- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Considering the inexorable advance of medical science, its only a matter of time until the technology to "design" our own babies will be developed. I personally have very little objections to this, and completely support eugenics. If we could remove certain genes which are responsible for diseases before conception we could remarkably reduce the number of genetic diseases and also optimize the human condition (controlled evolution, I suppose). Does anyone disagree?
Its a shame Hitler tried something like this too through regulated births and genocide.
Originally posted by Conrau KYes, and have us all living to about 250 and capable of reproducing faster and longer. Get everyone screaming about overpopulation. Then we'd get even the Vatican to agree on birth control.
Considering the inexorable advance of medical science, its only a matter of time until the technology to "design" our own babies will be developed. I personally have very little objections to this, and completely support eugenics. If we could remove certain genes which are responsible for diseases before conception we could remarkably reduce the number of g ...[text shortened]...
Its a shame Hitler tried something like this too through regulated births and genocide.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by princeoforangeEither that or we could only allow the top 10% to have children and bomb the Vatican.
Yes, and have us all living to about 250 and capable of reproducing faster and longer. Get everyone screaming about overpopulation. Then we'd get even the Vatican to agree on birth control.
Originally posted by princeoforangeI thought in my meagre appreciation of history, that the only birth control the vatican ever sponsored was war.
Yes, and have us all living to about 250 and capable of reproducing faster and longer. Get everyone screaming about overpopulation. Then we'd get even the Vatican to agree on birth control.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by princeoforange1) how about top 2.5% in intelligence, + top 2.5% in pysical strength, + top 2.5% in attractiveness, + top 2.5% with famous parents.
Good plan.
But the top 10% in what field? Inteligence?
Bombing the Vatican isn't a bad idea though, bombing Mecca would be even better, preferably during the Hajj.
2) We have nuclear bombs. What are we waiting for?
Originally posted by princeoforangeI dont think anyone could be or even come close.
As far as I am aware, that is correct.
I think you misinterpreted my point, I am not the apologist of the Vatican, far from it.
I see the atrocities committed under a 'just' banner the same process that allows a misinterpretation of the true meaning of Jihad(which is only meant to be a personal war against self, in its purest iteration) to allow a similar attitude of intolerance and inflexibility, that allows extremists to follow a path of righteous indignation and circumvent all avenues of legitimate dialogue and political process to exact vengence on anyone determined by the 'faithfull' to have robbed them of any 'rights'.
As to eugenics I think that while certain congenital defects if detectable are better avoided. I dont think anyone would be that cruel to say,"no you have no choice in the matter, you genes predispose your offspring towards disability, try and see a bigger picture of God trying to enlighten your spirit" . And I dont say that lightly or mockingly to anyone who has been brave enough to battle tirelessly for loved ones suffering disabilities, but the perception that although science may currently have the technology to splice and dice, do scientists have enough confidence to predict how even the forced removal of disabling genes might have on the gene pool, and will that inadvertantly over time expose a weakness in our human genome that may be exploited by diseases or environmental conditions that we are now currently coping with.
The whole fear of Frankenstein or the Gataca world are also very real concerns regardles of whether or not they actually become problems for humanity if we increasingly embrace gene manipulation.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by kmax87Well, instead of preventing people from having children, we could mainpulate what types of children are born and thus enhace the population.
As to eugenics I think that while certain congenital defects if detectable are better avoided. I dont think anyone would be that cruel to say,"no you have no choice in the matter, you genes predispose your offspring towards disability, try and see a bigger picture of God trying to enlighten your spirit" . And I dont say that lightly or mockingly to anyone who ...[text shortened]... r not they actually become problems for humanity if we increasingly embrace gene manipulation.
However, I was thinking about eugenics after we can predict what all the genes are responsible for. What moral concerns/objections are there?
Originally posted by Conrau KI do not have any moral concerns/objections to eugenics. However almost any system is open to abuse and most people I think would have that as thier main fear. There is also a desire in most people for thier own children to survive and it would be obvious that any eugenics system that requires some people having children and others not would result in abuse. A system where you can for example choose the best of your own sperm or eggs or even modify them favourable would probably be more acceptable.
Well, instead of preventing people from having children, we could mainpulate what types of children are born and thus enhace the population.
However, I was thinking about eugenics after we can predict what all the genes are responsible for. What moral concerns/objections are there?
There is also a fear of rushing into it before the science is actually well understood and somehow creating monsters etc.