I was reading an article about Neurofibromatosis (news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8261121.stm) and it got me wondering. I was recently going out with a girl who was smart, doing an informatics degree, cute, nice etc etc. I later found out that one her two siblings and both her parents were deaf. Clearly implying that it’s an inherited disorder. I was pretty turned off is an understatement, but given that everything else was fine, was I being a cynic by refusing to make the relationship more serious on this only point? Has anyone ever been in a similar position? The stress that someone who doesn’t have such a primary sense faces seems unnecessary if it is so easily prevented, and being robbed of such pleasures like Bach, Mozart, and 50 Cent?
Was I being cynical or is this just an innate mechanism that should be left to minimize genetic disorders in the long run?
I have been in a similar circumstance brother. I went on a date with a woman who told me that her mother is going senile and that basically ended it for me. When I learned that there was a history of genetic trouble or disease in the family then it is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE to split and head for the hills. All the beauty and hots and brains in the world ain’t gonna make up for a blind chick for example. There is just no fucking way. Just cut your loses and take off. Women are dime a dozen anyway. Peace brah.
There’s a lot of mental disorder in my family - something I was extraordinarily lucky not to inherit fully. (both my brother and sister have an annoyingly problematic brain structure) Personally I feel many of the same genes that are responsible for many of my good attributes are the same ones that are causing them trouble. That they somehow give me more capacity, just I’m lucky enough to 1. be able to handle the experiences this causes. and 2. don’t have them to the same degree. (the disorders in case are Asperger’s and ADHD)
This is perhaps a special case, but who would know the difference? In light of this conversation, should I shut up about these genes to prospective mates?
Well I don’t think anyone would want to be the one to assume that they have bad genes and should be deprived of, if not love, a family.
To put the issue into perspective, I know 4 sisters who by their mother’s side are naturally prone to putting on weight. One of these sisters inversely has an overactive thyroid making her very thin regardless of what and how much she eats. One member’s very tall, one’s short. And so on. It gets very tricky when you start going into the family tree.
It’s just a question of whether or not it’s worth even pondering, and it ultimately becomes a moral question I think:
Is it in fact immoral to expose one’s offspring to unnecessary suffering that could alternatively be lessened (at least in some ways) by the choice of an alternative mate? And what if you’re the “gene polluter”? Should you even take it into account?
It’s an interesting question. Personally, I don’t think your genes give you any responsibility to do anything. Genes are part of you already, and play a part in decision-making. Evolutionarily speaking, if you’re able to reproduce, you’re worthy of passing your genes on.
As I mentioned, genes that can have bad effects can also have very good effects - it’s all about getting the right mix of genes. It would seem that we are naturally attracted to people with the right kinds of genes to breed well-mixed children. However, this is not of importance when thinking about the moral question. The point is evolution already has a system in place for this, and that’s how we managed to make it so far.
Then there’s the obvious special case of two people with some awful condition that their children would surely inherit. That’s a situation in which the prospective parents should sit down and reflect, and hopefully come to right conclusion.
I’ve been meaning to respond to this conversation for a while now and I think it touches on many of the same issues expressed here.
I think that, like most things, genetic discrimination exists on a continuum and how we both engage in it as well as censure those who do ought be considered in light of that continuum. The liangzhi of most cosmopolitan individuals reacts in horror to genetic discrimination along racial lines, for example. A person saying, “I will only date members of my own race,” causes us an icky feeling in our gut. At the same time, other overt phenotypic aspects elicit no such response. Someone saying they won’t date people with certain disabilities. Of course, it is uncouth to say such things but it is very much on the table. For example, a friend of mine was dating a blind man and I know that I would not want to be involved with someone like that. But I didn’t focus on the positive there, I saw it more as her operating beneath her station. Another friend of mine has a condition similar to Caster Semenya, though he identifies as a male, and I am always in awe of the women who are willing to date him. In that case, it is a positive. But my sentiments in these situations are certainly influenced by my relationship to the people involved, so how my ick-factor reacts is almost certainly contingent upon that.
But those are still at the level of phenotype. Genotypic discrimination is much trickier. It evokes images of eugenics (positive or negative) and runs against the tabula rasa grain, the assumptions of which underlie much of the American experience. Being English, that is somewhat alienated from your question but while the Anglo-Saxon economic order is more muted in modern Britain by continental sensibilities (as well as being tempered by concepts that are hold-overs from the feudal era) these ideas aren’t entirely out of place either.
I dunno. Deafness? Given that we live in the age of cochlear implants, I find that a little harsh. Deafness is not the disability it once was. Furthermore, in a lingering Greek bias (a product of my upbringing I’m afraid) I seem unable to overcome, I persist in making a distinction between the mental and physical and valuing the mental more. A deaf person can be quick witted and wonderful, they can experience many of those things I value – all of them with the implants.
Seems harsh to me. Other aspects of the continuum, not so much. A person with a history of retardation of schizophrenia, for example.
I do need to commit myself to ironing out that lingering greek bias though . . .
Turn-off, disgust, at none-physical features - these things are conditioned. People can be conditioned to associate racial groups with nausea, for example - this is a key stage in the worst eugenics atrocities; 30s films in Germany of Jews and rats spliced together, or a concerted association of Hutus and cockroaches in the Rwandan media. Now, I’m not accusing you of being a Rwandan Nazi But your knowledge of genetics and heredity has preconditioned your perception (which is better than accusing her family of being witches)…
I don’t believe at all that one innately shies away from people with disabled relatives as a “nature” thing. How would you have felt if one of her siblings had been deaf but you knew it was non-hereditary, say accidental? If it were innate, your gut feeling wouldn’t know.
Plus, maybe that recessive gene she’s carrying is going to save half of her kids from the deadly space 'flu outbreak of 2015.
I had not met most of my husband’s family before marriage. I knew there was some genetic problems but, then my family is not perfect either. Had I met his family before I agreed to marry him, I may have ran fast. They are a screwed up bunch of folks, what stopped me from running, was realizing my family has its own issues. 25 years later we are quite happy with a strong healthy intelligent adult son.
Genes are a crap shoot. I am the only redhead in my family, the one previous to me was my great great Grandfather. Also just because something seems to be dominant in a family does not mean it carries over to all family. If a person apeals to you don’t toss them over because of genes. If you plan to get married you can always take tests to see if you are compatible genetically and find out the odds on any possible problems for kids. Its hard enough to find love without adding such issues to it.
Humean,
If her sibling was deaf out of an accident, it wouldn’t be an issue. This is about the health of her offspring. It’s not about how other family members perceive one another, it’s about societal pressures.
A mental illness would definitely put the thing out of the question. But even so, it’s hereditary, and I just have to wonder: “Do I want my child to suffer in such a fundamental way?”. Now with the option of gene manipulation becoming a likely possibility in the near future, obviously the question would become redundant. But given the now, I wouldn’t feel that I should allow for future generations of my family to be a sub society. Because regardless of all the social teachings, a child’s initial reaction to any child that’s different is naturally to regard that child with suspicion. I consider that to be highly detrimental to a child’s social development. Now going to when they grow up to middle-high school, there’s the stress of not even being able to communicate with the majority of other teenagers, and the stress of having a highly limited pool of girls you’d be able to form a relationship with. It would just be a very closed world.
But it seems like the problem is more about preference, and clearly mine is for not introducing unnecessary stress factors into the future generation, where reasonably possible.
Exactly. So it’s not an innate thing, which I think was part of your original question.
As a thought experiment: if we take a Kantian look at this as a universal imperative, would it be fair to say that, according to your preferences, you think this girl should not breed because of her weak genes? If you found that you had a recessive gene that had not manifested itself in you or your siblings, would you choose not to reproduce?
Bear in mind in your considerations, a simple recessive gene (binary) combination only affects one in four children, multiplied by the probability that the partner also has the recessive gene. Many recessive genes have a prevalence of fractions of a percent, within certain racial groups.
My opinion is that it’s something to bear in mind, and to test for if there’s reasonable cause for concern, but not something to sour a relationship in the early stages.
It’s ok. I do it too. I’ve met several dudes who are like ‘I used to be 300 lbs.!’ and I’m like…‘eww I kinda don’t like you anymore’
And I notice they can barely eat to sustain themselves and it would suck not to have a good metabolism in our current world of fast food and fats and sweets.
There are a lot of problems with genes and discerning what your kids will pick up. You, yourself, can have a huge role and the mother during pregnancy especially.
Past drug usage, cigarettes, exposure to unknown toxins, age, overall health, radiation, random mutations and the list goes on. Drinking coffee could affect a baby’s genes. A child is a really delicate and vulnerable probability, but inheritance does play a part.
But your knowledge of genetics and heredity has preconditioned your perception (which is better than accusing her family of being witches)…
I had not met most of my husband’s family before marriage. I knew there was some genetic problems but, then my family is not perfect either. Had I met his family before I agreed to marry him, I may have ran fast. They are a screwed up bunch of folks, what stopped me from running, was realizing my family has its own issues. 25 years later we are quite happy with a strong healthy intelligent adult son.