> Major Variola (ret)[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > What's wrong with voluntary eugenics? The invention of > agriculture started a policy of negative eugenics that culminates > with the industrial welfare state paying stupids to breed, while > others chose birth control. And banning somatic or germ line > fixes to diseases, if you can do them, is as compassionate as > banning insulin. Which isn't even a fix, just a workaround. > > If a germ line fix has an unintended side effect, you either undo it > (revert back to being inclined towards diabetes, if this is preferable > to the side effect, say) or you debug or patch it. Current & historical > medicine is filled with such things for mere *temporary* meds that > don't cure anything. > > "This nasal spray contains a vector with Service Pack 6 for the > germ-line diabetes package installed by your grandfather" > > :-) > Once again, the main problem seems to be the 'thats icky' factor which most people have difficulty getting past. We're seeing it today in the hysteria over human cloning, we will see it in human genetic engineering. We saw it in the past in IVF reproduction, and in organ transplantation - for a while in Britain, cornea transplants were banned - the idea of 'looking through a dead mans eyes' was just too weird.
Genetic engineering is a new area where man is seizing control from nature, and is now faced with choices which just didn't exist in the past. How individuals and societies should make these decisions is pretty much uncharted territory. For any proposed change, some people will think it's a bad idea, some people will think its great, and some people won't have an opinion. The proportions (and the reasons) will vary from decision to descision. There are some things where nearly everyone will agree a genetic fix is desirable - for example, suceptibility to heart disease, cancer, dental caries, and myopia. Other 'vanity' fixes seem pretty harmless - being tall, busty, or having a well-stuffed package. Its when we get to 'fixes' to behaviour and personality that things start to get very hairy. I fear that those in power will use genetic engineering as they have used every other tool at their disposal - weapons, states, laws, and governments - to maintain their position at the expense of the overall welfare of the species, by allowing improvements only to their own descendents, while requiring changes to those out of power which make it harder for them to change their status. One scenario: "Mr & Mrs Smith: The No Child Should Fear Act of 2015 requires that your proposed son have the 'bullying' gene deleted if he is to attend publicly funded schools. This is similar to the old requirements for vaccination - we don't want your son to endanger other children, do we? Of course, this also weakens any leadership ability he might have been able to exercise later in life, as well as his tendency to question authority, but if it saves one child from humiliation at the hands of a bully, its worth it. If you don't want to accept this change, you are of course free to send your child to private school, as do most leaders. If you can afford it, that is...." So, who gets to decide what changes are good, and for whom? I know what I want the answer to be, but I'm not certain that is the one that will come to pass. Peter Trei
