I’d like to start by apologizing for taking so long to respond. Finals came up, then I was sidetracked by a number of other silly discussions. It is my hope that we can still continue, even though my last post was over a month ago.
The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.
Technically, this isn’t eugenics, since it does not involve breeding. However, I agree that embryo selection could be included in the ‘spirit’ of eugenics.
How is "improvement" defined?
In my opinion, improvement is defined as anything that leads to an increase in the quality or length of life. Using this definition, I would include disease resistance, improved health, social ability, and higher intelligence as improvement.
Who's doing the selecting?
Parents would do the selecting, of course.
Indeed, there are two unexamined assumptions behind the very premise of the science, and it's perhaps the one I find most troubling:
Does the human race need "improving"?
I certainly think so. We humans have been at the mercy of forces we cannot control since the beginning of our existence. It is true that we in the western world have gained some small choice in our destinies during the last two hundred years. However, there are still so many things still outside our control. Disease, aging, crippling injury, birth defects, insanity, all of these are evils we would be better off without.
For example, a recent genetics discovery was made in rodents:
"...they used molecular biology tricks to disrupt the insulin receptor gene in lab mice - but only in their fat cells. "Since insulin is needed to help fat cells store fat, these animals had less fat and were protected against obesity," explains Kahn.
This slight genetic change in a single tissue had dramatic effects. By three months of age, Kahn's modified mice had up to 70 per cent less body fat than normal control mice, despite the fact that they ate 55 per cent more food per gram of body weight.
In addition, their lifespan increased. The average control mouse lived 753 days, while the lean and mean rodents averaged a lifespan of 887 days. After three years, all the control mice had died, but one-quarter
of the modified rodents were still alive."
Jack, if you could have done so safely, would you have given your daughter a similar gene knock-out?
Can a human-designed program accomplish this more effectively than evolution and natural selection?
Definitely. I’d like to point out three things:
1) Evolution doesn’t have an interest in human needs or desires, but humans do. There are certain fundamental advantages that natural selection will not give people. For example, most people would prefer go through life without catching another cold. However, there is almost no selective advantage to not getting colds. Therefore, evolution will not give people this ability, unless it was indirectly given for another reason.
2) Natural selection is already being altered through our medical technology. People with horrible genetic diseases can live to produce viable offspring, and defects like my severe nearsightedness are no longer selected against. The gene pool is getting murkier every day. Embryo selection and germline engineering represent a relatively painless way to deal with this problem.
3) Evolution is cruel. It sculpts all species (including ours) through the process of death. And, there are many, many deaths before any positive change can be implemented.
To answer "yes" to these with full-hearted certainty strikes me as arrogant beyond belief.
It strikes me as perfectly rational, without the slightest touch of arrogance. |
