JBeukema
Rookie
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #141
Where eugenics is defined for the sake of this discussion as:
The use of genetic technologies that we possess or shall come to possess to enable parents to determine what genetic traits are passed on to their children, with the stated aims and goals of eliminating genetic disease, improving the human form (eg:restoring the human ability to synthesize our own vitamin C, should it prove possible to repair the damaged pseudogene), prolonging life, and improving the quality of human life.
Honestly, I'm kind of torn. The idea of being able to ensure my children would be entirely healthy and not ever have to endure some of the health conditions my family has faced (diabetes, heart disease, etc.) is a very nice thought. They're my kids, and I love them, and naturally want them to be healthy. But...on the other hand, people get sick, they die. It does happen, sad though it may be. And what would happen if people didn't get sick and die? We could end up with an even more grossly overpopulated planet.
People will always get sick. There is no end in sight to viruses and bacteria. There's a case to be made, in fact, that our eliminations of the weaker forms continues to fuel their evolution into more dangerous forms. This seems be be how MRSA came into being.
People will always age. At least that is to say that genetics cannot stop the aging process. That comes to more bizarre technologies, such as 'brain uploading', which are of questionable possibility and feasibility.
Also, the world's not really overpopulated. It can produce enough food and potable water (especially with modern methods) for everyone and its a matter of opinion as to what level of population density in a given area becomes unpleasant/alienating. It's the distribution of people and resources, as well as the inefficient and 'dirty' technologies we now use that are problematic.
And it starts with improving the quality of life...but where does it end? A prospective mom goes in intending nothing more than to ensure her baby won't get diabetes like the baby's grandmother and father did, and walks out having decided she's going to have a blue-eyed, blond-haired girl that will be 5'9" and be thin all her life, and with an IQ higher than Einstein's.
Would that be so horrible? She has given her child the bet form she can, just as the woman who marries a man with the desired traits gives her child the best form she can through the means available to her (that is, through selectively breeding with someone she believes carries the desired attributes). Indeed, natural selection and selective breeding are the same thing; the application of intelligence and awareness of the decision is simply another environmental pressure.
Is there any difference in trying to help your child appear attractive by providing the best form and buying her makeup so she can appear attractive? Either way, you're helping her succeed (1, 2, 3) and also to be happy. [While attractiveness does not guarantee happiness, it increases the chances of success in the social aspect of life, as well as attracting a mate later in life.
What difference, then, is there? I myself carry the alleles for blond hair and blue eyes, though I do not express them. Is it any more wrong for me to choose to marry a blonde woman in the hopes of passing down a trait I believe will help our child be perceived as beautiful and improve her quality of life than it is to buy her, when she is a teen, the hair dye and makeup she wishes to use to appear more beautiful? Is it any more wrong to forgo the roll of the dice and use what methods I have to ensure I pass those alleles along? Is that any different than choosing the blonde partner instead of blindly wondering what alleles my partner might carry?
You are effectively declaring it immoral to know anything about your partner's appearance, lest your views of what is attractive effect your decision to have a child with someone you consider attractive. You are declaring it immoral for a woman to refuse the fat guy who sweats too much and choose the muscular man across the bar because, should they have children in the future, she has actively chosen what traits she wishes to pass to her children.
Truly, your condemnations of a love for one's child and the desire to pass along the best traits and provide one's child with the best possible form are absurd in the highest order.