[ QUOTE ]
Once again I'm forced to combat the nonsense that passes for rational thought on these boards.
[/ QUOTE ] I guess that makes me an irrational combatant. Still, that's better than you-know-what. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
[ QUOTE ]
In another thread, Mickey Brausch stated:
[ QUOTE ]
Engaging in eugenics would involve the potential of so many mistakes (e.g. we would be focusing in producing tall humans, something that could prove disastrous down the road) that the exercise is technically a non-starter, even before the moral arguments begin.
[/ QUOTE ]
I submit that
this is total nonsense. While there
are potential dangers with a poorly crafted eugenics program, it's trivial to think of an example where this isn't the case. For example, removing the bottom 50% (in terms of intelligence) of each ethnic group. IMO this would greatly benefit the human gene pool and the long term success of the human race, with few drawbacks. If you disagree, I'd like to hear why.
[/ QUOTE ]"Why"?? Because the parameters involved in selection are so many as to make the enterprise close to chaotic. Because you would be pulling in favor of attribute X while ignoring the potential imbalance caused by the consequent disappearance of attribute Y, an attribute necessary for the "good of mankind" (the ostensible objective of eugenics). Because, atheist though I am, I cannot pretend that the world is not functioning with the "wisdom" of a state that is the result of millions of years of "development" -- and therefore I cannot pretend to know so much more about selection than "nature" as to engage in a program of eugenics. Because if were to remove uncertainty from the human genes, we would immediately be rendered more vulnerable to our little co-habitants of this planet. If you didn't know already, please learn that we and the evil minded micro-organisms of our planet are engaged in a battle where we are
just managing to stay one step ahead, one account of our continuous re-mixing of the gene pool. (But we can suffer a serious blow at any point in time :
"Virtually unbeatable TB strain arrives".)
Because the focus on intelligence begs the question of identifying and measuring intelligence. (ITEM: A tribe living in the Amazon jungle cannot read or write but they are able to distinguish through sight and smell a hundred different variations of the same plant, which is sometimes poisonous and sometimes medically a life saver. Are they less intelligent than the man in the city? Are their skills unnecessary for our desired world?) Because acting on the basis of intelligence alone (e.g. "removing the bottom 50%") would undoubtedly leave out a number of human beings whose life and work are, for any sensible person, equally valuable, e.g. artists. Because acting on a set of attributes (e.g. intelligence + health) would again leave off humanity wanting.
What you seem to fail to understand is that the very saving grace of humanity is our diversity and the continuous stirring of the soup. The world would be, if anything, altogether extremely dull if only people possessing certain attributes were allowed to come to life.
And you should realize that as soon as we agree that Set Of Attributes K is the criterion of our eugenics program, as soon as we arrive at a stage whereby K is achieved, the natural and consistent process of eugenics should dictate that we proceed towards a
higher set K' -- and so forth until we reach the ne plus ultra (which we cannot know).
And this is just off the top of my head, without consulting the literature.
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously this point ignores the moral and political considerations, which are huge.
[/ QUOTE ]No, I'm taking on first the strictly "technical" points against the prospect. It is a little disturbing that, smack in the 21st century, there are people gullible enough to fall for the witchcraft of eugenics.
Mickey Brausch