[shotashotashota]

> If everyone affected by dwarfism in the future were diverted into normal growth via treatment, in a few generations there would be no one left who is affected by it physically.

Why would it? Unless the changes are made at the genetic level nothing change. Well, some things will change.

[PhasmaFelis]

If dwarfism becomes something that's routinely treated in childhood, like a cleft palate, then there will still be people who have it, but no one with access to basic health care will be affected by it.

[StacyRoberts]

I believe the opposite is true. It would promote more of the genes in society, because dwarfism is sexually selected against. Thus more children would be born with dwarfism.

[mc32]

There are many afflictions which are hereditary. We typically don’t go about saying how finding treatments that allow these people to live at all or live improved lives inflicts the possibility of further establishing the affliction in a population into the future. I mean this comes off as kind of close to a eugenic attitude, although not quite there.

I’d be okay with some sort of disclosure for future partners as we’d be for many things of this nature.

[StacyRoberts]

I think enforcing any sort of eugenic policies would also be unethical including the forced disclosure of the medical procedures we are discussing.

It's hard for me to believe something is wrong and shouldn't be done while simultaneously believing it should not be prevented with policy.

We need to evolve the ability to uncover deception with our minds and prevent betrayal innately. Those who can do that possess gifts that will reward the successful species in the very long term.

As it is, we are unable to detect and prevent it as a society and we need that skill. I admire it in those I know who have it. I wish I was better at it.

[PhasmaFelis]

You do get people complaining, with no apparent irony, about how modern medicine weakens the human race by allowing unfit people to reproduce, often with an extremely broad definition of "unfit". Idiocracy will be invariably be mentioned.

And then they get offended when you say that's eugenics.

[lemmonii]

So few people seem to understand this. People tend to think I'm insane when I suggest that abortion of down-syndrome foetuses will eventually lead to more down-syndrome foetuses.

[StacyRoberts]

That is different because down syndrome is not hereditary. It's caused when chromosomes don't properly separate due their tangling caused by aging of egg cells.

Plus, if it were a hereditary genetic condition, abortion would eliminate those genes from the population reducing the occurrence over time.

[lemmonii]

Would you agree that there are probably some genes, especially on the mothers side which would increase the likelihood of the foetus having down-syndrome?

Or some genes on the mothers side which will increase likelihood of engaging in behaviour that increase the chances of the foetus having down-syndrome? (Smoking etc...)

Because if so, then a huge evolutionary pressure has been lifted from having a down-syndrome child. In the past having such a child would incur immense cost. There are of course difficulties birthing and sustaining an evolutionary dead-end which would reduce the birth-rate of down-syndrome having couples right?

Therefore, genes which increase the likelihood of having down-syndrome will proliferate much more in world which aborts down-syndrome foetuses right?