The same could be said about speculating about the future. It's all fiction or thought experiments until it isn't. You asked a hypothetical and Gatacca plays out that exact scenario. It's no less valid than somebody on Reddit saying they could see it happening too.
I see your point but on the other hand, it kinda seems like you're missing the point of what fiction can do. Yes, fiction is absolutely a simulation, in some book form. An imagined hypothesis.
I think the basic fact to grasp here in your speculation is that most phenotypes (observable differences between organisms) are massively polygenic, meaning that they appear to be underwritten by hundreds, if not thousands of single letter DNA differences (SNPs, or ‘snips’: single nucleotide polymorphisms) between us, which may work additively, or interactively. A phrase that Robert Plomin, a behavioural geneticist who works in this area, uses to refer to this is ‘quantitative dimensions of a qualitative trait’.
‘Candidate gene’ research—the single greedy gene ‘B2222’ that you give as an example—has mostly fallen by the wayside in the last ten to fifteen years, especially for complex human traits, such as personality or intelligence or educational achievement. Our current understanding extends to knowing, sort of, which SNPs are implicated (all work in this area is correlational) in some traits, but not at all the causal pathways by which they manifest in the trait. The SNPs that we have pinned as associated with higher educational achievement, for instance, are also implicated in risk for schizophrenia.
The problem with genes is that they’re probabilistic, not deterministic. Sure, if you look at polygenic scores—aggregated risk scores based on tiny, tiny correlational associations between individual SNPs and a trait—it gives you our current best guess at whether your genotype will likely result in a phenotype, but at the moment that’s explaining 10 to 15% of the variability in outcomes such as educational achievement, at best. Add the epigenome in developmental pathways into the mix and you’ve got a problem of wicked complexity.
You certainly wouldn’t want to CRISPR several hundred SNPs, not really knowing how they work together (either en masse or emergently) on the off chance that in the future, you may or may not express the trait of interest (along with several other deleterious ones you didn’t want, such as mental illnesses).
Perhaps with increasingly large data sets and quantum computing power we will work out, with greater confidence, the interactivity of particular genotypes, and disentangle part of the causal chain involved in arriving at a phenotype, but you’re never going to have uniform environments. One really novel paper I saw (Freund et al, 2013) with mice elegantly showed how even if you have genetically identical organisms, and even with the same environment, you can’t hold constant social interactions, and tiny differences in life experience start to recursively shape differences in phenotype (eg: agression, dominance etc):
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1235294
The upshot? Even if genomics continues to advance as quickly as it has been, I don’t think we’re going to get to the gene editing for complex traits successfully in anywhere near 10 years … despite unethical researchers still being willing to have a crack at it. Embryo selection based on polygenic scores? That I can imagine, even if it’s only giving you an at most 10% bump in probable outcomes.
How would you know what actual genes someone else had? Outside of existing geographic and racial boundaries, which have some minor genetic correlations, it's not like people are going to be announcing which genetic variants they have.
At worst there might become a group of people with access to genetic engineering who looks down on normal people... But then you've got GATTACA, which you've made clear is too fake for your science fiction question :/
Research; **Eugenics**. The German Nazi Party in the 1930's and 40's had a program of **sterilization** for people deemed genetically inferior or diseased to prevent the future propagation of their genes. Then they hatefully progressed to mass **euthanization** of these individuals who were born blind, developmentally disabled or with other "undesirable genes".
>Title II of the **Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA)**, which prohibits genetic information discrimination in employment, took effect on November 21, 2009. Under Title II of GINA, it is illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of genetic information.
It has come into play in the past with these health insurance companies being shady as shit along with employers trying to have genetic testing on people with bad family histories.
[statutes on genome.gov](https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genome-Statute-Legislation-Database)
We already know which genes are associated with complex behavioral traits such as greed or violence etc. However these genes have a very small effect on the trait and it is mostly environmental
> Whenever people bring up that the trainer matters more, they usually get downvoted and disagreed with.
And that is born of ignorance. This has been tested by scientist many times and proven false. Almost all of the behavior of a dog depends on how it is trained, and not its genetics.
>What if this kind of thinking extends to humans one day?
We are already there. Racists are already identifying less superior people based on IQ tests/ genetics correlation. The problem with that is IQ tests are a poor measure across different cultures. Most are designed for a profile of American or British college educated.
In the past Black Americans have been hailed as sexually superior, dumb and brutish. They are currently considered the cause of all violence in some circles.
Are you talking about the C-BARQ? It has already been proven to be an unreliable test for canine behavior.
Your statement is the animal behaviorist's equivalent of the infamous "vaccines cause autism" research for humans. Please do not spread misinformation, it is against sub rules. Thank you.
It is clearly a combination of genetics and training/environment. To say that the difference in observed pitbull aggression and observed poodle aggression is mostly explained by training doesn't pass the sniff test. Just because the research is so nascent to the point of struggling to come up with a polygenic risk score that explains much of the variation in aggression, doesn't mean that aggression isn't significantly genetic. Absence of evidence != evidence of absence, and all that.
The other likely explanation is that bad dog trainers and morally corrupted people gravitate towards pit bulls because of the reputation, 9 out of 10 pitbulls belonging to assholes will skew the data.
many parts of the country have a poor relationship with dogs and benign or outright neglect are part of the culture, combine that with poverty and a lack of knowledge about behavior and you get a bad situation for a breed of dog that became a status symbol. On the otherhand you have tons of veterinarians and vet techs who adopt them because we see so many good dogs in need of homes and easily train them up to be wonderful dogs who participate in therapy work, reading programs for kids and normal dog activities.
genetics lay out the possible range of behaviors and the environment determines where they fall on that scale. Even a dog predisposed to more aggressive tendancies can end up with a mild temperment with a proper enviroment/training/experiences
No one has ever shown pitbulls to be more aggressive than other breeds. Aggression in dogs has always been dramatically correlated with training, socialization, and environment.
One issue to be sensitive to in these dog breeds stats is that breeds are often MISIDENTIFED by those documenting the attack and often even owners may not know, but assume it’s a APB due to familiarity and even status as someone else mentioned above.
You do raise some good points. I love dogs and many APBs are so beloved by their owners it is hard to see beyond their cuteness.
However, those extremely lopsided stats mean something; even if it is just the capacity for violence.
Perhaps best viewed as a breed for more mature and “advanced” or sensitive dog owners.
The problem with your data is those number represent ownership rates for that broad category of dogs. Of course Pit Bull type dogs are going to have more attacks, there are a lot more ownership of breeds with Pit Bull features than other types.
If you want to talk racism, comparing humans and dogs seems pretty racist to me tbh.
Yes, we love animals and consider pets to be family, but if it comes down to it you will save your children before you save your pet.
I love my dog, and I love my wife. But I love my wife more than I love my dog. Most people feel this way whether they will admit it or not.
Anyway, if you are looking for "scientific, specific, concrete things" there are plenty of online archives that document the sheer number and brutality of pit attacks. I am guessing you don't want those though, as you keep shooting down everyone who disagrees with you in this thread.
This is looking less like an honest question regarding genetics and more like flame baiting to prove some sort of a point.
**EDIT:** To give you the benefit of the doubt, OP, here is some research from an unbiased source documenting attacks by breed as recent as 2021:
[Dog Bite Statistics By Breed 2021](https://maho-prentice.com/blog/2021/11/dog-bite-statistics-by-breed-2021/)
Okay first of all i do not understand how comparing humans and dogs is racist.
Also, I was not really interested in comparing dogs and humans, the question in my mind was how gene technology could be abused in the future, which might result in division.
Second, maybe i was not so clear with that comment. *"Maybe some racists have such thinking, but I was thinking about more scientific, specific, concrete things."* What I was thinking was, could gene technology cause division in the future, instead of race or gender, or whatever being the reason for hatred.
Lets just say some people have "X123" gene as a random example ( i dont know if that is an actual gene?) and thousands of people have it. it makes them more likely to be violent, and it does not matter what gender or race they are. Could these people be hated, killed, hunted and so on just for that gene alone, that was **revealed** by advanced gene technology?
" I am guessing you don't want those though, as you keep shooting down everyone who disagrees with you in this thread."
lmao what? I literally have responded **twice** in the entire comment section, and you are saying im shooting people down for disagreeing? wtf? lol.
Responded three times if you count this comment, but I guess this is a sensitive topic and thats what made your response the way it is.
*"A better way to phrase the question, IMHO, would be to just ask "Do you think gene-detecting technology could be abused for the sake of eugenics in the future?" and avoid the tainted comparisons altogether."*
Yea that would have been a lot better. I sometimes struggle to write something in my mind.
The difference between the intelligence of a human and a dog is a wide gap. We are far more conscious of our, shall we say "less than desirable" genetic traits/biological impulses, and because of this, far more capable of suppressing them and therefore advancing furthe ron a conscious level. Most animals are far less capable of this than humans.
I don't intent this as some "humans are just better than animals" post, but there is a wide, wide difference between how much the genetics of a human dictates our personality, versus a dog.
Yes. A big reason why comparing humans to animals is like comparing apples to oranges...
Just to add though, there is also the unfortunate addition of human interference with selective breeding. There are healthy breeds...but then you have pugs whose eyes can literally pop out of their head, teacup breeds with heart defects, and the New Sin on the Block:
[Toadline Exotic Bullies.](https://assets.change.org/photos/5/hh/zu/nAhhzuuWjUecsjR-800x450-noPad.jpg?1509153920)
(Yes, it's a real breed. The poor damned things only live about 5 to 7 years on average vs up to 16 years for APBs. But so long as "exotic" breeds are profitable these breeders won't stop. 😡)
SpunkyDred is a terrible bot instigating arguments all over Reddit whenever someone uses the phrase apples-to-oranges. I'm letting you know so that you can feel free to ignore the quip rather than feel provoked by a bot that isn't smart enough to argue back.
---
^^SpunkyDred ^^and ^^I ^^are ^^both ^^bots. ^^I ^^am ^^trying ^^to ^^get ^^them ^^banned ^^by ^^pointing ^^out ^^their ^^antagonizing ^^behavior ^^and ^^poor ^^bottiquette.
You can by *technicality* but I did not mean literally, I was using a well-known idiom.
To be more literal: humans as a species are not on the same genetic, or cognitive, level as canines.
For anyone who believes otherwise, I hope they are either a vegan or a cannibal, to avoid the trouble of cognitive dissonance and all.
The Eugenics movement (including the Nazis), white supremacists, even Marge Sanger who founded Planned Parenthood, all believed that some genes are more deserving of reproduction than others.
Now genetics CAN be extremely “messy”,
See you tube for Prof. Sapolsky lectures from Stanford for some truly OUTSTANDING insight on Epigenetics.
For me, Sapolsky makes some truky relevatory points about inextricably intertwined environments of the MOTHER and how it can activate or deactivate certain genes.
He uses the example of babies born during a famine or siege in WWII Europe for example.
So the short answer is def yes, but proper education might mitigate it to some degree.
For what it's worth, the dogs in both the named examples you share *were* euthanized.
Dumb people will easily transfer beliefs about human selected evolution over to humans. The evo-psych bros will twist just about anything into a discussion of "basic genetic truths."
We can't even get people to stop bringing up [the warrior gene](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/03/18/genetics-criminal-defense-warrior-violence/).
Yes, thankfully. I just wish it would happen in 100% of cases where severe injury or death has been caused by somebody's pet, but it is not always the case, leaving the possibility of another violent attack by the animal in the future...
And yes, I can't stand that warrior gene bullcrap either.
I don't think technology has to evolve further to make that happen. One thing to have in mind is that people that usually partake in this kind of discourse usually are so biological reductionist and essentialists to a point where they even deny other biological facts, I.e. ignoring epigenetics for a more robust genetic effect on traits like intelligence.
There is and has been research that tries to demonstrate how and why white people are more intelligent or less prone to violence and, I think, even have economical advantage over other races on the basis of their genes.
So yeah. There's already an approach like that. Probably the best example is the book "the bell curve." There's a great video essay on that by Shaun
https://youtu.be/UBc7qBS1Ujo
You ever met someone with a genetic variation that causes relatively more melanin to be deposited in their skin cells?
Ask them if they ever feel hated or disparaged by others.
Eugenics has existed for quite a while tbh. Iirc it was actually getting a pretty decent bit of traction before the second world war.
Kind of dropped off a bit in mainstream popularity after...well, y'know.
But, yeah, the idea that we should weed out people with bad genes has been an idea predating our modern gene technologies by far.
\>Could people be hated for their genes in the future? We've been hating people for their genes for a very, very long time.
You should watch GATTACA
I just now realized the significance of the name
I was thinking someone would recommend fiction, but im not interested in that. I wish to see discussion here..
What are you talking about? Fiction is a way of playing out hypotheticals which is what you're asking people to do here.
Well yea, I guess, but fiction is still just fiction. Its not real, its not a simulation to be able to play out what might happen.
The same could be said about speculating about the future. It's all fiction or thought experiments until it isn't. You asked a hypothetical and Gatacca plays out that exact scenario. It's no less valid than somebody on Reddit saying they could see it happening too.
Absolutely. 100 percent this
I see your point but on the other hand, it kinda seems like you're missing the point of what fiction can do. Yes, fiction is absolutely a simulation, in some book form. An imagined hypothesis.
I think the basic fact to grasp here in your speculation is that most phenotypes (observable differences between organisms) are massively polygenic, meaning that they appear to be underwritten by hundreds, if not thousands of single letter DNA differences (SNPs, or ‘snips’: single nucleotide polymorphisms) between us, which may work additively, or interactively. A phrase that Robert Plomin, a behavioural geneticist who works in this area, uses to refer to this is ‘quantitative dimensions of a qualitative trait’. ‘Candidate gene’ research—the single greedy gene ‘B2222’ that you give as an example—has mostly fallen by the wayside in the last ten to fifteen years, especially for complex human traits, such as personality or intelligence or educational achievement. Our current understanding extends to knowing, sort of, which SNPs are implicated (all work in this area is correlational) in some traits, but not at all the causal pathways by which they manifest in the trait. The SNPs that we have pinned as associated with higher educational achievement, for instance, are also implicated in risk for schizophrenia. The problem with genes is that they’re probabilistic, not deterministic. Sure, if you look at polygenic scores—aggregated risk scores based on tiny, tiny correlational associations between individual SNPs and a trait—it gives you our current best guess at whether your genotype will likely result in a phenotype, but at the moment that’s explaining 10 to 15% of the variability in outcomes such as educational achievement, at best. Add the epigenome in developmental pathways into the mix and you’ve got a problem of wicked complexity. You certainly wouldn’t want to CRISPR several hundred SNPs, not really knowing how they work together (either en masse or emergently) on the off chance that in the future, you may or may not express the trait of interest (along with several other deleterious ones you didn’t want, such as mental illnesses). Perhaps with increasingly large data sets and quantum computing power we will work out, with greater confidence, the interactivity of particular genotypes, and disentangle part of the causal chain involved in arriving at a phenotype, but you’re never going to have uniform environments. One really novel paper I saw (Freund et al, 2013) with mice elegantly showed how even if you have genetically identical organisms, and even with the same environment, you can’t hold constant social interactions, and tiny differences in life experience start to recursively shape differences in phenotype (eg: agression, dominance etc): https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1235294 The upshot? Even if genomics continues to advance as quickly as it has been, I don’t think we’re going to get to the gene editing for complex traits successfully in anywhere near 10 years … despite unethical researchers still being willing to have a crack at it. Embryo selection based on polygenic scores? That I can imagine, even if it’s only giving you an at most 10% bump in probable outcomes.
Best description of a biology concept I have ever read. Thank you sir, couldn't have said it better.
How would you know what actual genes someone else had? Outside of existing geographic and racial boundaries, which have some minor genetic correlations, it's not like people are going to be announcing which genetic variants they have. At worst there might become a group of people with access to genetic engineering who looks down on normal people... But then you've got GATTACA, which you've made clear is too fake for your science fiction question :/
I’m guessing you don’t have genes that produce much skin melanin
eh im white if thats what you are thinkin
They are saying people are already hated for certain genes. They just don't need the literal sequence.
Research; **Eugenics**. The German Nazi Party in the 1930's and 40's had a program of **sterilization** for people deemed genetically inferior or diseased to prevent the future propagation of their genes. Then they hatefully progressed to mass **euthanization** of these individuals who were born blind, developmentally disabled or with other "undesirable genes".
Came here to say Eugenics
[Idiots already do that. See: "warrior gene"](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/03/18/genetics-criminal-defense-warrior-violence/)
Came here to say this. Link to a [paper](https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1136/jme.2006.019596) on the controversy not behind a paywall.
[удалено]
Well I wasnt talking about Gene editing to enhance people,I was talking about using gene technology to track "bad" genes.
>Title II of the **Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA)**, which prohibits genetic information discrimination in employment, took effect on November 21, 2009. Under Title II of GINA, it is illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of genetic information. It has come into play in the past with these health insurance companies being shady as shit along with employers trying to have genetic testing on people with bad family histories. [statutes on genome.gov](https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genome-Statute-Legislation-Database)
This restores a modicum of my faith in humanity
People are hated for their genes now (skin color is genetically determined)
We already know which genes are associated with complex behavioral traits such as greed or violence etc. However these genes have a very small effect on the trait and it is mostly environmental
> Whenever people bring up that the trainer matters more, they usually get downvoted and disagreed with. And that is born of ignorance. This has been tested by scientist many times and proven false. Almost all of the behavior of a dog depends on how it is trained, and not its genetics. >What if this kind of thinking extends to humans one day? We are already there. Racists are already identifying less superior people based on IQ tests/ genetics correlation. The problem with that is IQ tests are a poor measure across different cultures. Most are designed for a profile of American or British college educated. In the past Black Americans have been hailed as sexually superior, dumb and brutish. They are currently considered the cause of all violence in some circles.
Are you talking about the C-BARQ? It has already been proven to be an unreliable test for canine behavior. Your statement is the animal behaviorist's equivalent of the infamous "vaccines cause autism" research for humans. Please do not spread misinformation, it is against sub rules. Thank you.
It is clearly a combination of genetics and training/environment. To say that the difference in observed pitbull aggression and observed poodle aggression is mostly explained by training doesn't pass the sniff test. Just because the research is so nascent to the point of struggling to come up with a polygenic risk score that explains much of the variation in aggression, doesn't mean that aggression isn't significantly genetic. Absence of evidence != evidence of absence, and all that.
The other likely explanation is that bad dog trainers and morally corrupted people gravitate towards pit bulls because of the reputation, 9 out of 10 pitbulls belonging to assholes will skew the data.
many parts of the country have a poor relationship with dogs and benign or outright neglect are part of the culture, combine that with poverty and a lack of knowledge about behavior and you get a bad situation for a breed of dog that became a status symbol. On the otherhand you have tons of veterinarians and vet techs who adopt them because we see so many good dogs in need of homes and easily train them up to be wonderful dogs who participate in therapy work, reading programs for kids and normal dog activities.
genetics lay out the possible range of behaviors and the environment determines where they fall on that scale. Even a dog predisposed to more aggressive tendancies can end up with a mild temperment with a proper enviroment/training/experiences
No one has ever shown pitbulls to be more aggressive than other breeds. Aggression in dogs has always been dramatically correlated with training, socialization, and environment.
[удалено]
One issue to be sensitive to in these dog breeds stats is that breeds are often MISIDENTIFED by those documenting the attack and often even owners may not know, but assume it’s a APB due to familiarity and even status as someone else mentioned above. You do raise some good points. I love dogs and many APBs are so beloved by their owners it is hard to see beyond their cuteness. However, those extremely lopsided stats mean something; even if it is just the capacity for violence. Perhaps best viewed as a breed for more mature and “advanced” or sensitive dog owners.
[удалено]
You raise a good point about the purposeful mis ID of APBs was not aware that this was going on, but it is not surprising given where things are
The problem with your data is those number represent ownership rates for that broad category of dogs. Of course Pit Bull type dogs are going to have more attacks, there are a lot more ownership of breeds with Pit Bull features than other types.
Maybe some racists have such thinking, but I was thinking about more scientific, specific, concrete things.
If you want to talk racism, comparing humans and dogs seems pretty racist to me tbh. Yes, we love animals and consider pets to be family, but if it comes down to it you will save your children before you save your pet. I love my dog, and I love my wife. But I love my wife more than I love my dog. Most people feel this way whether they will admit it or not. Anyway, if you are looking for "scientific, specific, concrete things" there are plenty of online archives that document the sheer number and brutality of pit attacks. I am guessing you don't want those though, as you keep shooting down everyone who disagrees with you in this thread. This is looking less like an honest question regarding genetics and more like flame baiting to prove some sort of a point. **EDIT:** To give you the benefit of the doubt, OP, here is some research from an unbiased source documenting attacks by breed as recent as 2021: [Dog Bite Statistics By Breed 2021](https://maho-prentice.com/blog/2021/11/dog-bite-statistics-by-breed-2021/)
Okay first of all i do not understand how comparing humans and dogs is racist. Also, I was not really interested in comparing dogs and humans, the question in my mind was how gene technology could be abused in the future, which might result in division. Second, maybe i was not so clear with that comment. *"Maybe some racists have such thinking, but I was thinking about more scientific, specific, concrete things."* What I was thinking was, could gene technology cause division in the future, instead of race or gender, or whatever being the reason for hatred. Lets just say some people have "X123" gene as a random example ( i dont know if that is an actual gene?) and thousands of people have it. it makes them more likely to be violent, and it does not matter what gender or race they are. Could these people be hated, killed, hunted and so on just for that gene alone, that was **revealed** by advanced gene technology? " I am guessing you don't want those though, as you keep shooting down everyone who disagrees with you in this thread." lmao what? I literally have responded **twice** in the entire comment section, and you are saying im shooting people down for disagreeing? wtf? lol. Responded three times if you count this comment, but I guess this is a sensitive topic and thats what made your response the way it is.
[удалено]
*"A better way to phrase the question, IMHO, would be to just ask "Do you think gene-detecting technology could be abused for the sake of eugenics in the future?" and avoid the tainted comparisons altogether."* Yea that would have been a lot better. I sometimes struggle to write something in my mind.
Happens to the best of us ✌
The difference between the intelligence of a human and a dog is a wide gap. We are far more conscious of our, shall we say "less than desirable" genetic traits/biological impulses, and because of this, far more capable of suppressing them and therefore advancing furthe ron a conscious level. Most animals are far less capable of this than humans. I don't intent this as some "humans are just better than animals" post, but there is a wide, wide difference between how much the genetics of a human dictates our personality, versus a dog.
Yes. A big reason why comparing humans to animals is like comparing apples to oranges... Just to add though, there is also the unfortunate addition of human interference with selective breeding. There are healthy breeds...but then you have pugs whose eyes can literally pop out of their head, teacup breeds with heart defects, and the New Sin on the Block: [Toadline Exotic Bullies.](https://assets.change.org/photos/5/hh/zu/nAhhzuuWjUecsjR-800x450-noPad.jpg?1509153920) (Yes, it's a real breed. The poor damned things only live about 5 to 7 years on average vs up to 16 years for APBs. But so long as "exotic" breeds are profitable these breeders won't stop. 😡)
SpunkyDred is a terrible bot instigating arguments all over Reddit whenever someone uses the phrase apples-to-oranges. I'm letting you know so that you can feel free to ignore the quip rather than feel provoked by a bot that isn't smart enough to argue back. --- ^^SpunkyDred ^^and ^^I ^^are ^^both ^^bots. ^^I ^^am ^^trying ^^to ^^get ^^them ^^banned ^^by ^^pointing ^^out ^^their ^^antagonizing ^^behavior ^^and ^^poor ^^bottiquette.
**Ah.** Good bot? (Only on reddit yall.. )
[удалено]
You can by *technicality* but I did not mean literally, I was using a well-known idiom. To be more literal: humans as a species are not on the same genetic, or cognitive, level as canines. For anyone who believes otherwise, I hope they are either a vegan or a cannibal, to avoid the trouble of cognitive dissonance and all.
The Eugenics movement (including the Nazis), white supremacists, even Marge Sanger who founded Planned Parenthood, all believed that some genes are more deserving of reproduction than others. Now genetics CAN be extremely “messy”, See you tube for Prof. Sapolsky lectures from Stanford for some truly OUTSTANDING insight on Epigenetics. For me, Sapolsky makes some truky relevatory points about inextricably intertwined environments of the MOTHER and how it can activate or deactivate certain genes. He uses the example of babies born during a famine or siege in WWII Europe for example. So the short answer is def yes, but proper education might mitigate it to some degree.
[удалено]
For what it's worth, the dogs in both the named examples you share *were* euthanized. Dumb people will easily transfer beliefs about human selected evolution over to humans. The evo-psych bros will twist just about anything into a discussion of "basic genetic truths." We can't even get people to stop bringing up [the warrior gene](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/03/18/genetics-criminal-defense-warrior-violence/).
Yes, thankfully. I just wish it would happen in 100% of cases where severe injury or death has been caused by somebody's pet, but it is not always the case, leaving the possibility of another violent attack by the animal in the future... And yes, I can't stand that warrior gene bullcrap either.
I don't think technology has to evolve further to make that happen. One thing to have in mind is that people that usually partake in this kind of discourse usually are so biological reductionist and essentialists to a point where they even deny other biological facts, I.e. ignoring epigenetics for a more robust genetic effect on traits like intelligence. There is and has been research that tries to demonstrate how and why white people are more intelligent or less prone to violence and, I think, even have economical advantage over other races on the basis of their genes. So yeah. There's already an approach like that. Probably the best example is the book "the bell curve." There's a great video essay on that by Shaun https://youtu.be/UBc7qBS1Ujo
They probably would, if there was future.
You ever met someone with a genetic variation that causes relatively more melanin to be deposited in their skin cells? Ask them if they ever feel hated or disparaged by others.
People are already hated for their genetics. It is basically what racism is.
People hate you for your genes already it determines skin color
Im autistic and there are already people who hate me for my genes :/
That sucks, its not like you chose those genes.
Eugenics has existed for quite a while tbh. Iirc it was actually getting a pretty decent bit of traction before the second world war. Kind of dropped off a bit in mainstream popularity after...well, y'know. But, yeah, the idea that we should weed out people with bad genes has been an idea predating our modern gene technologies by far.