Poll: Should/would you check a potential mate's genes against your own?

[BGH122]

Very informative and pretty easy to understand and read. Awesome post.

As for me, I wouldn't check back on my girlfriends genes because it doesn't really matter to me what they are, and whatever might be born of us if we have a child is okay with me. I'm not worried at all about it and I've never thought about it until now. Maybe, maybe if the child has a good risk of a potential life-threatening illness that could occur, I'd consider not having one and adopting (for my partner's and my sake, as well as for the child). But this isn't something I'd think about at all until it came up.

Thanks!

It's really the illness front that would worry me too (I'm never having kids or probably even a long term relationship, science is my family). I wouldn't care about insignificant things like hair colour, but if I could prevent my child from having high CHD risk for example then I'd be morally obliged to do so.

 

[Grand_Arcana]

-snip-

Ah, I loved Genetics class! Are you a professor?

 

[BGH122]

-snip-

Ah, I loved Genetics class! Are you a professor?

Alas, just a lowly scientist in the cogs of science. Although my specially built sarcasm detector was going wild there.

 

[KafkaOffTheBeach]

Oh OP!
You make it sound so very, very romantic...
You've got my heart all aflutter.

 

[Grand_Arcana]

-snip-

Ah, I loved Genetics class! Are you a professor?

Alas, just a lowly scientist in the cogs of science. Although my specially built sarcasm detector was going wild there.

Better than me, I'm still an undergrad. What field are you in? I'm thinking of going into Pathology myself.

 

[ThatDaveDude1]

I don't think anybody should have to, but you're an idiot if you don't.

 

[BGH122]

-snip-

Ah, I loved Genetics class! Are you a professor?

Alas, just a lowly scientist in the cogs of science. Although my specially built sarcasm detector was going wild there.

Better than me, I'm still an undergrad. What field are you in? I'm thinking of going into Pathology myself.

Haven't yet chosen one either, but my general field (as you've probably guessed) is biology. I'm going to be assisting on some medical research soon as preparation for med school (still undecided about that, might go into pure research). I'll definitely do something to do with diseases research too, but I'd need to pick a specific subject before I make a PhD application.

 

[E-Penguin]

Considering how the population has increased a fuckton since the dawn of man, i'd imagine we're all inbred somewhere down the line.
And that's scary...

here's a nice little fact:

Humanity's total population was once down to a few thousand individuals. This was most likely caused by some kind of disaster.

 

[Torrasque]

lol, I have that thread open in another tab, and have yet to post. I'll do so after this post.

If you are mating with a random person that you are pretty damn sure you are not related to, then you should not (and should not have to) check their genes. Why? Because doing so would be a slippery slope to a eugenics-minded society. The only time a person's genes should be checked into is when they might have a rare genetic feature (beneficial or not) that has a chance of being passed onto their offspring, or if a genetic feature can be blocked (like a tendency to have cancer for instance), but even that kind of gene mapping is tricksy and lead to eugenics =|

However, if you are mating with someone that you are pretty damn sure that you are in fact related to, then you should probably see just how related you are to said person. If you are sibings, close cousins, or even not-too-distant cousins, then it would be a good idea to not procreate. The chances are extremely high that your child will have mild to serious birth defects and increased disease tendency (your kid will be fucked up). It is possible to get your genes and your mate's genes checked out to see how likely the fuckery will occur, but you would have to be careful that you don't slip too far down the eugenics slope. A mild amount of gene mapping is really neat and educational, but too much is the difference between a spoonful of sugar and a truckload.

*massive snip*

This is why eugenics isn't something to be feared, it's something to be admired. We can completely obviate genetic disease through careful selection of partners. Love a person, but the genes are incompatible? No worries, use donor sperm or have your sperm genetically modified (first you'll need to stop the religious from blocking all our attempts to study this route)!

I hope I've been helpful and haven't offended anyone because that's not what I set out to do. It also took an hour to write.

Your hour long post took me back to grade 11, lol. It feels like I learned all that hundreds of years ago, when its only been about 4 years =X
While your post was bang on in all the scientific aspects, and pretty much double what someone would learn from a wiki page, I disagree entirely with your assessment of eugenics.
Lets get something straight first: I am an ethical person first, and a scientific person second. To be human is to think and feel like a human, and our ethical code is something extremely important to humanity.

As a scientific person, I think eugenics are awesome, because the ability to make humans perfect is absolutely astounding, and should be something that we should try to obtain in the near future. I mean, why spend billions of dollars treating people with X disorder; a number that will only increase in time, when a few hundred million can be spent to fix the disorder permanently? From a scientific standpoint, eugenics are absolutely amazing.

As an ethical person, I think eugenics are akin to genocide. There are two ways eugenics can be carried out: passive and active (there is also forced and non-forced, but those are obvious enough to not require an explanation).
Passive eugenics is the process where an individual's genes are mapped out; all their good genes, all their bad genes, and everything in between. After they are scanned, they are told which people they should mate with, and which people they should not mate with, in order to carry on their good genes, and prevent the spread of their bad genes. The point of passive eugenics, is to gradually cull the human race of bad genes, by informing people not to. Passive eugenics is a slower process, but much more likely to be socially acceptable.
Active eugenics is the process where an individual's genes are mapped out; all their good genes, all their bad genes, and everything in between. After they are scanned, they fall into three categories: good, decent, bad (G/D/B respectively). The people labeled G are the people that are allowed to breed, but even then, they can only breed with specific other Gs so their "good" genes are passed on as effectively as possible. The people labeled D are the people that are controlled the most, because they carry enough "good" genes so they are not in the B group, but not enough to be labeled G; for this reason, they are carefully controlled so the maximum amount of "good" genes are passed on, and the least amount of "bad" genes are passed on. Ds usually breed with other Ds, but may sometimes be permitted to mate with Gs if the genes mesh correctly. Bs are not allowed to breed at all, and are usually killed right away. In rare circumstances, Bs might be permitted to mate with Ds, but the likelihood the genes mesh is very unlikely.

TL;DR
I know all of this is kind of hard to read, but it is essential if you want to know why eugenics is bad.
By carrying out any form of eugenics, you determine a person's worth to be what their genetic makeup is. No matter how you carry it out, you ARE culling the human race. Do you want to have your sibling killed if she wasn't lucky enough to get enough good genes? If she was unlucky and got too many bad genes?
Eugenics CAN make humanity better, but it defies Darwin's law that the most adaptable species prospers. If all humanity was the same "awesome" template, and some disease came along and hit that template in it's weak spot, then all humanity dies. Genetic diversity is extremely important in any species.

Wow, 10 minute post turned into an hour and a half =|
Oh well!

 

[BGH122]

Active eugenics is the process where an individual's genes are mapped out; all their good genes, all their bad genes, and everything in between. After they are scanned, they fall into three categories: good, decent, bad (G/D/B respectively). The people labeled G are the people that are allowed to breed, but even then, they can only breed with specific other Gs so their "good" genes are passed on as effectively as possible. The people labeled D are the people that are controlled the most, because they carry enough "good" genes so they are not in the B group, but not enough to be labeled G; for this reason, they are carefully controlled so the maximum amount of "good" genes are passed on, and the least amount of "bad" genes are passed on. Ds usually breed with other Ds, but may sometimes be permitted to mate with Gs if the genes mesh correctly. Bs are not allowed to breed at all, and are usually killed right away. In rare circumstances, Bs might be permitted to mate with Ds, but the likelihood the genes mesh is very unlikely.

I wasn't espousing this form of eugenics, I should have been clearer. I'm in favour of passive. As you rightly point out, intraspecific biodiversity is very important to allows for easy adaptation to environmental changes. What we need to attempt to do is avoid mating with people whose genes will be very likely to create a diseased offspring, not hone humanity down to a single utopian Ubermensch.

 

[EllEzDee]

Considering how the population has increased a fuckton since the dawn of man, i'd imagine we're all inbred somewhere down the line.
And that's scary...

here's a nice little fact:

Humanity's total population was once down to a few thousand individuals. This was most likely caused by some kind of disaster.

And if they bible's to be believed, we began with just 2 people: Adam and Eve.
So double EWWW.

 

[Kaymish]

yes but only to check for genetic disease and conflicting geans before trying for pregnancy it saves much pain and heartache when they find out their child is going to be broken
i remember hearing a theory that the reason Huntington's disease is still not been selected out is because it makes the carrier more attractive during breeding age before killing them horribly at around 35-40 i doubt any parent wants to be unprepared for that which is why people should be tested before hand so they can prepare for any issues if they still decide to have child

 

[Torrasque]

Active eugenics is the process where an individual's genes are mapped out; all their good genes, all their bad genes, and everything in between. After they are scanned, they fall into three categories: good, decent, bad (G/D/B respectively). The people labeled G are the people that are allowed to breed, but even then, they can only breed with specific other Gs so their "good" genes are passed on as effectively as possible. The people labeled D are the people that are controlled the most, because they carry enough "good" genes so they are not in the B group, but not enough to be labeled G; for this reason, they are carefully controlled so the maximum amount of "good" genes are passed on, and the least amount of "bad" genes are passed on. Ds usually breed with other Ds, but may sometimes be permitted to mate with Gs if the genes mesh correctly. Bs are not allowed to breed at all, and are usually killed right away. In rare circumstances, Bs might be permitted to mate with Ds, but the likelihood the genes mesh is very unlikely.

I wasn't espousing this form of eugenics, I should have been clearer. I'm in favour of passive. As you rightly point out, intraspecific biodiversity is very important to allows for easy adaptation to environmental changes. What we need to attempt to do is avoid mating with people whose genes will be very likely to create a diseased offspring, not hone humanity down to a single utopian Ubermensch.

And THAT is the kind of eugenics that I am ok with. It has to be extremely regulated so it doesn't become something different, so it is actually not unethical.
But even still, I am not really ok with telling X person that they can't have children with Y person because they have Z disease. I'd like to, but I can't.
And I also really don't like how people with said "bad genes" are seen as people with shitty genes. They may have shitty genes, but doesn't stop them from living full and productive lives.

I will say though, that the shittier a person's genes are, the more likely a bit of gene mapping would assist them.

 

[StBishop]

Why? Genes have nothing to do that makes that person, they could have the worst genes in the world, but, have the best personality.

Snip

Because your enzymes control every reaction at every stage in your body and because everything in your body, from your toenails to your brain, is created by a reaction (or chain of reactions) your enzymes essentially make you who you are. Your enzymes are in turn made who they are by mRNA which is made what it is by the genes it uses as templates. Because your brain is you and its specific regions control specific functions (and it's been shown for a long time that irregularities in brain functions, even as diverse as Schizophrenia, are attributable to irregularities in shape), if you've got genes that code for the production of undesirable mRNA which in turn code for the production of undesirable proteins which have the wrong specific shape for their intended function then you're very likely screwed for life with no way of having the issue ever sorted out, relying on palliative (non-curative) care forever, like neuroleptic drugs.

I would like to add anecdotal evidence to this. Specifically that a person's personality and being (who they are) is directly related to the form and function of their brain.

My mother had a brain tumour and had it surgically removed, during the process the suffered some problems due to a mistake on the surgeons part (which lead to this being his last surgery before voluntarily resigning I'm told) which damaged her brain, causing her to lose sight in one eye and undergo sever changes in some aspects of her personality.

She's since become a very different person who now has, what seems like, a completely different set of personality traits, mannerisms, beliefs, and is literally nothing like the woman who brought me up. It's upsetting but once you realise it's not on purpose and that really, she's a different person now, it's less frustrating.
I suppose you could attribute the change to the psychological impact of losing the sight in one of your eyes and the emotional stress of having a tumour but she knew about this problem for years before her doctors decided to operate and I think that the severe change in almost all aspects of her personality is a hint that there's been a major change in her brain.

 

[Trolldor]

Why? Genes have nothing to do that makes that person, they could have the worst genes in the world, but, have the best personality.

Unless they have genes which make them susceptible to violent behaviour.


Maybe you ought to actually do a little research on genetics eh?

 

[Trolldor]

All unborn children should be genetically tested as soon as possible - this allows for, at the very least, preparation if you decide to have children with serious disabilities.
It also means that should you discover your child's only going to have half a face you can promptly abort and save it those few hours of life spent in incredible agony and suffering under critical care in a hopstial.

 

[Heronblade]

If we were able to detect and isolate genetic problems before they occur, then yes I would.

 

[BGH122]

Why? Genes have nothing to do that makes that person, they could have the worst genes in the world, but, have the best personality.

Snip

Because your enzymes control every reaction at every stage in your body and because everything in your body, from your toenails to your brain, is created by a reaction (or chain of reactions) your enzymes essentially make you who you are. Your enzymes are in turn made who they are by mRNA which is made what it is by the genes it uses as templates. Because your brain is you and its specific regions control specific functions (and it's been shown for a long time that irregularities in brain functions, even as diverse as Schizophrenia, are attributable to irregularities in shape), if you've got genes that code for the production of undesirable mRNA which in turn code for the production of undesirable proteins which have the wrong specific shape for their intended function then you're very likely screwed for life with no way of having the issue ever sorted out, relying on palliative (non-curative) care forever, like neuroleptic drugs.

I would like to add anecdotal evidence to this. Specifically that a person's personality and being (who they are) is directly related to the form and function of their brain.

My mother had a brain tumour and had it surgically removed, during the process the suffered some problems due to a mistake on the surgeons part (which lead to this being his last surgery before voluntarily resigning I'm told) which damaged her brain, causing her to lose sight in one eye and undergo sever changes in some aspects of her personality.

She's since become a very different person who now has, what seems like, a completely different set of personality traits, mannerisms, beliefs, and is literally nothing like the woman who brought me up. It's upsetting but once you realise it's not on purpose and that really, she's a different person now, it's less frustrating.
I suppose you could attribute the change to the psychological impact of losing the sight in one of your eyes and the emotional stress of having a tumour but she knew about this problem for years before her doctors decided to operate and I think that the severe change in almost all aspects of her personality is a hint that there's been a major change in her brain.

I'm very sorry to hear about your mother. That must be hard for you.

It's true that even relatively minor changes to the structure of the brain can radically alter facets of our cognitive function. It's very easy to forget that we are essentially brains.

 

[StBishop]

I'm very sorry to hear about your mother. That must be hard for you.

It's true that even relatively minor changes to the structure of the brain can radically alter facets of our cognitive function. It's very easy to forget that we are essentially brains.

The fact that she's changed as a person sort of pales in comparison to the changes to my life caused by her subsequent actions, I never really mourned the loss of a mother so much as the loss of my family life in general.

But thanks anyway.

It's pretty fun to look at the development and evolution of the human body, and life in general. It's crazy that we're so simple, but so unique. I mean, have you seen an earthworms CNS? It's brain is literally a couple of rings or nerves around it's oesophagus, linked by more nerves which continue on down it's body like a spinal cord.
Mental.