Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Scarlette Blues on May 17, 2011 at 12:00pm

"I will certainly not reprocreate with someone I consider unintelligent (though they might be good for practice)."

[LIKE]

I laughed out loud at that sentence. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on May 17, 2011 at 5:50pm

I aim to please. ;)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Schroeder Alice Veidt on May 17, 2011 at 1:25pm

Absolutely.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Orpharion Oroborus Bestheneme on May 22, 2011 at 10:50am

I think, given time, and once people become comfortable with the idea of eugenics and genetic treatments the argument against cosmetics will be a more difficult point to defend, especially if we allow that [1] cosmetic terms certainly influence choice of sexual partners, and [2] it is certainly hard to justify certain traits which manipulate a person's mentality to increase certain measures of mental fitness while barring the manipulation of something so simple as appearance. One may argue appearance is generally less important in a person's identity, and the taboo should therefore be weaker. I believe that to be against cosmetic eugenics, you can't really justify manipulating intelligence

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 22, 2011 at 10:58am

I think we shouldn't be manipulating intelligence. I'm really only in favour of selecting against known genetic defects, such as marker's for type 1 diabetes, Parkinson's, etc.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on May 22, 2011 at 11:06am

I would say that you are jumping the gun a bit. But the debate should not be dogmatic. You could use the exact same argument against legalizing homofilia in the 50ies mindset: sex certainly influence choice of sexual partners and the current argument is that it is abhorrent.

I don't think the subject is as easy to dismiss just because cosmetics may arise at a later stage. We've always allowed cosmetic alterations, everything from cosmetics to earrings to tummytucks, and it hasn't really become a massive problem of human depravity.

The possible Frankstein scenario is not realistic, nor is it a valid counter.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Orpharion Oroborus Bestheneme on May 22, 2011 at 11:13am

I certainly don't mean to imply  I think a Frankenstein scenario would occur - simply that defending manipulating intelligence but barring manipulating cosmetics is an incongruous position. I don't mean to use it as a retort right now, because no amount of cosmetic hoohaa can change the good eugenics could do by eliminating physical defects. If people choose to employ it for appearance - I could not care. That fight should only be fought once eugenics is allowed, in my opinion :) So I do agree with you.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on May 22, 2011 at 11:51am

Then I apologize for having misinterpreted. I see it now. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on May 23, 2011 at 12:57am

You use eugenics and genetic manipulation in the same sentence. I prefer to keep them separate. I can trust in eugenics as a filtering methodology, but I do not condone manipulations of genetics (humans or food) with the sole objective of extending human lives and increasing human population.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on May 23, 2011 at 2:17am

I condone it as an effective and underutilized mean of reducing suffering. It carries with it the possibility for grave misuse and could be a cause of increased suffering, but I trust doctors to have a wish to do not harm.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on May 23, 2011 at 12:54am

That's easy, people who can never live without continuous medical assistance. Our self adulation with ourselves has made us artificially create an exasperating and ridiculous amount of disease diversity, which tremendously profits the pharmaceutical industry. There is no financial justification to cure anything. Profit comes from treating disease. As it stands pharmaceutical companies are dictating politics and that is a sad state of affairs. The few diseases that were eradicated by "modern medicine" were eradicated BEFORE big pharma had its grimy little paws in politics. Today, all priorities have changed. Pharmaceutical companies need as many chronically sick people as possible in order to maximise profits.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jean Clelland-Morin on May 23, 2011 at 2:31am

As a cancer victim, I'm out to get the pharmeaceutical companies. First, I fell for the hype/lies and did 10 years of Hormone Placement "Therapy" - surely the primary reason I got breast cancer. You should check out the cost of those toxic cocktails that were then injected into my veins - losing my hair was the tip of the iceberg. Second, I was part of California's Proposition 186 - about 17 years ago! A major reason was seeing cancer victims kicked from their insurance or being denied coverage. Of course, I thought IT would never happen to me. Medical Insurance companies, then and now, are major propaganda-obstacles to healthcare reform.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 20
• Next ›
• Page