U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-08-2009, 05:16 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,889 posts, read 20,304,497 times
Reputation: 8606

Advertisements

I've talked about this a few times, but I was curious as to peoples opinions here.

If you take evolution to be true, then you believe in the science of "only the strong survive". However, are we really following this montra? We allow people with genetic disorders to breed, and have children, thus passing their genes on to future generations, increasing the possibility of continuing the disease or disorder. This makes our species weaker over time doesn't it?

We are allowing people to live, through modern science, that would have never made it without the aid of modern medical assistance.

Now I can see both sides of this coin. I have family members who have childhood diabetes, so I understand her wanting to have a life and a child. However, for the good of the species, should she have a child.

Humans got to this point in our history by having bigger brains, and being physically fit and capable of adapting to our environment. However, by accepting the contamination of our gene pool by people who would never have made it to child bearing age, are we not handicapping ourselves in the future?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-08-2009, 06:32 AM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,293 posts, read 22,453,494 times
Reputation: 3868
So we're into pre-Third Reich genetic engineering now? Wow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2009, 06:47 AM
 
1,310 posts, read 2,639,688 times
Reputation: 581
We need to bring survival of the fittest Evolution to the 21st century socially, because there is no intrinsic worth or dignity to mankind ultimately arriving from accidental undignified Pond Scum . And because moral relativism 'is true' , Hitler was someone to be admired because he only desired a better nation and world by weeding out the 'less desirables' in society .... and he was only following his own brand of morality . Atheism has many perks, doesnt it ? Stalin thought so too. The actions of such Men demonstrates what occurs when people want to pretend there is no Creator who allows us to have certain unalienable rights for life, liberty , and the pursuit of happiness --- yes, even those with a genetic anomoly ; lest WE play god .

Last edited by RVlover; 09-08-2009 at 06:49 AM.. Reason: added
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2009, 07:34 AM
 
315 posts, read 669,602 times
Reputation: 291
The human spirit, flaws and all cannot and shall not be altered. The human spirit over comes characteristic and physical flaws in our genetic makeup.

Based on your assumptions, we should just inspire to all eventually become robots, controlled by perfectly operating CPUs. I suppose we could make the robots out of flesh and blood.

Humans are unique, in all aspects, flaws and all. It is the human spirit, that allows us to act outside instinctual confines and overcome, that separate us from the rest of earth's beasts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2009, 07:43 AM
 
Location: The Milky Way Galaxy
2,256 posts, read 5,901,941 times
Reputation: 1505
While I think we can't really mandate who is allowed to breed and who isn't, I hate the fact that couples that would make great parents for a kid with a great home can't have kids due to health problems and yet you have kids not even out of HS that are having kids.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2009, 07:51 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,889 posts, read 20,304,497 times
Reputation: 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgt04 View Post
While I think we can't really mandate who is allowed to breed and who isn't, I hate the fact that couples that would make great parents for a kid with a great home can't have kids due to health problems and yet you have kids not even out of HS that are having kids.
I fully agree, seems like some of the worst people have the most children. This goes back to my point as well, should the poorest parents be allowed to have children.

No one seemed to have a problem telling the Octomom she shouldn't have kids, because she clearly isn't mentally stable. However by law she could have all the kids she wants. Should she be allowed to do so?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2009, 07:52 AM
 
1,525 posts, read 3,293,340 times
Reputation: 730
To OP,
Well, like most answers of any merit, it starts with "It depends..."

1) Do you believe one person should be able to dictate to another their reproduction? Why or why not?

2) "The strong survive" isn't the whole story. Traits that enhance survival or at least don't detract from it are what survives. That's not necessarily strong or smart... Consider the case of the moths in England. They were originally mostly whitish... blended in with tree bark... soot during the industrial age made the trees black... whitish moths were easily picked off by birds then... so the soot colored ones became the bigger population...

It's dangerous to assume *you* or anyone knows exactly what traits will be effective in the future.

3) Using your example, what's to say a child with diabetes can't be a genius and solve say, diabetes, for instance.

4) Contamination is, to some extent, a prejudicial word in todays world. Who's to say what's "pure" vrs. "contaminated". What's to say "pure" or even "contaminated" are plusses or minuses?

Unintended consequences... unintended consequences... unless you have perfected the crystal ball, about all you can do is make the best decisions you can. Whether you, I, or anyone else has sufficient insight to say those decisions *really are* the best (nebulous as that concept is) I don't think one can give a clear "yes" or "no" answer here without a lot of supporting information. And even then you may make the error of stopping the birth of the next world saver.

On the other hand, you could argue, assuming you believe the right to dictate someone else's procreation should exist, that at least in the short term, some conditions are so clearly problematic that procreation should be prevent. But, I'd argue those cases would have to be very, very, clear.

In any event, you are suggesting we consciously affect the direction of human genetics. Which in itself may be part and parcel of "evolution", but the forewarning that seems to be needed is, "Proceed very, very carefully, chances are good no one can see far enough into the future to undertake such things without errors along the way... and so what of the victims of those errors?"

There is no simple answer as both sides of the argument have theoretical merit. The problem is, the practical, real world aspects present extreme difficulties. Difficulties I don't believe we've elevated to a level sufficient to handle yet, in the majority of cases.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2009, 08:03 AM
 
1,525 posts, read 3,293,340 times
Reputation: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
I fully agree, seems like some of the worst people have the most children. This goes back to my point as well, should the poorest parents be allowed to have children.

No one seemed to have a problem telling the Octomom she shouldn't have kids, because she clearly isn't mentally stable. However by law she could have all the kids she wants. Should she be allowed to do so?
As long as she can care and provide for them in a manner not detrimental to their development, sure, why not?

As an aside, this fuss over Octomom is silly. She had 8 kids at once due to technology. They weren't "real" octupulets. I.e. "One boink, ta-dah!, 8 kids!".

As for "poor folks having kids". Another "it depends" answer. Folks in Apalachia may be poor by modern materalist standards... but suppose they are adept at living off the land... is it fair to say "you can't have kids because you hunt deer for food rather than buy burgers at the grocery store."?

The problem with all such inquiries as yours is:

"Just who's standards do we apply, and why?"

Which is quite separate from, "Do we have the right to apply those standards at all".

Now if you want to go totally Darwinian, then you could say... "You can do whatever you can defend." Got an army, then sure, you can kill whoever you want. Tough noogies for the loosers... that's evolution.

So what do you think? Should successful murders who get away with be the forefathers of the next generation? After all if they can survive... they deserve to procreate and create the next generation.

As you can see... "Should" is a problematic concept.

On the one extreme you have:

1) "You are free to do whatever you can get away with, that's evolution"

on the other extreme you have:

2) "We should provide for the welfare of all life, no matter how fragile".

So which proposition are you behind? Door #1? Door #2? Something inbetween?

If you are like many, you will be somewhere inbetween... and THAT is where the arguments begin... exactly where inbetween do we draw the lines?

And THAT, is what lawyers, politicians, soldiers, tyrants, Kings and Dictators, and all other manner of individual trying to affect policy wrangle over 24x7x365.

"Who's line prevails?"

And THAT is natural selection circa 2009.

LOL!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2009, 08:05 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,523,609 times
Reputation: 35864
Given that virtually every country in the world (not just the USA) affords its citizenry very broad-based liberties including the right to breed, the OP needs to be more specific. Do you mean that a few very undesirable individuals need to be culled from the breeding stock? Or do you mean that breeding ought to be finely regulated so only a select few get to produce the replacement population under the regulation of a central governing authority? Do you see any potential for abuse in such a system, resulting in unanticipated consequences?

Do you think all undesirable people ought to be surgically rendered incapable of reproduction, or that some draconian punishment be meted out against people who exercise unauthorized fertility? Is there a potential for abuse there?

To simply say "I think better quality people ought to have babies" is like saying "I think people ought to exercise and stop eating diets high in sugar, salt and fat." It's a fine ideal, but how do you balance it against the universal principles of liberty? In the nation that believes it has a monopoly on liberty?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2009, 09:14 AM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
16,836 posts, read 51,286,023 times
Reputation: 27639
The first fifteen minutes of the film "Idiocracy" sort of sums up the debate, in an hilarious way.

A major problem with any debate on this subject is that it requires all of humanity to act the same way. It ain't goinna happen, any more than you can create a chorus line of cats who dance the Can-Can and then go out for beers together. It also ignores the fact that people are adapted to different climatic and other external ecologies. Stick an Inuit in the desert. Take a Bedouin and put him on an ice flow. Both have evolved to cope with their surroundings, but don't do well in the other extreme.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top