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
You are getting way ahead of yourself. How about we first enact a law which says that all acts of congress have to cite the part of the Consitution from which it derives the authority to do that which is in the act?
Because the establishment would never agree to that. Your idea just isn't practical. My idea is at least practical.
Encrypt your text. Authenticate your text via digital signature. Avoid all contact with minors or strange individuals who cannot or will not encrypt or authenticate their communications.
How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something is "harmful to minors"?
The details of this law and how to follow it are very vague, which leads me to believe the law is deliberately made to be vague and isn't about protecting children at all.
To protect children from obscenity on the internet, how about we fine parents or give parents 5 years in prison when they let their children access harmful information on the internet?
The law is so vague that it would take a lawyer to even interpret it properly so as to know how to obey it. How do we determine which communication may be harmful to a minor? How do we determine whether our communication is being consumed by a minor?
There are many people with no functional conscious that are non-violent DB's.
...they wont have the self control and discipline of a UFC champion.
That is, by far, the most adorable thing I've heard in a long time.
Obviously. Sociopaths aren't always violent. When sociopaths are violent, and are addicted to violent behavior, this collection of traits can lead to serial killing. Serial killers are actually extremely rare.
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.
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?
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?
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.
> Serial killers don't have the capability of figuring out right and wrong. They don't have a conscience. They have aggression with no off switch. They have no empathy to tell them to stop. They have no ability to control their impulses to tell them to stop. Most people either have empathy or impulse control, a serial killer has neither.
Of course a serial killer has impulse control! If they didn't have it, they wouldn't have a chance to become a *serial* killer in the first place. Wouldn't you agree that someone who runs around on the street swinging a bloody axe killing people is unlikely to elude the police for months/years/decades?
I think being able to kill several, sometimes dozens of people without anybody tracing those murders back to you shows such a person is anything but impulsive.
I don't think you understand serial killers at all.
Serial killers don't have impulse control to stop killing. They may delay the need to kill for days, hours, weeks, months, but eventually the urge overwhelms them and they have to kill again. It's like a pedophile who has the addiction to their behavior and everybody knows they can never stop being a pedophile, or a rapist who has addictive behavior and everyone knows they can never quit being a rapist, or drug addicts, gambling addicts, gaming addicts or any other addictive behavior, the trait at the core of all addictive behavior is the same trait which prevents individuals form being able to control their impulsive behavior.
Most serial killers do run around on the street killing people and don't elude authorities for long. The serial killer in the article is a bit unusual in that he was exceptionally smart and exceptionally careful. Most serial killers are dumb enough to run into a crowd and shoot random people not caring what the consequences of their actions will be. Some serial killers are smarter than others and will poison a dozen people, and some serial killers are exceptionally patient, but they are still addicted to killing and they can't stop. Look at the Ted Bundy, he escaped prison and went right back to killing again because he had a sexual type of urge to do it. The gene isn't necessarily what creates the urge, but the inability of some people to control their urges is at the core of serial killing.
A serial killer has the urge to kill and cannot resist the urge. A serial killer isn't someone who plans out murders and thinks of all the consequences. A serial killer kills because they feel a need to kill and they don't really care if they get caught which is why they don't stop killing. It should be common sense that with each person you kill your odds of getting caught increase.
I really don't think that you understand serial killers as well as you think you do. There are the fanatics who have a cause. The Manson family is the best example of that. The cause was nuts, but the leader had a cause.
There are those who are positively deranged. That kid from Boston who murdered other kids in the 1800's comes to mind. He never gave a reason for his killings, that I know of. He just killed.
I don't think there is a "serial killer" gene at all. I think that people with broken minds account for most of them. The Ted Bundy type are probably quite rare - he had a fine mind, but it seems that his sexuality was tied to torturing and killing women, much like Jack the Ripper.
Other killers with lesser minds than Bundy have killed plenty of women, out of some perverse sexual need.
But, a serial killer gene? Nope, I don't believe so. There are OTHER things seriously wrong with a man who kills women - or other men, for that matter. You won't find the problem isolated in one gene, or even associated with any small group of genes. You'll do better searching for the genes that cause various mental illnesses. Shizophrenia isn't all that uncommon among the famous killers, for example.
The Manson family were a mafia/cult, not serial killers. Thats not a valid example because the killers appear to have been following orders, or at least thats what put Manson in prison. If the killers killed for the thrill of it and were not following orders then why should Manson be put in prison for what they did?
I see the Manson family as a mafia cult, not a gang of serial killers. They felt like they were at war and they each believed they were doing the right thing, thats not who I'm talking about when I talk about serial killers.
I'm talking about people like Dahmer, Bundy, and the Boston Strangler or Jack the Ripper. People who kill for fun or pleasure are serial killers in the mentally ill sense of the word. People who kill a bunch of people on a killing spree or who kill in the name of God or their gang or country, may be considered serial murderers under the law but if its something planned out and calculated, and done for a cause, it's not serial killing which is done entirely on impulse and desire.
The desire, the inability to control ones impulse, is a geme which affects more than just serial killers. It's a gene that affects all addicts of any kind and if we cure the addiction gene associated with addictive impulsive behavior it would also potentially cure alcoholism, gambling addiction and many other addictive behaviors based on impulse.
So it's not just a matter of the gene being a "serial killer" gene but it's more the gene that prevents an individual from being able to consciously control their impulses.
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.
Heh. Just so we understand each other. But, you do realize that your position makes Islam that much more appealing to some people? And, Catholicism too. Patriarchal societies and patriarchal personalities are going to hate your ideas - passionately.
I like Islam so thats not a bad thing. Why assume I'm a Christian? But none of that has anything to do with my opinion on this subject. This is about science helping to cure disease and help make families healthier. This is not about the battle of the sexes, or religious jihad. I have no real stake in those battles.
I support a womans right to choose, and I support it all the way not half way. I support a woman's right to abort a fetus if she was raped, which is basically the same thing as fetal screening to find out of the fetus has the genes associated with the rapist tendency and having the option to deactivate it or leave that gene out of the final birth product.
Ahhhhh. You seem to understand the psychology of war and serial killing at least as well as the FBI and the DOD. Which agency do you work for, again?
Seriously, I call BS. I have met plenty of aggressive people who remain aggressive no matter the situation. It's their nature. And, blocking their aggressiveness often leads to violence. You do note that "most people can be trained to kill" - but fail to note that tampering with gene selectiion just might make that pool of people smaller, or even non-existent.
Let's just say that fools run where angels fear to tread.
The problem isn't aggression. The problem that produces serial killers is lack of ability to control ones impulses. Lots of people are aggressive and get pissed off, and can become violent, but they also have the ability to regulate their emotions and behavior. They have the ability to determine right and wrong and the ability to figure out that they cannot kill people.
Serial killers don't have the capability of figuring out right and wrong. They don't have a conscience. They have aggression with no off switch. They have no empathy to tell them to stop. They have no ability to control their impulses to tell them to stop. Most people either have empathy or impulse control, a serial killer has neither.
The serial killer is like the lemming that must march forward even when it leads off a cliff. The serial killer knows he or she is headed off a cliff but just cannot stop themselves form walking off it. Ordinary sociopaths or empaths can see the cliff and will stop either out of self preservation or empathy.
This means the serial killer is legitimately disabled. They are addicted to killing people. This is a weakness which does not work in their favor in most cases as it results in their own demise or in prison.
Gene selection is always tampered with. When a rapists rapes a woman and the women does not abort the fetus, the rapist has tampered with gene selection by force. If the woman aborts the fetus shes taking her freedom back from the rapist so I can support that.
As far as most people being able to be trained to kill, killing via training requires intense discipline and self control. The cold calculated mercenary is not the same as the passionate serial killer. The mercenary kills because it's their job to do it, because they've been trained to do it, because they have to do it and are good at it, not because they enjoy doing it or want to do it. The serial killer might not be good at killing, might be sloppy, might not be able to resist the urge to kill, because they enjoy killing, this is not the same breed. Serial killers are not warriors or soldiers because they don't have self control or discipline to resist the urge to kill.
And for the record I don't work for the DOD or FBI. I fear them as much as you do. Nice try though.
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?
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?
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?
That doesn't address my question. Are you saying that only the female gets any voice in deciding what traits may or may not be desirable? I definitely see a future for the Eloi here.
Thats a different debate. It would be nice if the male and female both get to decide but if the females have to carry the fetus and have the procedure, they will make the decision.
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.
The leap from "we have found certain genes that affected certain traits" to "it is possible to find a gene that makes a person a serial killer" is quite big. Furthermore, will that gene make everyone who has it a serial killer? What if it's partly genetics, partly environmental? Should we treat people with the gene who have not killed anyone as criminals?
It's very much like if we found a gene which creates a high probability of autism, or a gene which creates a high probability of some other mental illness, if we could deactivate that gene in the fetus or if we could screen fetuses for that gene so that only healthy fetuses are born, why shouldn't we give parents the option to do it?
Give me one reason why we shouldn't let parents guarantee the health of their child through fetal screening?
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?"
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.
Because the so-called 'warrior gene' that's found in many violent offenders, is not entirely a bad thing. It usually (always?) needs to be coupled with a abusive childhood to lead to a life of violence. People wo have the former without the latter often end up be highly ambitions and very competitive. These traits often serve society very well. Or they become UFC champions, which is kind of neutral...
The warrior gene isn't the only gene involved. Warrior does not necessarily mean serial killer.
Also you don't know whether or not everyone with the warrior gene is sociopathic. If they have the gene and aren't sociopathic then they might be beneficial to society but if they are violent without a conscience to regulate their violent tendencies, they wont have the self control and discipline of a UFC champion.
Slashdot Mirror
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
You are getting way ahead of yourself. How about we first enact a law which says that all acts of congress have to cite the part of the Consitution from which it derives the authority to do that which is in the act?
Because the establishment would never agree to that. Your idea just isn't practical. My idea is at least practical.
http://www.whispersys.com/
http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/
http://www.gpg4win.org/
Encrypt your text. Authenticate your text via digital signature. Avoid all contact with minors or strange individuals who cannot or will not encrypt or authenticate their communications.
I've always suspected that "government shall make no law" thingy was too confusingly vague.
That should be a rule, not to make laws which are too vague to be interpreted.
This law since it is in effect, doesn't even seem to determine the standard at which harm to minors is measured. So if you swear you broke the law?
How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something is "harmful to minors"?
The details of this law and how to follow it are very vague, which leads me to believe the law is deliberately made to be vague and isn't about protecting children at all.
To protect children from obscenity on the internet, how about we fine parents or give parents 5 years in prison when they let their children access harmful information on the internet?
Banned in Boston
The law is so vague that it would take a lawyer to even interpret it properly so as to know how to obey it. How do we determine which communication may be harmful to a minor? How do we determine whether our communication is being consumed by a minor?
sociopathic != violent
There are many people with no functional conscious that are non-violent DB's.
That is, by far, the most adorable thing I've heard in a long time.
Obviously. Sociopaths aren't always violent. When sociopaths are violent, and are addicted to violent behavior, this collection of traits can lead to serial killing. Serial killers are actually extremely rare.
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.
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 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?
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.
> Serial killers don't have the capability of figuring out right and wrong. They don't have a conscience. They have aggression with no off switch. They have no empathy to tell them to stop. They have no ability to control their impulses to tell them to stop. Most people either have empathy or impulse control, a serial killer has neither.
Of course a serial killer has impulse control! If they didn't have it, they wouldn't have a chance to become a *serial* killer in the first place. Wouldn't you agree that someone who runs around on the street swinging a bloody axe killing people is unlikely to elude the police for months/years/decades?
I think being able to kill several, sometimes dozens of people without anybody tracing those murders back to you shows such a person is anything but impulsive.
I don't think you understand serial killers at all.
Serial killers don't have impulse control to stop killing. They may delay the need to kill for days, hours, weeks, months, but eventually the urge overwhelms them and they have to kill again. It's like a pedophile who has the addiction to their behavior and everybody knows they can never stop being a pedophile, or a rapist who has addictive behavior and everyone knows they can never quit being a rapist, or drug addicts, gambling addicts, gaming addicts or any other addictive behavior, the trait at the core of all addictive behavior is the same trait which prevents individuals form being able to control their impulsive behavior.
Most serial killers do run around on the street killing people and don't elude authorities for long. The serial killer in the article is a bit unusual in that he was exceptionally smart and exceptionally careful. Most serial killers are dumb enough to run into a crowd and shoot random people not caring what the consequences of their actions will be. Some serial killers are smarter than others and will poison a dozen people, and some serial killers are exceptionally patient, but they are still addicted to killing and they can't stop. Look at the Ted Bundy, he escaped prison and went right back to killing again because he had a sexual type of urge to do it. The gene isn't necessarily what creates the urge, but the inability of some people to control their urges is at the core of serial killing.
A serial killer has the urge to kill and cannot resist the urge. A serial killer isn't someone who plans out murders and thinks of all the consequences. A serial killer kills because they feel a need to kill and they don't really care if they get caught which is why they don't stop killing. It should be common sense that with each person you kill your odds of getting caught increase.
I really don't think that you understand serial killers as well as you think you do. There are the fanatics who have a cause. The Manson family is the best example of that. The cause was nuts, but the leader had a cause.
There are those who are positively deranged. That kid from Boston who murdered other kids in the 1800's comes to mind. He never gave a reason for his killings, that I know of. He just killed.
I don't think there is a "serial killer" gene at all. I think that people with broken minds account for most of them. The Ted Bundy type are probably quite rare - he had a fine mind, but it seems that his sexuality was tied to torturing and killing women, much like Jack the Ripper.
Other killers with lesser minds than Bundy have killed plenty of women, out of some perverse sexual need.
But, a serial killer gene? Nope, I don't believe so. There are OTHER things seriously wrong with a man who kills women - or other men, for that matter. You won't find the problem isolated in one gene, or even associated with any small group of genes. You'll do better searching for the genes that cause various mental illnesses. Shizophrenia isn't all that uncommon among the famous killers, for example.
The Manson family were a mafia/cult, not serial killers. Thats not a valid example because the killers appear to have been following orders, or at least thats what put Manson in prison. If the killers killed for the thrill of it and were not following orders then why should Manson be put in prison for what they did?
I see the Manson family as a mafia cult, not a gang of serial killers. They felt like they were at war and they each believed they were doing the right thing, thats not who I'm talking about when I talk about serial killers.
I'm talking about people like Dahmer, Bundy, and the Boston Strangler or Jack the Ripper. People who kill for fun or pleasure are serial killers in the mentally ill sense of the word. People who kill a bunch of people on a killing spree or who kill in the name of God or their gang or country, may be considered serial murderers under the law but if its something planned out and calculated, and done for a cause, it's not serial killing which is done entirely on impulse and desire.
The desire, the inability to control ones impulse, is a geme which affects more than just serial killers. It's a gene that affects all addicts of any kind and if we cure the addiction gene associated with addictive impulsive behavior it would also potentially cure alcoholism, gambling addiction and many other addictive behaviors based on impulse.
So it's not just a matter of the gene being a "serial killer" gene but it's more the gene that prevents an individual from being able to consciously control their impulses.
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.
Heh. Just so we understand each other. But, you do realize that your position makes Islam that much more appealing to some people? And, Catholicism too. Patriarchal societies and patriarchal personalities are going to hate your ideas - passionately.
I like Islam so thats not a bad thing. Why assume I'm a Christian? But none of that has anything to do with my opinion on this subject. This is about science helping to cure disease and help make families healthier. This is not about the battle of the sexes, or religious jihad. I have no real stake in those battles.
I support a womans right to choose, and I support it all the way not half way. I support a woman's right to abort a fetus if she was raped, which is basically the same thing as fetal screening to find out of the fetus has the genes associated with the rapist tendency and having the option to deactivate it or leave that gene out of the final birth product.
Ahhhhh. You seem to understand the psychology of war and serial killing at least as well as the FBI and the DOD. Which agency do you work for, again?
Seriously, I call BS. I have met plenty of aggressive people who remain aggressive no matter the situation. It's their nature. And, blocking their aggressiveness often leads to violence. You do note that "most people can be trained to kill" - but fail to note that tampering with gene selectiion just might make that pool of people smaller, or even non-existent.
Let's just say that fools run where angels fear to tread.
The problem isn't aggression. The problem that produces serial killers is lack of ability to control ones impulses. Lots of people are aggressive and get pissed off, and can become violent, but they also have the ability to regulate their emotions and behavior. They have the ability to determine right and wrong and the ability to figure out that they cannot kill people.
Serial killers don't have the capability of figuring out right and wrong. They don't have a conscience. They have aggression with no off switch. They have no empathy to tell them to stop. They have no ability to control their impulses to tell them to stop. Most people either have empathy or impulse control, a serial killer has neither.
The serial killer is like the lemming that must march forward even when it leads off a cliff. The serial killer knows he or she is headed off a cliff but just cannot stop themselves form walking off it. Ordinary sociopaths or empaths can see the cliff and will stop either out of self preservation or empathy.
This means the serial killer is legitimately disabled. They are addicted to killing people. This is a weakness which does not work in their favor in most cases as it results in their own demise or in prison.
Gene selection is always tampered with. When a rapists rapes a woman and the women does not abort the fetus, the rapist has tampered with gene selection by force. If the woman aborts the fetus shes taking her freedom back from the rapist so I can support that.
As far as most people being able to be trained to kill, killing via training requires intense discipline and self control. The cold calculated mercenary is not the same as the passionate serial killer. The mercenary kills because it's their job to do it, because they've been trained to do it, because they have to do it and are good at it, not because they enjoy doing it or want to do it. The serial killer might not be good at killing, might be sloppy, might not be able to resist the urge to kill, because they enjoy killing, this is not the same breed. Serial killers are not warriors or soldiers because they don't have self control or discipline to resist the urge to kill.
And for the record I don't work for the DOD or FBI. I fear them as much as you do. Nice try though.
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?
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?
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?
That doesn't address my question. Are you saying that only the female gets any voice in deciding what traits may or may not be desirable? I definitely see a future for the Eloi here.
Thats a different debate. It would be nice if the male and female both get to decide but if the females have to carry the fetus and have the procedure, they will make the decision.
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.
The leap from "we have found certain genes that affected certain traits" to "it is possible to find a gene that makes a person a serial killer" is quite big. Furthermore, will that gene make everyone who has it a serial killer? What if it's partly genetics, partly environmental? Should we treat people with the gene who have not killed anyone as criminals?
It's very much like if we found a gene which creates a high probability of autism, or a gene which creates a high probability of some other mental illness, if we could deactivate that gene in the fetus or if we could screen fetuses for that gene so that only healthy fetuses are born, why shouldn't we give parents the option to do it?
Give me one reason why we shouldn't let parents guarantee the health of their child through fetal screening?
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.
Fetal screening technology allows a mother to detect whether or not their fetus has down syndrome by the first trimester.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110902079.html
Because the so-called 'warrior gene' that's found in many violent offenders, is not entirely a bad thing. It usually (always?) needs to be coupled with a abusive childhood to lead to a life of violence. People wo have the former without the latter often end up be highly ambitions and very competitive. These traits often serve society very well. Or they become UFC champions, which is kind of neutral...
The warrior gene isn't the only gene involved. Warrior does not necessarily mean serial killer.
Also you don't know whether or not everyone with the warrior gene is sociopathic. If they have the gene and aren't sociopathic then they might be beneficial to society but if they are violent without a conscience to regulate their violent tendencies, they wont have the self control and discipline of a UFC champion.