Health Care Upheld - Welcome to Socialism

Originally posted by BackFire
Do you think you should have to work hard in order to get health care?

I don't think people should have to work hard.

But I do think we should institute a mild form of eugenics until we can completely genetically engineer babies from the ground up. No crappy genetics can reproduce. All those with awesome genetics should be forced to have kids.

There, problems solved...healthcare costs should greatly improve, now.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But I do think we should institute a mild form of eugenics until we can completely genetically engineer babies from the ground up. No crappy genetics can reproduce. All those with awesome genetics should be forced to have kids.

That doesn't sound "mild" to me and besides being open to abuse (just recently a judge tried to force a schizophrenic woman to have an abortion on that basis) isn't necessarily beneficial. Genetic variety protects against all kinds of things so fitness can only really be determined after the fact.

Evolution is not "the fit survive" it is "those who survive are called fit".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That doesn't sound "mild" to me

I guess you are not familiar with the much harsher forms of eugenics such as active genocide and murdering the retarded, deformed, or sick.

Also, without reading further, it seems you took my comment seriously which is ridiculous because I was clearly joking.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
and besides being open to abuse (just recently a judge tried to force a schizophrenic woman to have an abortion on that basis) isn't necessarily beneficial. Genetic variety protects against all kinds of things so fitness can only really be determined after the fact.

What is beneficial about Hodgkin's disease? What is beneficial about hereditary deafness? What is beneficial about Alzheimer's? Sure, we can talk about rare exceptions such as sickle cell anemia, but saying debilitating mutations/genetic abnormalities are beneficial in a manner that implies they are generally 'good' is just plain wrong.

So how is engineering, from the ground up, a la Gattaca, inferior to old school sexual reproduction?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Evolution is not "the fit survive" it is "those who survive are called fit".

Uhhh...no.

That's not correct.

Evolution is:

Genetic Drift
Natural Selection (which is synonymous with survival of the fittest whose further definition is "better adapted for immediate, local, environment "😉
Gene Flow
Biased Mutation

I could be missing a few mechanisms, too.

Definitely not "those who survive are called fit". And that phrase is backwards: "those who are fit [for their local and immediate environment] generally survive more often than those who are not."

Originally posted by dadudemon
So how is engineering, from the ground up, a la Gattaca, inferior to old school sexual reproduction?

The big problem I would see is that a good number of genetic conditions are not matters of producing qualitatively different results in individuals with certain genes (though, for issues like Huntington's disease, sure), but that various arrangements of genes produce individuals who have an "abnormal", or only quantitatively different, degrees of various cognitive skills or processes (this may only be an issue for neurology, I'm not informed enough about other biological conditions).

Lets say we have a population that ranges on a single variable from 0 to 100, and that individuals fall somewhere in this range with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10 (I'm pretty sure you have basic stats background, yes?). Further, lets say that clinicians judge anything falling 3 standard deviations under the mean (.5% of the population) as being clinically "abnormal".

If you put a eugenics program in place to combat this, you end up on what I think would be a legitimate slippery slope. Instead of eliminating a group of people who are qualitatively different than others, you have eliminated just one end of a continuum. Further, you have redefined what the range, mean and standard deviation on the variable in question would be. The mean would now be higher, the standard deviation lower, and the range would be 20 to 100 instead of 0 to 100 (the distribution would also be crazy skewed and no longer normally distributed, but that isn't as important). However, because the clinical condition is defined in relation to the mean, you will always have .5% of the population who meets the criteria. Somehow you would have to create a strict, absolute and non relative definition of what psycho-normal is for any genetically based clinical disorder, or risk inevitably euthanizing children who have no real abnormality but only exist as a statistical extreme.

Then you have issues like, what if we find genetic predispositions for poverty or other social issues? This basically turns into the same demarcation issue I explained above, but it is still relevant to mention.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Definitely not "those who survive are called fit". And that phrase is backwards: "those who are fit [for their local and immediate environment] generally survive more often than those who are not."

actually, the part you had to put in quotations to qualify the use of the term "fit" is identical to what Sym was saying.

Fitness for the environment is determined after an organism has passed on its genes, not a priori (in a technical sense; obviously we can look at certain organisms and know before hand what might make them more or less "fit" for an environment). Biologically, fitness is the consequence of having passed on your genes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think people should have to work hard.

But I do think we should institute a mild form of eugenics until we can completely genetically engineer babies from the ground up. No crappy genetics can reproduce. All those with awesome genetics should be forced to have kids.

There, problems solved...healthcare costs should greatly improve, now.

Hahaha

Originally posted by Oliver North
The big problem I would see is that a good number of genetic conditions are not matters of producing qualitatively different results in individuals with certain genes (though, for issues like Huntington's disease, sure), but that various arrangements of genes produce individuals who have an "abnormal", or only quantitatively different, degrees of various cognitive skills or processes (this may only be an issue for neurology, I'm not informed enough about other biological conditions).

Brain stuff is not really what I was talking about. I was talking about improving the gene pool, in general. Higher tolerances, stronger bones, less susceptibility to: hypertension, psoriasis, skin cancer, bla bla bla.

While much of that much of that is environmentally influenced, you can still improve the gene pool by lessening the negative impact the environment can have on the individual.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Lets say we have a population that ranges on a single variable from 0 to 100, and that individuals fall somewhere in this range with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10

Okay...

Originally posted by Oliver North
(I'm pretty sure you have basic stats background, yes?).

If by that you mean, "Something you use everyday as part of your normal job functions", then, yes, I am ever so slightly familiar with stats.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Further, lets say that clinicians judge anything falling 3 standard deviations under the mean (.5% of the population) as being clinically "abnormal".

I'd go with 2...

Originally posted by Oliver North
If you put a eugenics program in place to combat this, you end up on what I think would be a legitimate slippery slope.

I think you've just created a massive/complicated strawman. However, to argue against your idea of a slippery slope, what is wrong with virtually creating a perpetual improvement program where the genome is improved, always, to try and eliminate all weaknesses? We could draw the line, obviously, at some point....maybe...depends on how granular you want to discuss this. For instance, changing the shape of the nose because someone thinks the small nose increases drag when inhaling or something silly like that. Up to a point, yes, it would be beneficial to open up the nasal passages to breath properly. But after that, the improvements may not be physiological, at all: just cosmetological.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Instead of eliminating a group of people who are qualitatively different than others,

That's not the purpose: that's also a strawman.

In a Gattaca type genetic engineering system, you use the parents but just build the kids better by reworking some of the "bad stuff". So, you would not be eliminating a group of people, at all, you'd be improving a group of people. However, the temp. solution would be eugenics until genetic engineering can reach that point.

I feel your point would not have been a strawman had you worded it like so: "Instead of eliminating a group of people who are qualitatively genetically inferior to others..." But even then, it seems off...not quite right...and not really what I would want to say.

Originally posted by Oliver North
you have eliminated just one end of a continuum.

One, huh? Don't you think only a bipolar sliding scale is misrepresentative of what actually is taking place? The system would be far more complicated than that:

It would look more like this:

And far less like this:

Originally posted by Oliver North
Further, you have redefined what the range, mean and standard deviation on the variable in question would be.

No, you have. I haven't. Who says the baseline would be changed? What if it remains what it was when the program was first started? You'd always be testing improvement over that baseline instead of a "dynamic" baseline that changes once a year or whatever it is you're wanting to do.

At that, what's wrong with changing that baseline? If almost every last person's life on the planet is improved because disease is vastly limited and premature death is much less common, why is that a bad thing, again?

Originally posted by Oliver North
The mean would now be higher, the standard deviation lower, and the range would be 20 to 100 instead of 0 to 100 (the distribution would also be crazy skewed and no longer normally distributed, but that isn't as important).

I was thinking if every last person was forced to either stop producing or have children genetically engineered to a certain level of "genetic perfection", there would be a floor limit. And that floor limit could consistently be adjusted based on improvements or discoveries. That's the point of a fascist type system of eugenics.

And, again...I was just joking. Life would be too dull if we never got sick, never got aches and pains, bla bla bla.

Originally posted by Oliver North
However, because the clinical condition is defined in relation to the mean, you will always have .5% of the population who meets the criteria.

What about a system in which no clinical conditions, except those causes solely by the environment, existed? What about a system where even environmental problems could be greatly mitigated: fatness from overeating could be slightly mitigated to greatly mitigated with some genetic stuff (higher metabolism, better system of satiety, etc. Man, too much stuff to cover).

Originally posted by Oliver North
Somehow you would have to create a strict, absolute and non relative definition of what psycho-normal is for any genetically based clinical disorder, or risk inevitably euthanizing children who have no real abnormality but only exist as a statistical extreme.

Hmmm...I think I understand what you're talking about, now. That's not the type of system I am talking about.

Barring people from reproducing except those with the best genetic base with which to work is what I am talking about. It would be impossible to enforce such a system...it is literally a joke system in both senses: joke as in "humorous to contemplate a system where those with supposedly 'great' genetics are forced to reproduce" and joke as in, "that system is a joke: it would be impossible to implement and enforce".

Euthanizing children was not part of my suggestion, by the way. That's your idea of the system as is most of your argument against what I talked about.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Then you have issues like, what if we find genetic predispositions for poverty or other social issues? This basically turns into the same demarcation issue I explained above, but it is still relevant to mention.

I have a better question: if you have the ability to improve the human genome to such an extent that 99.999% of premature deaths can be prevented, would you do it knowing that you don't have to kill a single human to do it?

And your question was talked about in one of my classes: we had to give presentations on that very topic. The question went something like, "Assume humans have complete control over the human genome: what ethical considerations would there be and how could those be mitigated?"

It boiled down to things like you talked about. The answer is pretty much: "no one can objectively answer that and it almost an unscientific consideration."

And there was a study that showed poverty negatively impacted genetic potential (meaning, best possible developmental outcome was detrimented, to some degree, by poverty). That seems obvious, right? Well, science has to prove that before it can be taken as fact. So just having 'great genetics' still does not account for everything.

So the socioeconomic arguments and the environment arguments are bit out of reach, imo. That's entirely different topic that is too nebulous to really address. Could you build into the human genome "genetic" safeguards that give people better outcomes for "mental bla bla bla bla stuff"? Yes, you could. But would that change the person? I don't know. That's just too difficult to address right now. That's not how my comment was intended to be taken.

Originally posted by Oliver North
actually, the part you had to put in quotations to qualify the use of the term "fit" is identical to what Sym was saying.

No it isn't. 😐

Originally posted by Oliver North
Fitness for the environment is determined after an organism has passed on its genes,

I disagree with this.

Fitness, in biological sense, has two primary components: surviving AND reproducing.

Originally posted by Oliver North
...Biologically, fitness is the consequence of having passed on your genes.

Again, you're about 50% correct.

Fitness, in biological sense, has two primary components: surviving AND reproducing.

And the way I was describing it, I hinted at the real definition of biological fitness: a probability, not an inexorable fact:

"those who are fit generally survive more often than those who are not."

I spent 20 minutes also doing an audio reply to your post. Wanna hear it? I cover tons of more stuff.

Originally posted by BackFire
Hahaha

Thank you! Someone recognizes the parody...

Greek city states: each had their own sovereignty and fought each other.

I see it is impossible for Obama fanboys to not read his record and look at his actions. Taking credit for killing Osama disgusted me. He wasn't there and he didn't pull the trigger. What has he done in his first term? Improved his golf game. He could have focused his attention on the economy and got this country moving again, but instead chose to waste 1 trillion on a healthcare bill that nobody in America wants. Like the Flogging Molly song states "The power's out."

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Greek city states: each had their own sovereignty and fought each other.

I see it is impossible for Obama fanboys to not read his record and look at his actions. Taking credit for killing Osama disgusted me. He wasn't there and he didn't pull the trigger. What has he done in his first term? Improved his golf game. He could have focused his attention on the economy and got this country moving again, but instead chose to waste 1 trillion on a healthcare bill that nobody in America wants. Like the Flogging Molly song states "The power's out."

You're not right for most of what you're trying to say:

Here's a list of things he did and did not do:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/browse/

Given that he's actually said he's just trolling and has already started bitching about people not understanding that he means something completely different than what he wrote I think he can write of dadude for the rest of the week.

Given that a joke is not the same thing as trolling and that my point was clearly strawmanned, we can pretty much write off Symmetric Chaos as rage posting at dadudemon, yet again.

The "Power's Out":
http://youtu.be/HH_JAhhQKZE

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
The "Power's Out":
http://youtu.be/HH_JAhhQKZE

I use "intelligent" loosely.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
The "Power's Out":
http://youtu.be/HH_JAhhQKZE

One couplet....rhymed with the same word...

yeah

But I could not make it through the whole thing.

Hey guys!!Health is wealth so we should take care of the health and
participate in the healthier and physically activities.So we should be discussion on the health care topic.I get more information from this thread about the health care...

Is that true that this new tax cannot be enforced?