From: David Lubkin (lubkin@unreasonable.com)
Date: Thu Oct 07 1999 - 13:17:59 MDT
>> I would argue that yes, there are indeed individuals whose genetic
>> contribution to the gene pool would be better off left unmade, just as there
>> are individuals whose genetic contribution would be so valuable that it
>> would constitute a "duty" to the species as a whole to make sure it was
>> passed to further generations. But the criteria would be physical and
>> mental, not ethnic.
Both the proponents of eugenics and those afraid it will be applied against
their group view eugenics from the perspective that there is some
non-participant who is deciding who should breed, or which genetic factors
to remove or to perpetuate.
I think the right strategy is the libertarian / spontaneous order one:
"Let a thousand flowers bloom." Each person or couple decides for
themselves. No central planning. Social and competitive pressures sway
the overall effect. But --
Question for non-libertarians: Do you see anything wrong with private
organizations instituting a Howard Plan, e.g., providing incentives for
people to choose offspring with characteristics you endorse, or without
characteristics you oppose?
"I love blonde hair and blue eyes. For every child you have with those
features, I will pay you $1000." OR "I hate the Irish. If your child
doesn't look Irish, I will pay you $1000."
Also: There are groups who are opposed to genetic modification because
they see it as one more in a line of ways to put them down. To
discriminate against them. Even as a way to eliminate them altogether.
They are also opposed to studies into the genetic basis, if any, of any
distinctions between them and other segments of society. They fear, and
rightly so, that any such studies, regardless of legitimacy, would be used
as another tool against them.
And they, apparently, take it as a matter of faith that no such study could
legitimately find a genetic basis for any apparent inferiority.
But what if there were a bona fide proof of some inferiority of 4 sigmas
of their group over 4 sigmas of the general population?
What if it turns out that the observed pattern that very few Jews excel in
sports is because Ashkenazic bodies under-produce a protein used in
propagating signals to the muscular system, giving them a slower reaction
time?
What if it turns out that the observed pattern that Black SAT scores are
below average is because their bodies under-produce a protein that is
used in memory retrieval, giving them slower recall from long-term memory
during exams?
If either of these were true, they could be treated pharmacologically and
parents could choose to engineer children without this defect relative to the
rest of the population.
Thereby using genetic studies, testing, and engineering as tools of personal
and ethnic empowerment.
I think that as genetic (and other forms of) enhancement becomes accepted,
people will be more willing to delve into the specifics of their own
genetics and common traits of their strain, and to share what they've found
out. And will become nonjudgmental about what someone else has found in
their genome.
It may take a while, though. People willingly wear glasses and braces in
public, admitting to all that they have certain physical deficiencies. They
do not readily admit other actual or perceived deficiencies they are
repairing, such as too little or too much hair in the wrong place, or a body
part that is too large or too small.
Will insurance companies refuse to cover medical claims for illnesses or
defects you could have avoided through genemod? Or have differential
pricing, as they do for smokers vs. non-smokers?
-- David Lubkin.
______________________________________________________________________________
lubkin@unreasonable.com || Unreasonable Software, Inc. || www.unreasonable.com
a trademark of USI:
> > > > > B e u n r e a s o n a b l e .
______________________________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:26 MST