Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Eugenics of Personal Choice
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 31 of 34 (766797)
08-21-2015 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by 1.61803
08-21-2015 9:57 AM


Re: Eugenics 2.0
1.61803 writes:
I suppose we simply have to trust that humanity will make the right choices in regards to having the power to alter our genes.
Given the track record with the ability to split the atom I feel we are in for a period of prolific abuse before it is reigned in.
I think you're right, unfortunately. And the tragic thing is the amount of damage we could do not only to people through short-sighted gene tinkering, but to the way our society defines well-being through our haste to look for biological cures instead of focusing on the social context of disease and deviance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by 1.61803, posted 08-21-2015 9:57 AM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 32 of 34 (766814)
08-22-2015 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by MrHambre
08-21-2015 3:15 PM


Re: Eugenics 2.0
However, the emphasis on making individuals and families responsible for ameliorating problems like health and well-being rather than our corporate and political overlords is a facet of this issue that no one else seems to think is a big deal.
Clarify, please.
Do you not think the needed consensus will include political, corporate and individual interests? When it comes time to build a baby who would/should decide? Are you saying parents' choice would/should be the only consideration? Might we see law (representing both social and corporate interests) determining the base requirements of the phenotype with a spread of traits available for the parents' choice? Maybe we go total Brave New World and decant babies in government factories then put them up on the market for adoption?
In your view, where should these concerns be centered? Any examples on who should have what levels of control?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by MrHambre, posted 08-21-2015 3:15 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by MrHambre, posted 08-24-2015 6:47 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 33 of 34 (766879)
08-23-2015 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by 1.61803
08-21-2015 9:57 AM


Re: Eugenics 2.0
1.61803 writes:
Have you seen Gattica?
Yes, but I forget most of it at this point
I suppose we simply have to trust that humanity will make the right choices in regards to having the power to alter our genes.
I don't plan on doing much trusting.
A vigilant, monitored, regulated, volunteer-oriented system is the one I'd be behind. Anything else gets no "trust" from me.
Given the track record with the ability to split the atom I feel we are in for a period of prolific abuse before it is reigned in.
Right now, we don't have a lot of information to go from.
All we can do currently is wait and see what's around the next corner.
We can have a plan in mind and be ready to react if anything seems to be deviating... or we can "trust."
We all make our own choices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by 1.61803, posted 08-21-2015 9:57 AM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 34 of 34 (766929)
08-24-2015 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by AZPaul3
08-22-2015 7:56 AM


Re: Eugenics 2.0
AZPaul3 writes:
Clarify, please.
I'm wasn't specifically addressing the whole gene-splicing matter there. I was just pointing out that if the way we define health and well-being focuses on the things that individuals can do to improve them, we ignore the way the society at large, and socioeconomic differences, contribute to (and damage) the health of individuals and families. If well-being becomes just another consumer item, then we're letting the market define the value of wellness and what a healthy, fulfilled human should be.
And what incentive should business have to contribute to society's general health, apart from raising the productivity of its workforce? Should its products and services (and other business practices that affect the environment, for instance) be geared toward a broader definition of well-being, or is it whatever the traffic allows?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by AZPaul3, posted 08-22-2015 7:56 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024