting against certain traits, it’s possible to destroy or damage the internal mechanisms which allow an individual to “fight back” and shape their own identities. A lot of homosexuals I know rebelled against their parents’ belief systems because they were incongruent with their lifestyles and experiences. Manipulating genes will inevitably lead to a more uniform society, and not necessarily in a good way.

So are you saying that those who are genetically doomed to follow their parents' footsteps shouldn't be given a choice? If the genes make them slaves to their parents' worldview, then how can this lead to that all-important diversity you guys were talking about? Is the only kind of diversity you're interested in accidental diversity (mutations)? What's wrong with engineered (G.E) or intentional (choice-driven) diversity?

I will admit that the ability to transcend our conditioning is a genetic predisposition. But I think this is a predisposition available to humans in general. It's a racial trait. It's called freewill. Animals don't have it. We do.

[Cail]

I'm saying parents should have that choice, if they want. If parents can decide whether or not a pregnancy ends in a baby or a dumpster outside the abortion clinic, then they should be able to decide if the baby ends up with or without genetic "defects."

This is interesting.

The pro-choice argument posits that an unborn child is the de facto property of the mother, and that the mother can end the child's life at her whim. Following that line of logic, how can anyone who calls themselves pro-choice be against this sort of genetic engineering?

[stormrider]

Stormrider, thanks for your reasoned response to my admittedly controversial remarks. I'm not trying to be an ass, I promise! (It's genetic . . . just kidding.)

Don’t worry, I’m not overly sensitive.

I don't think that most people fear genetic engineering as great equalizer, causing mass conformity. The fear we always see dramatized in anti-G.E. rants is that we'll create classes of super humans who will compete with regular old humans. This fear of conformity is strange, given the opposite fear. Surely there will be experimentation which leads to greater diversity. We don't have to fear G.E. for its potential to create conformity. You might as well fear hospitals because they (potentially) make everyone healthy and healed.

My fear of conformity probably stems from my childhood. I remember being particularly horrified by things like 1984 and some of Ayn Rand’s work. But what sort of diversity will genetic experimentation lead to? I would expect humanity to take the traits it likes and duplicate or enhance them. Hypothetically, genetic engineering could push everyone in the same direction. Anything which is subjectively viewed as undesirable could be eliminated.

Also, I think the billions of religious people on the planet are evidence to counter your claim that many break out of their religious conditioning. Atheists and agnostics are a very tiny minority, even after the Age of Enlightenment. And if, as you theorize, it is our genes which makes us able to break out of this conditioning, then the opposite must also be the case: genes are responsible for those who don't break out. So if there's no genetic manipulation, conformity will continue to be the norm.

Conformity is pervasive, and it is because conformity is so overwhelming that this concerns me. I don’t really have a problem with conformity being the norm – there’s no way to fight that. I do have a problem with the idea that people who advocate conformity will be able to start shaping the next generation before they’ve even left the womb. Genetically gearing a fetus toward certain activities by “refining” or enhancing certain abilities increases the likelihood that parents (or society) could push that individual in a certain direction. If we could discover a way to genetically enhance athletic ability, for example, it will be easier for parents to steer their children toward athletic pursuits. As it is, a lot of parents try to get their children involved in certain activities, but if the children discover that they lack the aptitude for those things, they look for something else. Their search for their niche is part of what shapes them and makes them unique. If children were fully capable of doing everything their parents and society wanted them to do, they would be more inclined to do it. It is often our shortcomings which force us to search for our place in the world and discover unusual or novel purposes; ultimately, some of these shortcomings strengthen us.

True, homosexuality isn't going to threaten our survival. I'm not saying it should be eliminated. I'm saying parents should have that choice, if they want. If parents can decide whether or not a pregnancy ends in a baby or a dumpster outside the abortion clinic, then they should be able to decide if the baby ends up with or without genetic "defects."

An excellent point, which complicates my position since I am pro-choice. From a logical standpoint, you’re absolutely right. If we give a mother power over life and death, why shouldn’t parents be able to eliminate genetic defects which could threaten their children (or their own personal moral standpoints toward homosexuality and mental illness)? The distinction in my mind is, perhaps, an irrational one. The loss of thousands of children who will never be born is more abstract, simply because the effects on society are more difficult to imagine. Those children are gone altogether so they can’t change or react to their environment one way or the other. Conversely, children who have been altered before birth will grow up and affect the society in which they live. Arguably, aborting children does little or nothing to alter the human gene pool, whereas a widespread effort to “enhance” children before birth will have perceptible consequences.

In evolutionary, reproductive terms, homosexuality is a genetic defect. Of course, you can look at genes in different terms than their evolutionary significance (which eliminates this "defect" interpretation). But that is a personal choice. It shouldn't preclude others from taking that significance seriously with regards to their own offspring. I'm not advocating changing society, or eliminating gays. I'm advocating parents' rights to have and raise their children as they see fit.

This is why this is such a difficult issue. And I wholeheartedly believe that most parents who have children with genetic defects yet don’t make use of this technology will eventually regret it. Children like to blame their parents for their faults, and this is the ultimate trump card. But personally, on some sort of strange, illogical level, I find it unspeakably disturbing that my genes could be manipulated. It really is “creepy.” Most people would probably disagree with me on this, but I would rather not be than be someone else – and it’s not that I would really be someone else if my parents had found a way to alter my genetics. I would technically still be me – I would have a personality and a mind and freewill – but I wouldn’t be the person I am now. But the argument remains – if I had never known the person I am now, I wouldn’t know any better. So, to me, maybe it really wouldn’t matter. To an individual, it might not make a difference, but I think it would ultimately have a negative impact on society as a whole (though probably not for hundreds of years). If, at some point within the next 1,000 years, we all become too similar, then our minds will move in similar directions. Our ability to see things differently and come up with new solutions to problems will be diminished. In some arenas, like politics, our differences can cause gridlocks which hinder progress, but if society eventually uses this technology to move everyone in the same direction, we will be stuck on that path, for good or ill. We would be hard-pressed to change it.

So maybe it isn’t that parents don’t have the right. If they have the right to snuff out their children's lives altogether, they should have the right to snuff out homosexuality and mental illness. But it’s the long-term consequences of that right which concern me.

That includes their children's medical decisions . . . which would also include deciding whether or not to medicate their children for something like bipolar disease. If parents can medicate their children and mask the symptoms, why can't they also decide to get at the source?

Not to get off topic, but I do think parents overmedicate their children. And on the whole, things like bipolar disorder are seldom discovered right away. The disease usually has a chance to deeply affect an individual before psychiatrists "get it under control." And even with medication, bipolar people are not necessarily "normal" in the conventional sense of the word. Unless they are medicated so heavily that they lose their capacity to feel, they still see things differently and experience a wide range of emotions. Medication and therapy seek to keep the condition from interfering with the patient's life to such an extent that s/he can't function. It doesn't "fix" the illness or put an end to all of the symptoms.

I will admit that the ability to transcend our conditioning is a genetic predisposition. But I think this is a predisposition available to humans in general. It's a racial trait. It's called freewill. Animals don't have it. We do.

And I agree that all people have freewill, but I honestly believe that there are certain genetic traits which influence a person’s ability or inclination to exercise it. Some people are just naturally passive, so they bend their will to the will of others. But some “undesirable” traits make it more likely that an individual will make different choices, which are more in line with their own needs – simply because their needs are different.

[wayfriend]

From the point of view of a species, diversity is critical to survival.

So is homosexuality critical to our survival? I'd love to hear a scientific theory for that one. In what possible way could it improve reproductive success?

Well, lets not pre-qualify the question for starters. It doesn't have to be reproductive success to be beneficial for the survival of the species.

In fact, there are times when it is beneficial for a species to NOT reproduce. Like, when the planet is overcrowded and filled with the species filth.

I think that, now, a scientific theory of the possible benefits of homosexuality are rather self-explanatory.

(See what can come up if you don't try to pre-empt an entire line of reasoning?)

[Zarathustra]

In fact, there are times when it is beneficial for a species to NOT reproduce. Like, when the planet is overcrowded and filled with the species filth.

If the species doesn't reproduce, it will not survive. Something which hinders reproduction is certainly not "critical to our survival."' Overpopulation is an unscientific term without objective meaning; it is usually applied in areas where poverty--not too many people--is the problem. Besides, telling starving people that their problem is too many children is like telling a dying person that their problem is too much life which could be solved if they'd just stop trying to live. It is the highest arrogance for a man in a wealthy, densely populated state (3rd in our nation; more densely populated than 167 of the 193 countries on the planet) to suggest that another human's reproductivity is the problem, when that "problem" only occurs in the poorest areas on the planet. Massachusetts seems to handle its population density just fine, despite the traffic. The earth can easily sustain a population of 100 billion or more. There is room and resources for all of us here. We don't need an army of gays in order to save humanity from your imaginary crisis.

But let's say we cut the population in half, just for fun. Would the gays still be crucial to our survival? Or is it merely a number-dependent idea? If so, what number?

The loss of thousands of children who will never be born is more abstract, simply because the effects on society are more difficult to imagine. Those children are gone altogether so they can’t change or react to their environment one way or the other. Conversely, children who have been altered before birth will grow up and affect the society in which they live. Arguably, aborting children does little or nothing to alter the human gene pool, whereas a widespread effort to “enhance” children before birth will have perceptible consequences.

I don't see the loss of thousands of children as more abstract than the loss of certain characteristics. If it's a loss, you'd never miss it either way.

But let's say there is a real (or abstract) difference. If you allow abortion for any reason whatsoever, it amounts to exactly the same thing. If we pass a law forbidding parents to genetically modify their children prior to birth, what's to stop them from aborting these children and just rolling the genetic dice again until they come up heterosexual (or whatever trait they're seeking)? It still amounts to certain traits being selected by parents prior to birth. Abortion opens the gateway for this. All that is needed to turn abortion into genetic-engineering-by-default is the genetic screening for undesirable traits. That will certainly allow abortion to have an effect on the gene pool. What are you going to do then? Make abortion illegal?

[wayfriend]

We don't need an army of gays in order to save humanity from your imaginary crisis.

Did I really call for an army of homosexuals to save us? LOL

Now, in case your interested in what I actually say: Human sexuality has many purposes, and reproduction is only one of them. On this most people agree.

Therefore, it's not within the range of reason to believe that there could possibly be a benefit in diverting the impulses for sexual activity into patterns that don't result in reproduction. Homosexuality is only one such pattern.

The original question that you asked me was if there was a conceivable scientific theory. I believe I provided one - a theory. You responded by mocking me (again). As if to forget that I matched your requirement, requiring you to allow my original point.

"Overpopulation" is a very scientific term. To say that it is not is to go on a lark.

On the other hand, saying that our technology could handle a world population of 100 billion or more is where we disembark from the road of reason. The statement may be true, but that doesn't mean that our bodies and our genes know it. Effects of overpopulation can be setting in long before we reach a techologically-achievable saturation point (which is what that limit is). It depends on how our bodies and minds react to the stresses that are occurring in our world now. Which includes the stresses we incorporate by intellectual means, like reading the news -- such things raise the heart rate nonetheless.

No, as a species we'll respond to overpopulation when our genes say we will, not when we declare a technological achievement.

Finally, homosexuality and other means of diverting the sexual impulses need not be present to stave of overpopulation NOW, but may merely be waiting in the genetic wings for when they will be necessary, if ever. They may be traits which need to be preserved for the day. Who are we to interfere?

[stormrider]

I don't see the loss of thousands of children as more abstract than the loss of certain characteristics. If it's a loss, you'd never miss it either way.

The difference is that, as things now stand, abortion is used to avoid unwanted pregnancies altogether, not to change the genetic nature of the fetuses. I know this sounds callous, but if a child is aborted, it's just dead -- it no longer has any bearing on... anything. The gene pool as a whole is not affected. But a child who is genetically altered, lives to become an adult, and eventually has children of his/her own does impact the gene pool: s/he passes on the genes which his/her parents/society selected.

But let's say there is a real (or abstract) difference. If you allow abortion for any reason whatsoever, it amounts to exactly the same thing. If we pass a law forbidding parents to genetically modify their children prior to birth, what's to stop them from aborting these children and just rolling the genetic dice again until they come up heterosexual (or whatever trait they're seeking)? It still amounts to certain traits being selected by parents prior to birth. Abortion opens the gateway for this. All that is needed to turn abortion into genetic-engineering-by-default is the genetic screening for undesirable traits. That will certainly allow abortion to have an effect on the gene pool. What are you going to do then? Make abortion illegal?

No, but this is the reason I said genetic counseling makes me nervous. This concern has already been voiced by mental health professionals, and it's probably inevitable. In the end, it does amount to the same thing. But no, I don't think abortion should be illegal. I hate that it will be put to this use... but I already hate the fact that some people use it for birth control. As I said in my last post, it isn't that people shouldn't have the right to have abortions or genetically alter their children -- I can't realistically support "a woman's right to choose" yet say that this form of genetic manipulation should be outlawed. All I'm saying is that the implications and consequences of that right disturb me.

[Avatar]

Damn good posts folks.

In the long run, Malik is right. What you never had, you can't miss. I'm a firm believer in that, and as a firm believer in freedom of choice, I have to agree that parents would have that right.

But I aree with Stormrider that the implications can be disturbing.

There's a big difference between changing something you've already become, and setting the parameters for what you will become before you've become it. The second is inherently less objectionable than the first.

Damn good posts.

--A

[emotional leper]

Malik. Homosexuality can and most likely is an adaptation that increases and benefits reproduction. You're simply looking for the reproduction in the wrong place.

[Avatar]

? Better elaborate I think. Cryptic comments useless.

--A

[wayfriend]

We don't know what homosexuality is for. I think it's premature to label it a "disease". For one thing, it seems to cause no harm. For another, it's too pervasive across a spectrum of species to be random. So anyone who is "curing it" is using non-medical value judgements.

People are right in saying it'll happen anyway. But we can have a discussion about the ethics anyway.

Homosexuality benefits reproduction if it results in fewer children growing up stronger rather than more children growing up weaker. An available resources angle. Mother rabbits eat their babies if they are overcrowded. Other animals prune their litters if they are too large. Its established that mother nature does work in this direction - instincts which direct animals to have fewer children in order to have stronger ones.

I'm not sure if that's what EL is thinking.

[Zarathustra]

I realized that "genetic disease" may not be the right word. I just don't know what else to call a mutation which leads to a behavior detrimental to genetic reproduction. If other behaviors can be called "diseases"--like alcoholism--why can't this one? We define what a disease is based on the desirability of the mutation. It's a purely subjective definition based on human needs and desires. If 99% of the population was bipolar, we probably wouldn't call that a disease either. We'd just think we were a cranky, moody, unpredictably emotional species. Which, we kind of are anyway.

There are lots of diseases that are pervasive across different species. This doesn't prove that these diseases aren't random or a detriment to those species.

Homosexuality benefits reproduction if it results in fewer children growing up stronger rather than more children growing up weaker. An available resources angle. Mother rabbits eat their babies if they are overcrowded. Other animals prune their litters if they are too large. Its established that mother nature does work in this direction - instincts which direct animals to have fewer children in order to have stronger ones.

How does homosexuality result in fewer children growing up stronger, as opposed to more children growing up weaker? The sex habits of others don't have any bearing on my children's strength or weakness.

"Available resources" argument doesn't apply to us like it does to rabbits. We don't eat our babies because we have agriculture. Rabbits have to make do with what nature provides them. Human invention and intelligence changes this equation.

It's true that mother nature uses the fewer-offspring strategy in some species. But this is a purely contingent survival strategy. The opposite strategy is actually employed with much greater frequency. Insects, for instance, have 1000s of offspring. There is nothing about humanity's survival as a race which requires us to have homosexuality. If our numbers actually outpace our technology one day (unlikely), then the weaker humans will die off naturally, while the stronger ones will survive--just like nature has been operating for billions of years. Our numbers will naturally grow or decline based on our ability to sustain ourselves. Homosexuality isn't needed.

Besides, it isn't like other adaptations which are passed on through the generations due to its usefulness to the survival of the species. If homosexuals don't reproduce (which is precisely their evolutionary worth, in your opinion) then there's no way for these "useful" genes to get passed on to their children--which is the way evolution and natural selection work. Natural selection couldn't possibly have selected for this trait to continue to exist, precisely because reproduction is necessary for natural selection to "select" in the first place. That's why I say it's more like a genetic disease: a mutation which stays within a population despite its detrimental effects on reproduction. Your interpretation of putting a useful spin on this behavior lacks any scientific process of perpetuating itself via the mechanisms of evolution and natural selection, precisely because it's a mutation which leads to not passing itself on to its offspring.

[wayfriend]

I just don't know what else to call a mutation which leads to a behavior detrimental to genetic reproduction.

You keep putting the onus on everyone else, but you have yet to make a case that homosexuality is a mutation or that it is detrimental to anything, let alone genetic reproduction.

Being pervasive across several species speaks to it not being a random freakazoid type mutation. I never claimed anything else.

"Available resources" argument doesn't apply to us like it does to rabbits. We don't eat our babies because we have agriculture. Rabbits have to make do with what nature provides them. Human invention and intelligence changes this equation.

Again, you are sliding around the argument that a person's genes and biochemistry and physiological reactions have been established long before the fairly recent (100 years) concept of being enough food.

Again, how about bearing some of the onus of the argument, and please make a case as to how technological advances of the last 100 or 1000 years have eliminated any possibility that a human can react to overcrowding.

Besides, it isn't like other adaptations which are passed on through the generations due to its usefulness to the survival of the species. If homosexuals don't reproduce (which is precisely their evolutionary worth, in your opinion) then there's no way for these "useful" genes to get passed on to their children--which is the way evolution and natural selection work.

That's just plain wrong. If it was true, homosexuals will disappear after one generation. You're not thinking it through.

Think about rabbits eating their babies. If the result increases the likelihood of survival of the next generation, and if the genes are carried recessively in those members of that generation, or if it is not expressed by genes at all, then it is a sound strategy for natural selection to reinforce. Even though some members of the species were sacrified, the species is protected. This is not the first example of natural selection reinforcing a sacrifice action on behalf of the species. Heck, there are species that have whole cadres that don't even reproduce.

[emotional leper]

If Homosexuality is based on a genetic mutation that can be passed along to one's offspring, then it follows the same pattern as other such mutations.

A mutation which is inheritable and reduces fecundity in one portion of the population only remains in the population if it causes an increase in fecundity elsewhere.

If there's a gene on the X chromosome that makes men gay, and removes them from the breeding population, the only way it would stay in play through many generations is if it caused an increase in female fertility to make up for the men who aren't getting it on and passing the gene on to their daughters.

[edit] Or it in some other way makes the females who have it more fit so they live long enough to have more children, to make up for the lack of reproduction from the men with the gene, at their normal level of fecundity.