Shinobi wrote:Doktor S wrote:Shinobi wrote:Just a thought,
Eugenics may be the only way to go... Why?
I don't know if you are aware that humans have elliminated natural selection, thus effectievely allowing "bad" genetic material to survive as well as the "good".
Some studies show that the degeneration of genetic material in the gene pool could cause our demise.
Yep. Egalitarian ideal has thwarted evolution.
Now it doesn't matter if you actually have the natual tools to survive, because society will coddle you along.
At the rest of our expense, of course.
So what do you believe is needed:
Natural selection or eugenics?
In the absense of the former, as is the case presently with the human race, the latter could be substituted. Neither, is paramount to stagnation.
If we define "eugenics" as some kind of state-sponsored program of selective breeding, then I would have little problem in opposing it. On the other hand, if we define "eugenics" as simply the selective breeding of children by parents, then I would have little problem in supporting it.
Selective breeding, after all, goes on all the time. A woman, for instance, may prefer men who are blond-haired and blue-eyed, and might choose her mate for those features in the hopes of passing those traits to her children. The difference between that sort of selective breeding and, for example, choosing the sex of a child by means of embryonic selection is really a difference in degree rather than a difference in kind.
Furthermore, most people would probably have no problem in selecting for positive traits or against negative traits. If we could determine that an embryo, if left to develop, would grow into a child with a gross physical deformity or a fatal disease, I see no reason why we shouldn't prefer an embryo that did not suffer from those defects. Indeed, we might be morally obligated to choose the latter rather than the former.
The question, then, is whether homosexuality is a comparable sort of defect. To my mind, it is about as undesirable as left-handedness: something of an inconvenience, but not a major obstacle in life. Yet if potential parents can be allowed to choose those traits that they desire and eliminate those that they don't, I find it difficult to identify the line that separates the "important" traits that parents can choose and the "unimportant" ones that are off-limits. If parents want to have a right-handed heterosexual child, then what rationale would the state or society have to say "no" to that couple?
jfc:
Quote:If we define "eugenics" as some kind of state-sponsored program of selective breeding, then I would have little problem in opposing it. On the other hand, if we define "eugenics" as simply the selective breeding of children by parents, then I would have little problem in supporting it
.
eugenics
One entry found for eugenics.
Main Entry: eu·gen·ics
Pronunciation: yü-'je-niks
Function: noun plural but singular in construction
: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed
I don't think eugenics is the same thing as individuals trying to marry for certain traits in their offspring. It means large scale attempts at controlling those things for populations.
snood wrote:I don't think eugenics is the same thing as individuals trying to marry for certain traits in their offspring. It means large scale attempts at controlling those things for populations.
Let me just make sure I understand you correctly. As a hypothetical, suppose that there was a known gene for homosexuality (there currently isn't). A pregnant woman has her doctor check her embryo for genetic markers of features she considers undesirable, homosexuality among them. The doctor discovers that the fetus carries a "gene for homosexuality". On learning this, the woman terminates the pregnancy because she does not want a gay child.
In your vocabulary, is this eugenics or not?
Thomas wrote:snood wrote:I don't think eugenics is the same thing as individuals trying to marry for certain traits in their offspring. It means large scale attempts at controlling those things for populations.
Let me just make sure I understand you correctly. As a hypothetical, suppose that there was a known gene for homosexuality (there currently isn't). A pregnant woman has her doctor check her embryo for genetic markers of features she considers undesirable, homosexuality among them. The doctor discovers that the fetus carries a "gene for homosexuality". On learning this, the woman terminates the pregnancy because she does not want a gay child.
In your vocabulary, is this eugenics or not?
No. If she tried to do the same for everyone in the state of New Jersey, it would be. I use it the way its defined in Webster's, Thomas.
Quote:a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed
I don't see where the def'n above infers that the control is solely undertaken by the state. It could also be interpreted to be individual choice.
Another def'n from Wikipedia
Quote:Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. The purported goals have variously been to create healthier, more intelligent people, save society's resources, and lessen human suffering. Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering.
eugenics
To answer the original question - No, I wouldn't. To do so would currently involve one of two choices. One, implantation of predetermined heterosexual eggs or two, prenatal screening followed by abortion of the homosexual fetus. Neither of those two choices are reasonable to me to guarantee a heterosexual child.
J_B wrote:Quote:a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed
I don't see where the def'n above infers that the control is solely undertaken by the state. It could also be interpreted to be individual choice.
I agree. If I make biodiesel in my backyard, I apply the science of biochemistry whether the state is involved or not. Likewise, when the mother aborts her prospectively gay child, she practices the science of eugenics. I am reluctant to call eugenics a science, but I don't see how Webster's definition requires state involvment.
Thomas wrote:J_B wrote:Quote:a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed
I don't see where the def'n above infers that the control is solely undertaken by the state. It could also be interpreted to be individual choice.
I agree. If I make biodiesel in my backyard, I apply the science of biochemistry whether the state is involved or not. Likewise, when the mother aborts her prospectively gay child, she practices the science of eugenics. I am reluctant to call eugenics a science, but I don't see how Webster's definition requires state involvment.
I guess if you extrapolate one couple trying to get a child with blue eyes into "a race or breed", there is no difference.
snood wrote:I guess if you extrapolate one couple trying to get a child with blue eyes into "a race or breed", there is no difference.
Different application, but no difference in the science.
same difference between murder and genocide
J_B wrote:Quote:a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed
I don't see where the def'n above infers that the control is solely undertaken by the state. It could also be interpreted to be individual choice.
I think that's correct, and I think
Thomas's analogy is apt (and better than the one that I would have used). Individuals can practice eugenics just as easily as a state can.
