>>>>>>>>>>Looking after the kids won't change their genome.<<<<<<
>>Yes it will, children from contented families live a longer life and produce
No, it won't. The genes don't change because of environmental effects. If
looking after someone with a bad set of genes leads them to reproduce more, you
are simply magnifying the problem by letting them pass these genes on to their
>So a farmers choice of breeding from healthy stock is wrong? I think not.
It's the genes that are important, not the health of the animal that the
farmers value. A severely mistreated but genetically superior bull is worth
much more that a pampered genetically inferior bull.
>arrangements of genes are not set even if individual genes are damaged.
I don't care how your genes are arranged, you've only got the genes you've got.
There is no way (other than gene therapy) to change that.
>But we can't * repair * damage with
>therapies, that has to be done with knowledge and skills we do not yet have.
You argue that we don't have it but imply that we never CAN have it. I don't
>* Therapies turn killer diseases into chronic illnesses to be passed on
>the generations. That's the fact, think about the answer.
I encourage you to think about this. Your statements that we need to take care
of others (despite whatever genetic flaws they harbor) is exactly what you are
denouncing here. You could be a great supporter of eugenics if you tried.
>Greedy science now is going to stand in the way of the real cures for the
You are psychologically very interesting. You paint others as you would like
to see them, then believe that your distortion is the truth. If you could
actually (even for an instant) see scientists instead of this monster,
"science," you would see that no one is standing in the way of "real cures."