I can see your point when it comes to Roschmann theory - will parents really pre-select their childrens genes in advance?
It is already happening: A British woman with a deadly disease running in the family wanted to have a baby. She knew that if she had the baby the "normal" way, there was a 50 percent chance that the baby would have the disease. So she had an in-vitro fertilization instead. They tested the embryos for the disease and picked one that was not affected and implanted it. The others were thrown away.
Today they allow this method only when a severe disease is involved.
In 10 years they will allow it for less serious diseases.
In 100 years there will be no limits. Women will just pick an embryo of their favorite gender, hair color, body size, iq, etc. And certainly one that has no illnesses.
that would be one of the scariest things of all times.
Maybe. But so is global warming, and yet no one gives up their car or starts living in the woods to fight global warming.
What I mean is that no one is ready to cut down on things personally for the sake of humanity. True, genetic engineering might be a frightening prospect for humanity, but when you're personally affected, you see things differently. Every parent wants to have a perfect child. Every parent is afraid of having a sick child. So if you can influence the outcome, why not do it? If you were that woman, would you do what she did? I probably would.
Also, think of the millions of plastic surgery jobs done every year, a rapidly growing market. More proof that people just don't accept their natural bodies anymore, their natural shortcomings.
reply
share
annuskavdpol
15 years ago
I can see your point. In the long run - I think the human race will create something that could be out-of-control. For example, if altering the genes of babies becomes something available to every mother on the planet - and it gets used all the time - I think that somehow - other un-fore-see-able problems would come into play. For example, freedom to be who you are, freedom to express emotions and pain, freedom to learn compassion from suffering.
The whole idea of changing what nature intended (on the grand scheme of things versus incidentals) - seems very creepy to me.
Annuska
reply
share
lthrsmith
15 years ago
The whole idea of changing what nature intended (on the grand scheme of things versus incidentals) - seems very creepy to me.
Well, isn't it even more creepy that the Nazis used the same nature argument to justify some of their most horrible crimes? They, too, claimed that nature's intention should not be changed. So they went into nursing homes and gave lethal injections to the sick and disabled, claiming that nursing the weak and allowing them to live and propagate is a sin against nature - in which only the strong survive!
reply
share
annuskavdpol
15 years ago
Smith: What happened in the Second World War was horrific. There is absolutely no justification to any of it. The movie "Nuremberg Trials" was another movie that really explained situations that I thought were beyond the human realm. It left me shocked. ==== Why is it that psychos and sociopaths (Nazies) had the ability to take an idea (nature) and twist it around to suit their own agendas (the Nazis used the same nature argument to justify some of their most horrible crimes) Yes - that is manipulation to the greatest degree - manipulation combined with propaganda are obliviously incredibly destructive. Does propaganda lead people to believe that they are being educated instead of manipulated? Is the leader the only one responsible ... blame - victim; no personal responsibility; drones; survivors? Victor Frankl is a good book to read - (he says something on the lines of "98% of people are bad"); - -- - Before the second world war - - - I bet Germany was a great place. I heard that Berlin had 200 gay bars; their art and theatre i.e. German Expressionism were thriving - and German film (Dr. Caligari) was considered to be the "Hollywood" of Modern Time. Even German literature - i.e. Herman Hesse or F. Kafka. I love these books. They teach everyone to think for themselves.
..... In current society ... words get twisted ... freedom gets twisted and so do words like "freedom of speech" ....
Annuska
reply
share
lthrsmith
15 years ago
But what about future society and the freedom to take control of our own genetic destiny? Undeniably, there is a dark side to nature, and we have already developed many tools to manipulate nature: Vaccines and cures for the plague, smallpox, polio, tuberculosis and countless other diseases.
Today, every baby gets a polio shot and we've wiped out smallpox. Tomorrow, we will have the power to wipe out the genes that cause short-sightedness, obesity or low intelligence.
SHOULD WE DO THIS?
Generally, I think it is a good thing to take evolution in our hands. Nature is not sacred or noble. It is a cruel, meaningless, aimless lottery of mutation, adaption and survival. No wonder the Nazis liked it! Animals kill to survive, and the weak are the first to go. An infinite, brutal struggle for survival.
Unlike the Nazis, modern society helps the weak, out of compassion and empathy. THAT is noble. However, and this is the ethical dilemma you were addressing earlier: If we start selecting and repairing genes to create perfectly healthy babies, are we not weeding out the weak, just like the Nazis did? And who are we to make these decisions?
Here is my opinion: The Nazi argument is not valid because preventing illness is not the same as killing the ill. Yes, it would mean to gradually eliminate unfavorable genes, but that's not the same as killing the people who already carry these genes.
Who are we to decide what is unfavorable? I don't know, but I think it's better if parents decide this carefully - if they want to - than to let nature roll the dice. Nobody forces parents who do not wish to take this responsibility or think it belongs in God's hands. Think of it as an option, not an obligation.
As for ethical concerns, sometimes we must have the courage to overcome them. The first heart transplant was a major international scandal, today it's a common treatment saving thousands of lives. If ethical boundaries had not been crossed in the past, we would be still living in the stone age.
reply
share
15 years ago
[deleted]
Raglan22
14 years ago
and then you mention the same govt love of homosexuals just before WW2 that we see in america now, but for a FAR more sinister reason
Exactly!!!
...and it saddens me.
reply
share
edthegoatroper
13 years ago
After just watching "The Odessa File" for the first time, I am so confused on the comparison of eliminating another race and those perceived as ill or weak or looked at as not "perfect" as to compare the selective engineering of unborn fetus' possible imperfections as the the growth of the Nazi belief.Science has allowed us to isolate some genetic "mistake" within the womb and the possibility of those mistakes resulting of the union of two individuals may result in. Theoretical pondering, parents afraid of what could be deformities , physical or mental, and trying to use science to "correct" those fears. THese corrections would be made on the unconceived, the recently conceived, that have been elevated the level called human life.I believe human life begins when the fetus could survive as a human outside the womb. What is the current science today 5 to 6 months since conception? (I am open to to hear when this time is and would re-evaluate my thoughts) My objection in this article comes in when instead of manipulating unconceived life or pre-natal life to create the optimum human being cannot compare to the autrocity of killing a race of people because of skewed belief of their infiority of another race. The nazi's felt superior to all including the non-Aryan cultures, liberal thinkers, gays, and blacks to name only a few. You cannot have a chance of being considered justified when you stand for the elimination other cultures/races. These other cultures/races are living human beings who live, love, and yes exceed the aryan culture in more ways than can be listed. All cultures have their plusses and minuses and we are all here to intertwine, work together, live together, and love together and by doing so, we all would be on the way toward the perfect race (THE HUMAN RACE). It just will take a bit longer.You can't compare killing and correcting a problem in a cell.
reply
share
dcmakm47
14 years ago
Playwrite George Bernard Shaw was a big believer in 'eugenics". he felt that people should be bought before a board every few years to 'justify' thier existence on this earth. and if they could not, they would be killed. if they consumed more than they produced, than they should be killed.
I myself am disabled, and even tho there is nothing I can not do with my hands, or my brain, I would have been killed under his theory.
And it didn't start with the nazis. it started here in the US and Britan. look up the history of eugenics. it will turn your stomach. these people still believe what they did 100 years ago. they have just what they call it....
reply
share
Wakanohana
14 years ago
The Nazis did not invent the science of eugenics -- that happened in America and the Nazis were just enthusiastic copycats. Eugenics was one of the pillars of early 20th-century progressivism.
reply
share
dcmakm47
14 years ago
that was one of the points of my post. if eugenics had caught on here the way it did in germany, I'd have not reached my 15 th birthday.
reply
share
seatart-2
13 years ago
Wow...eugenics did not originate in America. It was popular in America, as well as europe, but it didn't start here.
reply
share
Wakanohana
13 years ago
You are correct, seatart, that the idea of eugenics originated in Europe; but the eugenics movement really got started years earlier in the US than anywhere else. And it was one of the fundamental principles of the progressive movement, part of the idea that government should have the power to eliminate all social ills, by encouraging the creation of a superior race of humans.
reply
share