Slashdot Mirror
Familial DNA Testing Nabs Alleged Serial Killer
cremeglace writes "A quarter-century of conventional detective work failed to track down the killer responsible for the deaths of at least 10 young women in south Los Angeles dating back to the mid-1980s. But a discarded piece of pizza and a relatively new method of DNA testing has finally cracked the case, police announced last week. On July 7, L.A. police arrested Lonnie Franklin Jr., 57, a former garage attendant and sanitation worker they suspect is the serial killer nicknamed the 'Grim Sleeper.' The key evidence? A match between crime-scene DNA and the suspect's son, obtained by a search through the state's data bank of DNA collected from 1.3 million convicted felons."
We'll be comparing death records with DNA testing to determine health care eligibility. YEAH!
We must hunt down and treat the serial killer gene before it kills us all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatric_genetics
This is one of the reasons why transhumanism is a good thing. We have individuals born with psychological illnesses that make them a danger to themselves or others, why not treat and cure these individuals at the fetus stage so that they and we need not suffer from the impact of inaction?
Nope - cant do it.
If we start removing the genes for sociopathy we will not have anyone left to be the CEO of the fortune 500 companies.
There has been some theoretical discussions about this idea before, but the general idea is not very popular right now.
Why not just kill off all the family members of serial killers? I mean, if it's being caused by a gene, then all these people should be at least carriers of the gene. If we kill them all, we can eradicate the gene fro the gene pool and we'll never have serial killers ever again! Yeah, this is just as logical, effective, and ethical as your proposed solutions. Which is to say, not at all.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Why don't they find the serial killer gene instead
It's on the list. Right after curing cancer.
Even if there's a false positive, this testing should only grant the police a warrant for a suspect's DNA, which would then be compared with the crime scene evidence DNA, and the false positive would be detected. As long as the police don't publicly accuse the suspect before the full comparison, I don't see a problem with this.
Non-violent sociopaths can stay. They have enough self control, intellect, reasoning ability, and impulse control to be non-violent. Most of the sociopaths running fortune 500 companies aren't serial killers, or rapists.
Now if we find out a fetus has both violent genetics, and will be a sociopath, we should allow the parents the liberty to decide to shut off these genes. If the parents want to raise a sociopath it's on them, but I don't know any parent who wants to raise a serial killer, and if we knew who is likely to grow up to be a serial killer in the fetus stage it would be like giving birth to a down syndrome baby when that baby could be born perfectly healthy at the flip of a switch.
The moral of the story is: finish your damn pizza.
Familial testing gave them the ballpark family.
Regular policework found the bad guy from there. They stalked the suspect, who was nabbed after DNA was found on a meal that the suspect discarded. THAT DNA was the stuff that got him busted.
Well, there is precedent
The punishment involved the execution of close and extended family members.[3][20] These included:
The criminal's living parents
The criminal's living grandparents
Any children the criminal may have, over a certain age (which is usually variable depending on the time period)
Any grandchildren the criminal may have, over a certain age (which is usually variable depending on the time period)
Siblings and siblings-in-law (the siblings of the criminal and that of his or her spouse, in the case where he or she is married)
Uncles of the criminal, as well as their spouses
The criminal himself
Of course, for a complete wipe you'd want to get nieces and nephews too, a group strangely absent from the list of executed.
DNA fingerprints are not as random as many think. The markers used were not designed for a nation wide database situation. Hence collisions could be a big problem. That is two people with the same fingerprint (at least at the very small parts of DNA we look at) can in fact be very likely with a database this size.
I'm not saying he is innocent, but i don't think we should jump to the conclusion that he is guilty either.
In fact we may need to use SNPs (Single nucleotide polymorphisms) to be good enough for a database of millions (or eventually billions) to reduce collisions to acceptable levels.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Since detection will come long before treatment, I suspect the interim "cure" would be to puree and vacuum the fetus.
There has been some theoretical discussions about this idea before, but the general idea is not very popular right now.
None of the ideas which would actually work are popular. Doing anything to save the environment isn't popular. Doing anything about population growth is not popular.
But if we decide which ideas are good or bad based on whats popular this would explain why we are dying. I mean if we decide it's a good idea to continue giving birth to serial killers, and mentally retarded children when we could decide to have perfectly healthy children, sure it might not be a popular idea but it's still right.
Can anyone give me one reason why giving birth to disabled children is a good idea? Especially if we are talking about serial killers? From a utilitarian perspective, if given the option to have a child who is healthy or a child that is going to be a serial killer I'd choose the healthy child.
On the other hand, no more lawyers or politicians, either. I'd call it a wash.
If you had a serial killer in your family that makes you into a victim just by the fact that you have a serial killer in your family. It ruins your family reputation and dishonors your family be default.
No I don't think killing the families of serial killers would work because you cannot kill a bad gene. The only thing you can do about a bad gene which probably exists in most families, is to allow most families to have the option to give birth to offspring without having that gene activate itself. Also it's more ethical from a utilitarian perspective to spare human lives as taking lives makes and creates misery in the same way that the serial killer does.
My solution is logical because it would work and it would make the world happier and safer. Your solution is less logical because it wouldn't work and it would make the world miserable and more dangerous. When you shut off a gene in a fetus the fetus isn't harmed, nobody has to die. When you kill an entire family then a lot of people have to die.
So let me guess, you are anti abortion because you believe killing a fetus generates as much misery and damage as killing an adult?
Biology, despite the movies, really doesn't work that way. You may find a gene... that gives them a 4% chance of being a serial killer, perhaps. Maybe. We think. But there is a good chance you won't find anything at all. Its not all in the DNA (epigenetics, nurture vs nature etc.)
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
"We were very excited," she said.
just so you know.
I refuse to accept that behavior can be absolutely governed by genes (and your article makes a very similar point). Besides, if we shut off the gene for violence, assuming such a thing exists, what would the result look like? It might be unable to detect or react to danger, or it might exhibit some mutant form of restraint so paralyzing that it can't do anything at all.
Disease is one thing, but manipulating behavior through genetics seems dangerous. Perhaps when we have a complete understanding of our DNA, the time will be right.
Doing anything to save the environment isn't popular.
WTF?!
Since detection will come long before treatment, I suspect the interim "cure" would be to puree and vacuum the fetus.
In experiments we have shut off specific genes in mice and these mice have lived healthy lives. What if we could shut off the gene that produces rapists and serial killers? We would have a choice as to do something then and there, or wait until the serial killer/rapist victimizes hundreds, thousands, or millions of people.
Why should we wait for the symptoms when we can cure the disease in the womb?
Because they will start "curing" homosexuality, skin color, or whatever happens to be unpopular at the moment.
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
Familial searches from a DNA database the size of the one in California are very, very likely to produce false positives. For example, a study of the Arizona CODIS database carried out in 2005 showed that approximately 1 in every 228 profiles in the database matched another profile in the database at nine or more loci, that approximately 1 in every 1,489 profiles matched at 10 loci, 1 in 16,374 profiles matched at 11 loci, and 1 in 32,747 matched at 12 loci. http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_10_06.html
With California currently having the third largest DNA database in the world, the odds of ANY new genetic evidence matching on a cold search is way too likely.
We have found certain genes already. We have done experiments on mice already, not in regards to serial killers in specific but in general we have cured many diseases through gene therapy already.
So the question is should we stop stem cell research? should we stop genetic research? or should we actually look for the genes which are responsible for the diseases we want to cure and see if we can treat these illnesses in the fetus stage?
It's cheaper to treat disease in the fetus stage. It's also less damaging to everyone involved. It might work or it might not work but if it does work then we save a lot of lives. If it doesn't work we tried to save a lot of lives.
We're currently waiting for them to weed out the victim genes first.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Most disconcerting.
Does this mean that if I have had a DNA sample taken, all of my direct ancestors can be traced without ever being a "part" of the DNA database?
Alternatively, can a descendant of mine provide a DNA sample sometime in the far future and inadvertently "include" me in the system?
Is there some point in time where the introduction of new genetic material "breaks" this continuity between generations, in terms of DNA as a legal identifier?
My understanding of genetics simply isn't up to the task of answering these questions.
find the gene that produces serial killers and cure it
It's likely that only a fraction of the people with the serial killer gene actually go on to become serial killers, and that the rest of them express the gene in ways that are conducive to success in sports, business, and a variety of other competitive endeavors. It's just as unfair to shut genes off in an unwilling subject just because you don't like the gene as it is to cut off someone's hands because you think they might use them to steal something. Doing things like identifying genes and "curing" them without understanding how sentient beings can be constructed from atoms is all but guaranteed to deliver unwanted effects.
Well it is not as morally/intellectually as easy as you seem to think it is to start messing what it is to be human.
and I am sure a lot of it is not genes but learned behavior.
While we might be able to turn off humans violent tendencies, violence does have its uses.
Without some violence who can say what we would be unable to cope with.
and their is a difference between someone able to kill someone and someone that will kill someone else.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Once past your scare quote, knee jerk reaction generator, what's wrong with that?
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Because they will start "curing" homosexuality, skin color, or whatever happens to be unpopular at the moment.
I'm not advocating having the government decide. I'm saying the woman should be able to decide if she wants to give birth to a serial killing rapist or not. The woman should be able to decide if she wants to give birth to a mentally retarded child or not. The woman should be able to decide or choose which genes to activate in regards to homosexuality, skin color, or any of that, just as the parent gets to choose the name of the child.
Because their probably isn't one.
There may well be genes that impact the propensity to become a serial killer, but, even if there are, its not at all inconceivable that one that slightly increases the propensity to be a serial killer also has all kinds of socially beneficial effects, too, and that which effects manifest in any particular person vary based on environmental, rather than genetic, circumstances.
From TFA:
"Wow," he wrote in a message sent from his iPhone.
I saw this in the L.A. time article this weekend and wondered, what next?
"Awesome," he said, shitting in his Levis."
"Why not?", she offered as she chewed another Valtrex."
"Perfect!" he exclaimed, knocking the mutilated Hot Pocket off his penis."
Also known as the "Dark Passenger" gene.
... this waiting is killing me!
Remember rule N 1: Never get caught!
Tendencies are the result of genes. Not behavior, but tendencies. So a person who has the tendencies of a serial killer is born at risk for becoming a serial killer.
Just like a person can have a sexual attraction but never really have sex, having that sexual attraction puts them at increased risk for having sex. If a person is born with an inability to control their impulses, they are basically disabled mentally. This is genetically influenced even if they never become a serial killer, their quality of life would be better if they had impulse control.
The same can be said about depression and suicide. Not all depressed people commit suicide, but can you admit that if you found the gene that causes depression that it would be in that childs benefit to cure their depression while they are a fetus? This way they don't have to have a lifetime of medication and treatments in psychiatric wards.
@Anonymous
Explain how being violent, impulsive, and sociopathic can help in anything? Even if they never become a serial killer they probably wont live to be 21 because they'll still be violent, impulsive, and will likely get into trouble which gets them killed or locked up.
The point is parents should have the right to decide if they want to raise a child who is disabled or not. It should be a choice parents are given, do they want to raise a child who has a high likelihood of becoming a rapist or serial killer when they can shut off that gene and remove all doubt, virtually guaranteeing that their child wont be these things? It's very much like if a child is about to be born with autism, or with a disease that is going to shorten the childs lifespan and you as a parent can guarantee your child not be born with this lifespan shortening disease, why would you choose to give birth to the child who has this disease when you can give the child a normal life?
Why not figure out if it's possible to shut these genes off in mice and work from there?
Because it's hard to find serial killing rapist mice?
This means everyone's DNA should be taken.
Deleted
Probably because it's dangerous to pick on serial killers as a group.
"We call this one the "Genetic Researcher Decapitator".
Also, genetics does not work that way. Either you're an epically great troll or you simply didn't take any biology at any time in your life.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
That you Dex?
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Actually, if you take that list and compare it to the populations of the given nations, you'll find that the UK apparently has 2.5 times as many serial killers as the US, Australia has twice as many, and Canada has roughly the same number.
Of course, getting a list of names from wikipedia is an idiotic way to study the prevalence of serial killers in different nations. But, then again, suggesting that we "cure the serial killer gene" is probably every bit as stupid, so I guess your comment fits the discussion perfectly.
Better yet why not just inject come sheep dna into humans so that we can all follow the sheep leader with out any questioning.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Well it is not as morally/intellectually as easy as you seem to think it is to start messing what it is to be human.
and I am sure a lot of it is not genes but learned behavior.
While we might be able to turn off humans violent tendencies, violence does have its uses.
Without some violence who can say what we would be unable to cope with.
and their is a difference between someone able to kill someone and someone that will kill someone else.
The point is that serial killers are violent for no reason, for no cause, for no purpose other than to get a thrill. They are like individuals who torture for the fun of it. How is this trait useful for a society as modern as ours? If it were so useful we wouldn't be putting them in cages.
So the trait isn't considered useful by society. So let individual parents turn the trait off if they don't want a serial killing rapist in their family. This does not erase the gene from the gene pool, it simply deactivates the gene in the individual so that it's not turned on. The gene still will exist in the gene pool because as far as we know there is no way to erase genes out of the gene pool.
As far as being violent goes, a serial killer isn't just someone who is violent. The MMA fighters, the boxers, the soldiers trained to kill, they are violent. The serial killer is a predator who is violent for no reason other than violence sake, and produces nothing but misery. The rapist is another one who produces nothing but misery for misery sake.
So is it that difficult of an ethical decision to determine if the world would be happier without rapists and serial killers?
Doing anything about population growth is not popular.
As it shouldn't be. The world as a whole does not have an overpopulation problem, nor is it likely to develop one.
Which just brings up the fundamental flaw in your plan: what authority gets to decide who gets born? And why would you trust them?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Doing anything about population growth is not popular.
As it shouldn't be. The world as a whole does not have an overpopulation problem, nor is it likely to develop one.
Which just brings up the fundamental flaw in your plan: what authority gets to decide who gets born? And why would you trust them?
The economy proves otherwise. If there were not a population problem there would be enough jobs to hire everybody born multiple times over, and we'd be on a path to always have more jobs than population as the job growth would at least correlate with if not surpass the population growth.
Does that look like its happening? No it's not.
And what authority gets to decide who gets to be born? The women who give birth. And yes I t rust them. My mother had the option to abort me and chose not to. If I were going to be born with a severe disability, if my mother chose to have me be born healthy, that would lead to a better quality of life for me, so why would I complain about that?
The people who are miserable are the people who are born into situations and with problems which society cannot deal with. If you were born unable to ever walk, it's going to be a lot more difficult to be healthy. Sure some people who can't walk like Hawking are geniuses and maybe your parents would decide to let you be born like that on purpose, but would anyone consider this to be ethical or humane?
We wouldn't let our pet cats or dogs be born with diseases but we'd let humans be born that way? I'm not saying I should be able to tell you or anyone else whether or not you should have an abortion or cure a disease as a fetus, I'm just saying that if I want my offspring to be disease free at any cost, I should have the right and you shouldn't have the right to prevent it. Just as if a woman who was raped wants to abort her fetus you shouldn't have the right to prevent that.
Actually, if you take that list and compare it to the populations of the given nations, you'll find that the UK apparently has 2.5 times as many serial killers as the US, Australia has twice as many, and Canada has roughly the same number.
Of course, getting a list of names from wikipedia is an idiotic way to study the prevalence of serial killers in different nations. But, then again, suggesting that we "cure the serial killer gene" is probably every bit as stupid, so I guess your comment fits the discussion perfectly.
Why is it stupid? If we could cure sickle cell, or any other genetic disease would this be considered stupid? Why have gene therapy and stem cell research at all if the goals are all stupid?
Because their probably isn't one.
There may well be genes that impact the propensity to become a serial killer, but, even if there are, its not at all inconceivable that one that slightly increases the propensity to be a serial killer also has all kinds of socially beneficial effects, too, and that which effects manifest in any particular person vary based on environmental, rather than genetic, circumstances.
If we find the one gene or series of genes which cause the disease, why not shut those genes off?
What is the social benefit of serial killing rapists? I'd like to know. Lack of impulse control? How is that good? Lack of discipline? Lack of a conscience? Whats the social benefit in any environment and if there were one why do these individuals end up caged up or dead?
With millions of samples and what is it, 1 in 20000 unique people match each other in DNA tests? Then we can simply keep trying those will the correct age and geographic credentials until we get a convictions.
Hmmm... we have some DNA... Good, let's just send it to the lab and throw that guy in jail. No need to vet it. Look judge... the DNA matched!!!
Moral of the story, if your going to be a serial killer you need to find a dupe that is pretty straight and unlikely to have too many dealings with the law and mostly a loner and plant his DNA at all the crime scenes.
Which should be even more evidence that it's a disease that doesn't have a function in nature.
Your kids first.
Good idea. Remove all the genes that cause violent tendencies. Then what? We have a population of passive idiots sitting around, waiting for a conqueror to come in. If the Russians, the Chinese, the Koreans, and the Mexicans all decline to conquer this country, then we'll just have to wait for Alien or Predator to do it.
Despite common "wisdom", without violence we would be an entirely different creature. Some of those creatures have been examined in various science fiction novels. Personally, I don't much want to become an Eloi, being preyed upon by the Morlocks.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
they had a guy four square for a brutal rape, but the guy was unconcerned. sure enough, the dna test came back and turned out he only shared half the dna with the culprit: the murderer must be the guy's brother
so they let him loose and track down brother after brother, sample his dna, and it turns out to be yet another brother. meanwhile, the woman who was raped is murdered, and they find a hair on her body that matches the original suspect's dna 100%
while examining the original suspect again, grissom sees that his skin is strangely mottled, and he has an interesting statue in his house: the legendary greek chimera
grissom cracks the case: the guy committed the rape because he knew he was a genetic chimera. the dna of his semen was the "brother" of the dna of his blood
http://www.csifiles.com/reviews/miami/bloodlines.shtml
a genetic chimera is an extremely rare individual in which fraternal twin zygotes are created, then fuse. so different organ lines in the body are from two different "individuals". you are your own twin, you are a mix of two people. there is also the real life case of a woman who became a criminal suspect because she was suspected of kidnapping: she claimed to be the mother of a child, but a genetic test reveals she was the aunt: her own ovaries weren't hers but from her "phantom sister"
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2315693&page=1
not that this is an argument against how they caught the grim sleeper, i applaud this use of genetic profiling of relatives to solve crimes. its simple sleuthwork, and plenty of innocent people come under suspicion all the time in criminal investigations that must be ruled out with basic detective work
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's stupid because it makes a baseless assumption about the nature of a specific type of human behavior, uses that assumption to propose an extremely complex solution, and ignores the multitude of side-effects which would most likely occur even if the initial premise were valid and a solution were found.
It's like saying "hey, why are we wasting money on kevlar vests when we could just cure the bullet-permeability gene?"
Actually, if you take that list and compare it to the populations of the given nations, you'll find that the UK apparently has 2.5 times as many serial killers as the US, Australia has twice as many, and Canada has roughly the same number.
And what do they all have in common?
Former British colonies.
I think you're onto something and suggest we nuke those territories. Just to be safe.
Probably because it's dangerous to pick on serial killers as a group.
"We call this one the "Genetic Researcher Decapitator".
Also, genetics does not work that way. Either you're an epically great troll or you simply didn't take any biology at any time in your life.
So you are saying gene therapy never works to cure anything? Lets look into that,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-01-28-bubble-boy-gene_N.htm
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/colortherapy/
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/02/28/gene_therapy_gets_closer_to_a_cure/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7003-gene-therapy-is-first-deafness-cure.html
So what you are saying is you'd rather continue to leave people hopelessly disabled rather than attempt to find a gene therapy? And as far as fetuses go, you can screen every fetus and guarantee that the fetuses born don't have the gene.
Now thats the ticket, and why stop there?
We could also shut off the gene that makes us eat to much junk food. We could shut off the gene that makes people like Brittaney Spears. Finally, I would love it if we could shut off the gene that makes people annoying and unable to understand that some things in life are complicated and not black and white.
Silence, Pinky, or I shall have to hurt you.
It's stupid because it makes a baseless assumption about the nature of a specific type of human behavior, uses that assumption to propose an extremely complex solution, and ignores the multitude of side-effects which would most likely occur even if the initial premise were valid and a solution were found.
It's like saying "hey, why are we wasting money on kevlar vests when we could just cure the bullet-permeability gene?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110902079.html
According to this article it was possible to screen for downsyndrome 5 years ago. They could determine if the fetus would have downsyndrome and abort the fetus. This can be done today, right now.
In the future they will be able to activate or deactivate genes, or at least screen the fetus for the activated genes so that fetuses with these genes need not be born.
Tell me what would be so bad about this? If mental illness is genetic and we can screen for the genes associated with specific mental illnesses, why give birth to babies who will suffer a lifetime of mental illness?
I'm saying women should be given the abortion to abort an unhealthy fetus.
"Explain how being violent, impulsive, and sociopathic can help in anything?"
I can see that you place no value in having a military force, prepared to defend you. While so many people whine and cry about violent tendencies, more knowledgable people work toward channeling violent tendencies into useful pursuits. Without violent tendencies, what kind of world do you think that you would be living in today? Go on - use your imagination. Can't do it? Alright - I'll TELL YOU. You'd be just another fucking monkey flinging his shit at the big cat on the ground, prowling around the edges of the monkey colony.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I direct you to my response to GP (well, with the "their/there" error corrected):
Because there probably isn't one.
I never said there was a social benefit of becoming a serial killer of any kind; I said that (because links between genes and behavior are rarely simple) its quite likely that if there is a gene or set of genes that increases the overall likelihood of someone with it becoming a serial killer, the same gene or set of genes could quite possibly also have other effects, which are socially beneficial. Whether in any particular person the undesirable effects, the desirable effects, both, or neither manifest could be (as is often the case) determined not by the genetics alone but the genetics combined with environmental triggers.
Caution: This slope you're on... it's a slippery one.
Either we're not speaking the same language, or you're not listening. Or you're REALLY confused, and honestly think that serial killers all suffer from down syndrome. Regardless, judging by your inability to stay on the topic which you yourself started, I doubt that we can have a productive discussion.
Just deactivated. And also if less fetuses are born with these genes active you'll have less risk of any of that.
Whether or not someone is aggressive or not has nothing to do with genetics. An aggressive person is aggressive because of a situation provoking it. A serial killer is not provoked into being a serial killer, they are born with the innate lust for killing defenseless animals. They might start killing pets and work their way up to persons.
Violence will exist either way. You'll always have war, you'll always have cops and soldiers. There is a difference between organized rational violence in the context of a battlefield and war, and violence for the sake of violence as in a serial killer. Most people can be trained to kill in the context of war because they have a reason to be killing people. Most people cannot be serial killers because serial killers kill for fun.
Why do we need the gene that allows a person to enjoy killing activated in a large portion of society? What is the benefit? If there is or isn't a benefit, it should be for each individual family to decide. A parent should be able to decide if they want that gene activated or not in their offspring.
I'll guarantee that all my children are healthy, without mental illness or physical of any kind. And if your kids have any illnesses we shall see who's offspring lives happier and longer.
As far as I'm concerned thats all that matters. How happy are my offspring and how long do they live?
Cripes, that sounds like my crazy elderly dad. He thinks they should kill a murderer's family (you know, the people who *didn't* do the crime) in front of him. I keep explaining to him that serial killers are sociopaths who won't *care* if you kill their family (or even get off on it), but no go.
Now thats the ticket, and why stop there?
We could also shut off the gene that makes us eat to much junk food. We could shut off the gene that makes people like Brittaney Spears. Finally, I would love it if we could shut off the gene that makes people annoying and unable to understand that some things in life are complicated and not black and white.
Science proves as fact that diseases can be screened for. Once screened for in the fetal stage, the parents can guarantee that not fetus gets born with these diseases through abortion.
This is not to say that we currently know which gene creates serial killers or rapists. But we may find out which genes are associated with obesity, we may find out which genes are associated with depression, we may find out which genes are associated with a whole host of mental and physical illnesses and we may be able to screen for them, why not do it?
If it leads to finding the serial killer gene or if it doesn't, it improves quality of life for those who will be born. Who wants to be born sick?
We want somebody to be dumb enough to listen to the armed forces recruiters. Who else are you going to send to Iraq?
Either we're not speaking the same language, or you're not listening. Or you're REALLY confused, and honestly think that serial killers all suffer from down syndrome. Regardless, judging by your inability to stay on the topic which you yourself started, I doubt that we can have a productive discussion.
Serial killers suffer from mental illness that is worse than down syndrome. This is why serial killers are locked up in cages and executed by society while individuals with down syndrome may live in a group home but they generally have a better quality of life than serial killers.
Which would you rather be? A serial killer in prison or a down syndrome patient?
I'm saying if we can guarantee scientifically for parents that their offspring don't have to be born with either of these disabilities, why not try everything we can to cure it?
So based on the fact we can cure certain forms of immunodeficiency, blindness, deafness, and colourblindness, you conclude that there is/are (a) genes that controls whether someone will become a serial killer and can be altered without substantial side effects?
That's one hell of an unfounded leap. All of those conditions have known mechanisms of action (we know exactly what doesn't work properly) and have found the gene(s) is/are responsible for them. We have neither for serial killers/violent offenders, and I highly doubt there is any gene or set of genes that gives any reasonable probability of one becoming a serial killer or violent offender.
Even if there is a genetic root, current evidence shows it is massively correlated to environmental conditions. Here in Canada, a large percentage of dangerous offenders (criminals with long, violent histories serving indeterminate sentences) have Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Wait, wait, wait. You're missing the obvious.
UK has more serial killers than it's former prison colony? In a discussion about the mythical serial killer gene?
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
What could possibly go wrong?
Either we're not speaking the same language, or you're not listening. Or you're REALLY confused, and honestly think that serial killers all suffer from down syndrome. Regardless, judging by your inability to stay on the topic which you yourself started, I doubt that we can have a productive discussion.
He is, insofar as I can understand, stating that both down syndrome and psychopathy are genetic, and that as we can detect and prevent the former, so too should we be able to detect and prevent the latter. And I'm in agreement with you that this stance is an incorrect one, though likely for different reasons.
My personal qualm with is not an ethical one, but a practical one. I sincerely doubt that the propensity for being a serial killer can be linked to a single gene, and I'm not even sure it can be described as genetic. Put simply, I do not think we will ever be able to screen for and prevent such traits.
The comparison to down syndrome is fundamentally incorrect, as down syndrome is entirely determined by a minor mutation on the gamete cell before conception leading to chromosomal trisomy. Meaning it's entirely caused by genetic, and not environmental, factors. Even if there is a genetic complex shared by all serial killers (which there is no evidence to suggest that I am aware of), it is likely that environmental factors in the killer-to-be's upbringing play a bigger role.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
Hey, nice simple solutions to biological problems never have unintended side effects! Anyway, the human genome, and all possible interactions of all its parts is so well-known and thoroughly studied that I'm sure there's no room for error. Trust me, I'm a politician with little or no knowledge of genetics or biology! :)
Either we're not speaking the same language, or you're not listening. Or you're REALLY confused, and honestly think that serial killers all suffer from down syndrome. Regardless, judging by your inability to stay on the topic which you yourself started, I doubt that we can have a productive discussion.
He is, insofar as I can understand, stating that both down syndrome and psychopathy are genetic, and that as we can detect and prevent the former, so too should we be able to detect and prevent the latter. And I'm in agreement with you that this stance is an incorrect one, though likely for different reasons.
My personal qualm with is not an ethical one, but a practical one. I sincerely doubt that the propensity for being a serial killer can be linked to a single gene, and I'm not even sure it can be described as genetic. Put simply, I do not think we will ever be able to screen for and prevent such traits.
The comparison to down syndrome is fundamentally incorrect, as down syndrome is entirely determined by a minor mutation on the gamete cell before conception leading to chromosomal trisomy. Meaning it's entirely caused by genetic, and not environmental, factors. Even if there is a genetic complex shared by all serial killers (which there is no evidence to suggest that I am aware of), it is likely that environmental factors in the killer-to-be's upbringing play a bigger role.
I don't buy that. I think environment may have an influence, but even if environment has approximately 50% influence on becoming a serial killer it does not change the fact that genes would have to be the other 50%.
So my theory is that genes can be fixed a lot easier than environment can be fixed. We cannot ever have a perfect environment but we can have fetuses with minimal risk of becoming serial killers. It's a risk reduction strategy not a "cure". I don't believe we have a cure, but I don't say we wont ever have one or that we shouldn't look at gene therapy as a potential benefit or treatment. I say we should try everything, gene therapy, stem cells, biochemical, until we find a treatment that works better than building prisons and the death penalty.
I mean my ideas can't be worse than what we are currently doing.
the obvious: that the criminal exile process is very inefficient?
Begs the question. Who said it was a disease?
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Dude, give it a rest. You've posted over twenty times on this story. Go and get your own blog or something, so people can ignore you in your own space.
He is, insofar as I can understand, stating that ...
I'm in agreement with you that this stance is an incorrect one, though likely for different reasons.
I understood what he was saying - he's just so far off-base that I didn't feel like arguing with him. If he didn't understand my previous reply, it's unlikely I'll be able to get through to him.
As for our reasons, judging by your reply, I'd say they're pretty much the same. I don't see it as an ethical issue either - I'm a big fan of biotech. Your objection to the downs comparison is exactly the same as mine.
Wait, wait, wait. You're missing the obvious.
UK has more serial killers than it's former prison colony? In a discussion about the mythical serial killer gene?
Nicely done :) You're right, I missed that entirely. There you have it folks: wikipedia has conclusively proven that being a serial killer isn't genetic! Amazing. How did we ever learn anything before the interwebs?
Really interesting story about a neuroscientist who studies the links between genes, neurobiology, and crime. He's always argued that genes determine behavior: serial killers are killers because of their genes and their brain structure. But one day, at the family barbecue, he learns that his family tree is full of violent criminals and killers, including the infamous axe-murderess Lizzy Borden. So as an experiment, he decides to do genetic testing and brain scans on his family. His mother, his siblings, his kids: all normal. No abnormal genes. No unusual brain activity. Except for *one* family member, one person who was tested and who has both the abnormal genes and abnormal brain activity linked with sociopathic behavior. The person? It's the researcher himself.
So, assuming the dude doesn't have a freezer full of dead hookers we haven't found out about, that would seem to argue that it's a little simplistic to argue that a gene or genes automatically turn you into a serial killer. Studies of mental disorders have long shown that these things are complicated. If you have an identical twin who's schizophrenic, odds are pretty good that you're going to be schizophrenic- but it's not even close to 100% of the time, it's more like 50%.
Let's look at this practically, though. Say that you find out your mother, your father, your brother, or your sister has a gene that is linked with sociopathic behavior. Should they be locked up or prevented from reproducing? What if a routine screening discovered that you had that gene?
fix my multiple sclerosis first!
and cancer, and parkinsons, and all the other diseases with known genetic contributing factors
just go back to watching AMW and keep your ass firmly planted on the couch, stay out of the way
csi isn't real, and the statistics used for these genetic databases can be debunked with some simple court room demonstrations
Um, even if the killer would care, there is the larger issue of the harm you'd be doing to the people, you know, being killed. Strange how that part of the problem is missed by your dad.
Downs Syndrome is a genetic defect abnormality. It will manifest in some ways. For every "serial killer" gene discovered, the vast majority of the people with it never kill anyone. When you breed out all "interesting" personality types, what will you be left with? And is it a net benefit to wipe certain personality types from the genome because some tiny minority of people with that personality type end up offending?
What you are missing is that you are trying to cure the possibility of something. Someone with trisomy 21 has Downs Syndrome. There is no question, it's the definition. You test for the genetic abnormality, and then you know. But the genes that influence personality do not work that way. You can never look at genes and determine with 100% accuracy who will and won't offend (at least based on current genetic knowledge and assumptions). So you are calling for a genetic culling of a personality trait, not an elimination of a disease.
I'm saying if we can guarantee scientifically for parents that their offspring don't have to be born with either of these disabilities, why not try everything we can to cure it?
That depends on the cure. You could lobotomize all children at birth to guarantee that they won't become serial killers. Would that be a good thing? If not, why is your pet manner of personality restructuring acceptable and lobotomies not?
Learn to love Alaska
You say this like it is a bad thing.
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
You should shoot your mom in front of him (as punishment for thinking it is a good idea) and then ask him how he feels about it.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Because it's hard to find serial killing rapist mice?
I don't know about that. When I was a kid, we had two white mice as pets. One day, one of them flipped out, attacked the other, and chewed off his testicles (seriously)! He then proceeded to stack various materials (!) in order to reach the top of the cage, whereby he gnawed through the raw glass (starting from the lid opening) and... I forgot exactly what happened after. The insane mouse died later, from the shards of glass having mutilated his internal organs.
I don't remember if the neutered mouse survived or not. But it was a truly bizarre experience. If I had been older and able to remember the occurrence more vividly, it probably would have left me mentally scarred in some unexpected way.
Somebody with some lawyer skills, fill me in here: If I'm walking down the street not suspected of any crime and I spit on a public sidewalk, can the police scoop it up and DNA fingerprint me? I'm assuming not, that my discarded DNA has an expectation of privacy which they need probable cause to collect.
Does a DNA match with the suspect's son constitute probable cause to gather DNA evidence on the father? Does a judge need to sign off on it? If it *is* probable cause, why do they need a stakeout? Why can't they just wave a subpoena in his face, frogmarch him into the police station and jam a swab in his mouth?
Because their probably isn't one.
Or there is, but epigenetics plays a role in turning the gene on. So the gene may be present in a large part of the population (good luck filtering it out), but its not expressed in most of the carriers.
Its also possible that, even though this gene is turned on by some environmental condition, its continued expression can be handed down through several generations. So now, we's have to weed out those with the gene plus those exposed to the environmental switch. Plus descendants for several generations. Label someone as a risk because of what their grandfather did? Good luck with that.
Have gnu, will travel.
seriously. How? Can you do it without side effects? Things done prenatally can have nasty side effects. Remember Thalidomide?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I think the idea is to get in narrow down the lists of suspects from 'everyone in the city' to 'a few dozen guys' and then let regular police work do the rest.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grim_Sleeper
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
base behavior is genetic, the rest is enviromental.
Genes can not predict a serial killer no more then genes can predict who will be president.
The economy proves otherwise. If there were not a population problem there would be enough jobs to hire everybody born multiple times over, and we'd be on a path to always have more jobs than population as the job growth would at least correlate with if not surpass the population growth.
*boggle*
You're joking, right? ... right?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
If a serial killer doesn't kill white people, no one will know there's a serial killer until he's caught.
That's one hell of an unfounded leap. All of those conditions have known mechanisms of action (we know exactly what doesn't work properly) and have found the gene(s) is/are responsible for them. We have neither for serial killers/violent offenders, and I highly doubt there is any gene or set of genes that gives any reasonable probability of one becoming a serial killer or violent offender.
There might be a few sure positives, but they're probably so obviously mentally ill with uncontrolled violent behavior you could spot them a mile away. Reality is that most of us have a fight or flee response and if you just screw it up enough I think many of us have that capability. You can look at every genocide in history, there have been people ready to kill innocent defenseless civilians. They may have been somewhat more brainwashed than your average serial killer by ideology or religion or obeying orders or peer pressure, but they did it.
And there's always people that have been fucked enough with by war and poverty and crime and terror and abuse to just snap and have their empathy just shut down. It's a survival instinct, I remember reading reading an interview with people that had been forced to become child soldiers - turn back and they'd be shot in the back. I don't really remember it in enough detail to retell it, but they more or less disconnected with what they were doing and became emotionally numb. To the degree they felt anything, the fear and terror they provoked in others was turned into a feeling of power and control. Not because of genetics but because it was the only way they could cope with ruthless slaughter.
Personally, I'm very glad to have never tested my limits in that direction. If I had grown up in Somalia with essentially no police, bands of criminals, violence and weapons all around or hell even here wtih some really fucked up parents and childhood... I don't think my genes are that innocent.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
There might be a few sure positives, but they're probably so obviously mentally ill with uncontrolled violent behavior you could spot them a mile away.
Might read the GP's posts upthread. He's wanting pre-natal testing for a hypothetical "serial killer gene".
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1716874&cid=32879798
I'm guessing you might not have seen it as it's been kicked down to -1.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Transporting to Australia was for relatively minor crimes, such as trespass on the railways. Murderers were hanged.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Look it up, DNA testing this way is putting innocent people in jail.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
I'm not even angry.
I'm being so sincere right now.
Even though you broke my heart.
And killed me.
And tore me to pieces.
And threw every piece into a fire.
What a depressingly stupid machine.
The economy proves otherwise. If there were not a population problem there would be enough jobs to hire everybody born multiple times over, and we'd be on a path to always have more jobs than population as the job growth would at least correlate with if not surpass the population growth.
You do realize that technically speaking in order for a market to function there needs to be this little concept called "demand", right? Less people = less demand. Unless you've got some extra-terrestrial business contacts you've been hiding from the rest of us? ;-)
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
It is much harder to plant fingerprints at a crime scene than to now plant DNA-based evidence - expecially when (no not if, Pollyanna) DNA sampling becomes manditory when born, and enrolling in public school, and registering for the draft, and applying for a job, or to recieve government benefits, or... Even podunk sheriff departments will soon have DNA photocopiers to solve those tough 'whodunnits'. Politicians and their covens will be exempt, natch.
Why? How does that benefit anyone? You can't cure being black; You can probably tune down melanin production, but you can't alter the genome sufficiently to change the way the skull develops, the facial features, or any other minor differences between native African and European people other than skin pigment levels. That's going to be a hell of a lot of genes to modify.
That doesn't cover the semantics, though. There is no benefit in "curing" skin colour or sexuality as these things no longer have any stigma in Western society. You can, however, prevent genetic diseases. Cancer susceptibility, neurological disorders, any kind of birth defect could be remedied just after conception.
Nobody is talking about Fourth Reich-style mass exterminations of people, for any reason. This is about preventing diseases and syndromes which directly prevent a person either contributing to society in any meaningful way, make them a significant burden on the healthcare system, or significantly shorten their lifespan to the point of it being next to pointless them even being born.
Here's an anecdote for you. I had a cousin with a brain tumour. He died at age 7. Up until that point, he had undergone multiple surgeries, numerous rounds of aggressive chemotherapy, and spent more time in a hospital bed than anywhere else. He did some great things, like meeting his favourite football team, but the most time was spent either unconscious or violently ill. Are you telling me that this is the life you would prefer your child to have if you had the option of disabling the gene which would cause the tumour? I can't see how any rational person can decide against it.
TL;DR: Well done for trotting out some straw men. Too bad you missed the point.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
There has always been a 6% of separation process to many fields of work, including crime labs. It is cool though to see this in action as it is being established as a new LEGAL means of catching criminals...good times, good times!
Many of these bad traits were useful to us during our evolution and are very valid on that basis alone.
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
Wouldn't have happened then. Simples. How come nobody is talking about the crocodile that was 'ridden' last night and bit a mans leg! apparently he was just browsing /. on his underwater device and a man tried riding him.
Why? Serial killers are a tiny blip in terms of what causes mortality. They are a massive economic engine, though, and make very profitable books, movies and TV. (And this is not a good thing.) It's why someone can get funding to pursue such a frivolous line of research.
We are not nearly as negatively effected by serial killers as we are the flu. Do serial killers kill anything like the 36,000 people who die of seasonal flu? (That's regular flu, not swine.) Or diabetes? Way more people die of that than murder. How about attacking our sweet tooth gene? We could attack diabetes, obesity, and heart disease all at the same time by finding and eliminating the sits on McDonald's board of directors gene, though you might argue that that's essentially the same as the serial killer gene.
We can profit more as a society by focusing on other things, both in terms of problems to attack and what we dwell on. Stopping talking about serial killers wouldn't make them go away, but it would reduce our unfounded terror, and the cultural insanity that comes with it.
Ah, now I've got it. Let's find the gene that makes people put serial killers on TV whenever they possibly can.
It's kinda the same argument as the depressed artist problem. Most of the great geniuses of the past had massive problems in their personal lives, but they've created things which have made the world a better place. Most parents would prefer their children to be happy and have a nice comfortable 9-5 office job, rather than massive mood swings, drug binges and the occasional masterpiece.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
except we we're talking about existing people we were talking about new pregnancies and the ability to decided if 50% chance of being a serial killer is enough to abort. I hate the idea of abortion as birth control but if there is a real compelling reason then perhaps it should be an option.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Say that you find out your mother, your father, your brother, or your sister has a gene that is linked with sociopathic behavior. Should they be locked up or prevented from reproducing? What if a routine screening discovered that you had that gene?
Not locked up, but I do argue that they should, as a responsible citizen, not reproduce. Then again, I have a severe autoimmune disorder that's suspected to have a strong genetic component (Crohn's Disease) and based on the quality of life I've had, despite the fact that my partner very much wants me to have biological children, I absolutely refuse. There is no way I would pass on these genes to another individual; it's wildly irresponsible, selfish, and needlessly cruel to take that kind of risk when I'm fully aware that the risk exists.
Gosh! Why didn't I think of that? Oh, yeah, I'm not insane.
I don't know, you seem a bit defensive for a sane person.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Downs Syndrome is a genetic defect abnormality. It will manifest in some ways. For every "serial killer" gene discovered, the vast majority of the people with it never kill anyone. When you breed out all "interesting" personality types, what will you be left with? And is it a net benefit to wipe certain personality types from the genome because some tiny minority of people with that personality type end up offending?
What you are missing is that you are trying to cure the possibility of something. Someone with trisomy 21 has Downs Syndrome. There is no question, it's the definition. You test for the genetic abnormality, and then you know. But the genes that influence personality do not work that way. You can never look at genes and determine with 100% accuracy who will and won't offend (at least based on current genetic knowledge and assumptions). So you are calling for a genetic culling of a personality trait, not an elimination of a disease.
I'm saying if we can guarantee scientifically for parents that their offspring don't have to be born with either of these disabilities, why not try everything we can to cure it?
That depends on the cure. You could lobotomize all children at birth to guarantee that they won't become serial killers. Would that be a good thing? If not, why is your pet manner of personality restructuring acceptable and lobotomies not?
I never said breed it out. in fact there is no evidence that you can breed anything out. what you can do is make it less common in the human population as it stands today. The genes aren't going to cease to exist just because they aren't expressed in the human population, the genes will simply be recessive or not expressed and the moment society stops screening, those genes will become popular again. The screening mechanism gives us the ability as a society and species to decide which genes become popular so that it's no longer a roll of the dice which genes are dominant and recessive or which genes are expressed or not.
The genes I'm talking about are the genes behind addiction. Everyone recognizes that addiction is a problem for society. We also know not everyone has the gene to make them addicts. Rather than have a war on drugs and all the problems associated with battling addiction and building rehabs, it would be much easier to just screen fetuses for the addiction gene.
This has been proven to be genetic and it affects personality. This gene may influence all forms of addiction, including addiction to sex, violence, murder, or anything else. It's worth investigating and experimenting to see if by shutting off this gene whether or not people develop into addicted adults. If we find out that by shutting off this gene that we finally cure addiction, then we can say scientifically by peer review that fetal screening is a method of treating addiction and it's a cheaper method for society than spending billions of rehab and prisons.
I don't think we need to use lobotomy or anything which could severely damage the child. If removing the addiction gene is found to severely damage children then we shouldn't do it, but if the children live completely normal only without that gene turned on, the worst that could happen is that the treatment does not work and the child still becomes an addict. The best that can happen is the treatment does work and the child does not become an addict. The only way to find out if the treatment will ever work or not is to have trials and the only thing I'm supporting is trials to see what works and what doesn't.
Yes it's dangerous and risky, but so were other experiments in the past which lead to treatments. I also think if the USA doesn't do it, China or some other society will and we will be the society with the least knowledge in this area.
The economy proves otherwise. If there were not a population problem there would be enough jobs to hire everybody born multiple times over, and we'd be on a path to always have more jobs than population as the job growth would at least correlate with if not surpass the population growth.
You do realize that technically speaking in order for a market to function there needs to be this little concept called "demand", right? Less people = less demand. Unless you've got some extra-terrestrial business contacts you've been hiding from the rest of us? ;-)
In order to have demand you need more jobs than people. So my calculation still stands. There will never be enough jobs to have enough demand. Basically where is the demand supposed to come from? The third world? So we'd need a global currency, and we'd need the third world to buy products and they'd become the demand.
The problem is where would they get the money to buy products if theres no jobs to give them? It's chicken and egg. So until we can solve the math of the situation we will remain in the economic crisis which is set to get worse as population increases. It's because what we are doing now was not designed to last, and the math was not designed to support population growth at this level, so we are supposed to do what exactly to increase demand?
No I'm not joking. The math does not work. We cannot have unlimited population growth without also having unlimited job growth to correlate with population growth. I'm talking a rough correlation not always an exact correlation, but we don't even have a rough correlation. The economy is getting worse, jobs have been declining rather than growing, while the third world and first world are continuing to add more people to their population.
This might increase demand but its not going to work unless we give these people welfare money to actually buy the products to create the jobs. And where are we going to get the money to give every single unemployed person in the world the money to buy the products and services?
Do you not see that we cannot generate that money out of thin air? So where would it come from?
*boggle*
You're joking, right? ... right?
The only solution to create the demand to fix the math problem we are discussing is to give welfare to all the humans on planet earth who don't have jobs to earn money to generate demand. This welfare would generate artificial demand and keep the economy artificially inflated and growing.
The problem is where will you get the money to give out to create this demand? If the money existed, the governments of the world could just give money to everybody who is poor so that everybody can buy products and services and participate in the economy.
Since that is not happening, and it's not likely to happen, the only other option is to reduce the population or slow the growth of the population until we can find the money to give them so that they can become the demand you speak of.
What I'm speaking of is the fact that if we do not change anything we are doing policy wise that the math is impossible and cannot ever work. Basically in order for the math to work we have to become socialist on a global scale. But then you need to figure out where to get the unlimited energy to build the robots and machines which automate the creation of food for the world, and you also have to go up against patent holders who don't want to give medicine to people who are on welfare, and you run into a whole host of human social problems even if you fix the math problem.
So yes you are correct that the demand does exist in theory, but it does not exist in practice.
The genes I'm talking about are the genes behind addiction. Everyone recognizes that addiction is a problem for society.
First, I'm calling you a liar. You were talking about the violent gene before, and now you've decided to say the one behind addiction.
And everyone recognizes that destructive addiction is a problem. But is "addiction" a problem? Look at some of the most brilliant people out there. They had personalities we'd want stamped out. A guy cutting off his ear? He must be insane, we should have removed that gene. Both of the pioneers in electricity in the late 1800s? It was Edison, who tried the same thing thousands of times. That seems very OCD or like an addiction. And Tesla was just plain nuts. Most people would agree that eliminating the "gay" gene would be a good thing, but then you lose every gay innovator (and there were more than history reports because being gay was often a capital offense). When you eliminate that which is undesirable, you eliminate the chance for the interesting personality types that have catapulted society or technology forward.
I never said breed it out. in fact there is no evidence that you can breed anything out.
Then either I don't understand what you are saying, or you don't. If you eliminate the "serial killer" gene in all babies born for one generation, you will have bred it out of the population. I thought you were trying for genetic manipulation to remove that from babies/fetuses before it has a chance to manifest. And doing that for one generation world wide will eliminate that gene 100% from the human gene pool, and it won't ever be back. Genetic diversity helps in times of crises, and I'm asserting that the seldomly manifested serial killer gene may be a net benefit to society, and until we can know that for sure, eliminating it is much more dangerous than leaving it in.
Actually changing the DNA with a virus would be simpler and safer than genetic manipulation to leave the gene in there but trying to disabling it. So I was assuming that, but if you are assuming some technology that doesn't exist that will deactivate a gene in an individual at the DNA level but allow them to pass it unhindered to offspring, then you'll have to be more clear that you are talking about the impossible on a theoretical basis, and not actually talking about things which are possible.
Learn to love Alaska
If you can't fix the environment for everyone, you can't fix every fetus's genes either.
What are you going to do if someone finds out later that they have serial killer genes? Kill them? Put them on watch lists and discriminate?
Just work on fixing the environment. It's safer and easier than altering our own blueprints.
Don't make me come over there!
The genes I'm talking about are the genes behind addiction. Everyone recognizes that addiction is a problem for society.
First, I'm calling you a liar. You were talking about the violent gene before, and now you've decided to say the one behind addiction.
And everyone recognizes that destructive addiction is a problem. But is "addiction" a problem? Look at some of the most brilliant people out there. They had personalities we'd want stamped out. A guy cutting off his ear? He must be insane, we should have removed that gene. Both of the pioneers in electricity in the late 1800s? It was Edison, who tried the same thing thousands of times. That seems very OCD or like an addiction. And Tesla was just plain nuts. Most people would agree that eliminating the "gay" gene would be a good thing, but then you lose every gay innovator (and there were more than history reports because being gay was often a capital offense). When you eliminate that which is undesirable, you eliminate the chance for the interesting personality types that have catapulted society or technology forward.
I never said breed it out. in fact there is no evidence that you can breed anything out.
Then either I don't understand what you are saying, or you don't. If you eliminate the "serial killer" gene in all babies born for one generation, you will have bred it out of the population. I thought you were trying for genetic manipulation to remove that from babies/fetuses before it has a chance to manifest. And doing that for one generation world wide will eliminate that gene 100% from the human gene pool, and it won't ever be back. Genetic diversity helps in times of crises, and I'm asserting that the seldomly manifested serial killer gene may be a net benefit to society, and until we can know that for sure, eliminating it is much more dangerous than leaving it in.
Actually changing the DNA with a virus would be simpler and safer than genetic manipulation to leave the gene in there but trying to disabling it. So I was assuming that, but if you are assuming some technology that doesn't exist that will deactivate a gene in an individual at the DNA level but allow them to pass it unhindered to offspring, then you'll have to be more clear that you are talking about the impossible on a theoretical basis, and not actually talking about things which are possible.
I have no reason to lie. IT's probably not just one gene, it's probably a combination of genes. It's not just the serial killer gene (I don't recall saying violence gene), it's probably the serial killer GENES which means theres more than one gene and the addiction gene is probably associated with influencing this sort of behavior. IT would be the gene to look at as we actually have identified this gene already and can screen for it.
Also you keep saying "remove" the gene. Nobody said removing any genes was right or even possible. We are talking about screening fetuses for specific dominant genes and traits. Having less babies born with these genes as dominant does not remove these genes from their DNA, thats just silly. It simply means the gene is not active in them.
I never said eliminate. I said screen for and shut off. There is no evidence that eliminating genes is even possible, but if it were possible it would have to be done by vaccine and this I agree would be way too dangerous. What I'm talking about is screening for the genes in the fetus stage and simply letting parents decide not to give birth to fetuses with the wrong genes expressed. I'm saying parents know best which genes their offspring needs for their specific environment or situation.
If you believe that shutting off a gene so it's not dominant for just one generation will eliminate it forever, you don't know much about genetics. Families have had the blonde gene for a long time and there are less blondes perhaps if the gene is not expressed as much, but the gene to produce blonde hair will always exist in the human spe
We are talking about screening fetuses for specific dominant genes and traits.
Screening doesn't do anything. A doctor checking your pulse doesn't make it stop beating. Since just a screening does nothing, I can only presume that you intended some action based on that.
I said screen for and shut off.
You sound like you work for the drug companies. You could "cure" it by removing it, which is capable with today's technology. Or you could "turn it off" which would require treatment of all future generations and is something that isn't currently possible.
What I'm talking about is screening for the genes in the fetus stage and simply letting parents decide not to give birth to fetuses with the wrong genes expressed.
Wait, "turning off a gene" is an abortion? And you do know that it can be difficult to determine if a gene "expresses" itself with many tests? You can see if they have the gene, whether dominant or recessive, with a match, but to determine whether it's a recessive gene that's present and will not be expressed is much more difficult, and, depending on the circumstances, may be impossible. So, rather than a "vaccination" at birth that disables a gene permanently, you are recommending pre-birth testing and abortion. Oh, and you do realize that genetic testing pre-birth causes harm to the mother and the child, right? But it's possible to vaccinate against a genetic string that could be given to everyone and only delete the affected gene, without risky amniocentesis. Well, such a thing hasn't actually been tried on humans in any large numbers, but the technology and theory actually exist and have been tried in other animals. But it's better than your "screening" which is damaging and "turning off the gene" which requires a late-term abortion.
Genes skip multiple generations
No, genes *never* skip a generation. They may remain dormant for multiple generations, but they are there, and any genetic manipulation that deletes those genes will affect them whether they are dominant or recessive, expressed or dormant.
I can't tell if you don't know what you are talking about, or whether you do know what you are talking about, but use the wrong terminology repeatedly and randomly.
Screening fetuses will not change the DNA or bloodline of those fetuses.
You can't screen for whether a gene is expressed or not, just for its presence. You test for that (through a damaging and invasive test that increases the chance of a miscarriage), and then, if you don't like what you find, abort the fetus, and if that's carried out religiously, the gene will be wiped out completely. If all fetuses with that gene (dominant or recessive, expressed or dormant) are aborted, then the gene will die. There is no "skipping generations" when you test for it and do not allow it to be carried on.
What this means is that no you cannot kill a gene by killing all the people alive with the gene expressed because the gene will still exist in recessive form in people it's not expressed in.
You can't test "expression" of a serial killer gene in the womb. You can test for the presence of a gene.
This is one of the main reasons why I don't think can ever eliminate serial killer genes and I was never talking about elimination, I was talking about screening and treatment.
The only treatment you mentioned is abortion. I mentioned a real treatment where you just give a baby a shot and the gene is replaced with a "desirable" one (or even come up with 10 or 100 versions of the vaccine such that genetic diversity isn't as greatly reduced as replacing all copies of that one gene with another). I don't consider abortion a "treatment" of genetic problems. It might be a "solution" but fails to actually treat the problem. You might as well hand a gun to the ER nurse and order her to shoot everyone that shows up there and claim a 100% successful treatment rate. Killing the patient isn't a treatment.
Learn to love Alaska
Job exist because people exist who need things. Population growth immediately implies job growth.
You seem to believe that people don't have money to spend unless the government gives them money. That's a stunningly wrong idea. People have money because people start businesses to serve the needs of those people whi need things. As long as the government doens't raise too many barriers to doing that (through central planning, regulatory capture, or just plain making it illegal for anyone but their friends to be in some business) job growth is the natural and normal result of population growth.
As far as "third world and first world are continuing to add more people to their population", well, the first world just isn't. Most (all?) first world countries have shrinking native populations, and if they are growing they are only doing so through immigration from the developing world. Japan is facing a real population crises because they're not big on immigration.
If third world populations are growing that's a good thing: if you're sufficiently poor, you have as many children as you possibly can in the hopes that a couple of them to survive to take care of you in your old age. If more of those children live and your total population grows, that's a god thing from any reasonable moral perspective.
Finally, the biggest problem in most of the indutrialized world is long-term national debt (we just can't seem to stop stealing from our grandkids!). If population shrinks, that exaggerates the problem as the per-capita debt load gets that much worse.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Job exist because people exist who need things. Population growth immediately implies job growth.
Plenty of people in the third world need a lot of things. Why aren't there plenty of jobs? Oh thats right, the global economy isn't at all a fair or free market. The winners and losers are decided in advance for political reasons. So population growth has absolutely nothing to do with job growth as we see. We can see in the USA that population growth has no correlation with job growth and it's not implied, it's a fact.
You seem to believe that people don't have money to spend unless the government gives them money. That's a stunningly wrong idea. People have money because people start businesses to serve the needs of those people whi need things.
My naive brother where are they supposed to get the free money to live on to make it from one day to the next? Where are they supposed to get the money to start businesses? Where is the free money supposed to come from to fuel all that? It simply does not exist. The private banks don't lend to people who arent already rich with good credit. The government doesn't have the money to lend to anyone because it spent the money bailing out the banks. So theres no money to start businesses with and all the government can do is pay to keep people alive.
As long as the government doens't raise too many barriers to doing that (through central planning, regulatory capture, or just plain making it illegal for anyone but their friends to be in some business) job growth is the natural and normal result of population growth.
You offer no evidence proving correlation between population growth and job growth. In fact that hasn't been the case since the 1970s according to the facts. With technology like computers and robotics, I'm going to make the bold statement that if the economic structure remains the same, there will never again be a correlation between job and population growth. To claim something is normal and natural is absolutely meaningless, because thats not how it currently is. It doesn't matter how it was in the 1950s it's not currently that way.
As far as "third world and first world are continuing to add more people to their population", well, the first world just isn't. Most (all?) first world countries have shrinking native populations, and if they are growing they are only doing so through immigration from the developing world. Japan is facing a real population crises because they're not big on immigration
There is no population crisis. The excess people just aren't needed. There are more people in the world than jobs, and as a result there is no economic incentive to have offspring. The smartest individuals in the first world countries have figured this out. I've figured this out and many others have also, it's not in your economic self interest to have offspring in this environment because they'll be guaranteed to have it worse than you did.
If third world populations are growing that's a good thing: if you're sufficiently poor, you have as many children as you possibly can in the hopes that a couple of them to survive to take care of you in your old age. If more of those children live and your total population grows, that's a god thing from any reasonable moral perspective.
Thats flawed thinking in itself. If you are poor, having lots of kids will make it so you wont live to see old age due to the stress of keeping all those kids alive. It's a survival strategy that does not benefit the parents or the children, so it's really a very pointless strategy. The offspring will suffer, the parents will suffer, but the parents are thinking at least they wont have to suffer alone. Misery loves company and thats how I see it, I see no advantage to having a lot of kids while in poverty in a bad economy because theres almost no possibility that you'll make yourself anything but poorer in the end.
So where do you think jobs come from? Do you believe the jobs fairy creates them at an arbitrary rate, and we should adjust the population to meet that? Do you have a solution for the "excess population"? The idea that "the future is not our problem because we're not the rich elite" is the worst sort of aristocracy. Sorry, but I'm just not willing to accet the population being divided into nobles and peons again.
I don't know where your doom and gloom comes from - I'm an inteligent person who was certainly poor in my youth (at least, by American standards), and found myself limited only by my ambition and ability. I guess if I wanted to make $30 million/year I'd be pissed that only people born into certain families have a real shot at that, but I just don't care about becoming wealthy beyond personal luxury.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
So where do you think jobs come from? Do you believe the jobs fairy creates them at an arbitrary rate, and we should adjust the population to meet that?
Maybe the goal of the elite isn't to increase jobs? Maybe thats why theres no jobs? Whoever controls the flow of money controls the job flow. Since money isn't distributed merely by supply and demand, but along other lines, it's a lot more complicated than it seems. The first assumption we have to lose is the assumption that the market is free. The free market is an illusion, a myth created by the richest 1% who actually control the market.
Do you have a solution for the "excess population"? The idea that "the future is not our problem because we're not the rich elite" is the worst sort of aristocracy. Sorry, but I'm just not willing to accet the population being divided into nobles and peons again.
I don't have offspring. Why should I care if the elite destroy the future? It's their future. That being said if you care about saving the future there are some things you can do, develop alternative energy sources so the environment is protected. Tough regulations on pesticides, there should be life in prison punishment for pesticides in consumer products if you want to really send the message. And from there more radical measures like moving to a 20 hour workday, and a focus on robotics to do most of the service jobs like McDonalds and Bank Tellers. Finally if we are going to have robots we'd need better public transportation because robots cannot currently drive cars.
I don't know where your doom and gloom comes from - I'm an inteligent person who was certainly poor in my youth (at least, by American standards), and found myself limited only by my ambition and ability.
In your youth this country was vastly different. There weren't global competitors. You didn't have to pay for an education because a free highschool diploma was usually enough. You also could get by with one person working 40 hours a week to make a middle class salary, now for my generation it requires at least 80 hours a week and sometimes even 100 hours a week. Why wouldn't I be doom and gloom when we have to work twice or three times as hard to get the same quality of life previous generations had?
I guess if I wanted to make $30 million/year I'd be pissed that only people born into certain families have a real shot at that, but I just don't care about becoming wealthy beyond personal luxury.
I'm not trying to make 30 million a year. I'm trying for the American dream. The problem is the American dream may be out of reach for my generation. Why shouldn't I be doom and gloom if I know no matter how hard I work, or for how long, that I'll still accomplish less than my parents did with less work and less time?
It's not debatable, life really is harder and it really isn't going to get better. So why not accept that and try and beat the odds? To live in denial doesn't change anything, and if you are older this would explain the naive outlook. Older generations didn't face the same odds, didn't face the same risks, didn't have to work as hard to accomplish the same things, and most importantly their money was worth more. So to put it simply, to be happy in previous generations was a lot easier than to be happy in the current generation.
So where do you think jobs come from? Do you believe the jobs fairy creates them at an arbitrary rate, and we should adjust the population to meet that?
Maybe the goal of the elite isn't to increase jobs? Maybe thats why theres no jobs? Whoever controls the flow of money controls the job flow. Since money isn't distributed merely by supply and demand, but along other lines, it's a lot more complicated than it seems. The first assumption we have to lose is the assumption that the market is free. The free market is an illusion, a myth created by the richest 1% who actually control the market.
You didn't answer my question.
I don't have offspring. Why should I care if the elite destroy the future? It's their future.
Ahh, sociopathy.
In your youth this country was vastly different. There weren't global competitors. You didn't have to pay for an education because a free highschool diploma was usually enough. You also could get by with one person working 40 hours a week to make a middle class salary, now for my generation it requires at least 80 hours a week and sometimes even 100 hours a week. Why wouldn't I be doom and gloom when we have to work twice or three times as hard to get the same quality of life previous generations had?
None of those things are true. There has been a gradual lessening of how much we teach in high school, though, (in the name of giving eveyrone good grades, yay) which is a real failure. I certainly couldn't support a middle-class lifestyle until I was several years into my career, but that's nothing new.
'm not trying to make 30 million a year. I'm trying for the American dream. The problem is the American dream may be out of reach for my generation. Why shouldn't I be doom and gloom if I know no matter how hard I work, or for how long, that I'll still accomplish less than my parents did with less work and less time?
That's not true either, except as a self-fulfilling prophesy. Perhaps your measuring against your neighbors instead of what people actually had in the 50s and 60s? Pollution is vastly lower today (at least, if you need to breathe in a big city), we have computers, the internet, an plenty of cheap entertainment as a result. Just about everyone has a refridgerator, a color TV, and the use of a washing machine. You can't buy a car in America with the safety and performance of your typical 50s car, but you can buy one in India for about $2500. In the 50s most children shared a bedroom; today most families have more rooms than family members. Available health care is vastly better.
You desperately need a sense of perspective - you have such an easy life full of so many luxuries, by the standard of most people who have ever lived.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
A. You admit that you already are middle class and have the American dream. This means you aren't in the same box as me to begin with.
B. You assume it's still possible to reach the American dream because it was possible for you.
On schooling that depends on the school you went to. The schools I went to didn't give me any kind of break. Maybe it's different now but my generation didn't have all these standardized tests. I can say that it seems that school is changing for the better but I haven't been in highschool for a long time now and neither have you.
'm not trying to make 30 million a year. I'm trying for the American dream. The problem is the American dream may be out of reach for my generation. Why shouldn't I be doom and gloom if I know no matter how hard I work, or for how long, that I'll still accomplish less than my parents did with less work and less time?
That's not true either, except as a self-fulfilling prophesy. Perhaps your measuring against your neighbors instead of what people actually had in the 50s and 60s? Pollution is vastly lower today (at least, if you need to breathe in a big city), we have computers, the internet, an plenty of cheap entertainment as a result. Just about everyone has a refridgerator, a color TV, and the use of a washing machine. You can't buy a car in America with the safety and performance of your typical 50s car, but you can buy one in India for about $2500. In the 50s most children shared a bedroom; today most families have more rooms than family members. Available health care is vastly better.
You desperately need a sense of perspective - you have such an easy life full of so many luxuries, by the standard of most people who have ever lived.
Why do you assume you know about my life? You don't know. In fact I could be homeless right now, living from place to place, with only a laptop, and you wouldn't know any different.
Pollution is lower today? Explain why more people have asthma today than they did in the 1950s? A washing machine and TV in the 60s so that isn't saying much. But who cares about TV anyway? Saying houses are bigger with more rooms, thats not even important. You assume everynoe lives in a house. You assume everyone lives the middle class life. What you are saying is that the people lucky enough to make it to middle class in 2010 have more junk, a bigger house, and a better car. Okay I can believe that, but I was never talking about material objects.
Yes we have more stuff. But we are more miserable. We have less time. We have lower quality of life. We are less happy. We are sicker, more stressed, working harder and with less purpose.
Saying I have an easy life based on standards of luxury assumes my goal in life is to have luxury. The American Dream was never about luxury. The American Dream was about home ownership, financial security, safety for your family, and being able to work 40 hours a week or less at your job. Almost nobody lives like that anymore.
Yes we have a lot of junk. Marriages don't work anymore because husband and wife don't have time for each other. Children suffer because parents are always working. Children suffer because they have to spend more time in school than previous generations. In my opinion the world isn't any better than it was in the 1980s. In fact the world is worse. I ask my parents and they tell me that the world I grew up in was far worse than the world they grew up in. Yeah we have more junk, but we lost our soul to get it, we don't have human relationships anymore, we don't have strong families anymore, and if all you can say is that "at least we have technology", well yeah we do have better technology, we do have the internet, and honestly thats all I can say my generation has to be proud of.
And thats the problem. The only thing my generation can be proud of is technology and the internet. We literally have no other accomplishment. And no I don't expect to live the American dream, because it's truly much harde