Eugenics

=== REBUTTALS=== My opponent claims that we (I assume humans) only use 10% of our DNA. I respectfully request a citation on that claim, as I can find no corroborating facts. At most, I find esoteric and pseudo-scientific New Age types making these kind of claims. My opponent also alleges that his version of eugenics is nothing like the eugenics programs used by the Nazi's. The problem is that it's a slippery slope, and to some degree always will be. Who decides what are or are not desirable traits? Therein lies the problem. For it is a select few that decide what is or isn't desired in the population, and it was precisely this ideology that Nazi programs were built around. PRO's understanding of eugenics is also a bit sophomoric and naive. For instance, he goes so far to claim that it would solve relationship problems because everyone no one would feel self-conscious about their looks. This, of course, is an exaggeration that he's erected in his mind. It's a hypothetical that he's pawning in order to sell the Utopian dream. You still have the DNA from a spermatozoa and an ovum. Whatever phenotypical traits exist there, exists. You cannot simply create a Mr. Potato Head at your whims. The raw data that exists can't be added to. For instance, if you want your child to have Nicole Kidman's nose, it's as easy pressing a button. That cannot happen. You still need to map Nicole Kidman's genome, locate the exact locus, and specifically use her DNA. DNA manipulation doesn't create genes that don't exist, it simply alters them. Think of it as intended gene mutation. Until PRO can demonstrate how it works, it's nothing more than saying in the future we can travel back in time. It's very attractive, but it doesn't mean that the reality is anything like the fantasy. PRO continues asserting wild vagaries like murder and greed would cease to exist without the slightest bit of corroboration. In essence, his entire premise exists only on the theoretical basis of everything going exactly as planned. Moreover, he evidently has no realistic sense of what his perfect world and perfect beings would take in order to invent his race of supermen. === MONETARY & ETHICAL CONSIDERATION === PRO seems so imbued with the possibilities that he doesn't entertain what atrocities might come slithering through the back door. For the time being, let's look at it from a practical vantage point. Since the kind of eugenics he is discussing is in its infancy, let's be realistic. Only the top 5% richest people in the world could afford to pay a team of geneticists to genetically engineer the perfect child of their dreams. For the sake of the argument, let's say that every characteristic of your choice was properly coded and went as planned, and the child's organs are healthier than average, certain genes that were previously prone to cancer are eradicated, all the little imperfections are gone, etc. We have, in essence, the world's healthiest baby. Now, only a handful of the super wealthy can afford this procedure. The cost for such a procedure would be simply be impractical or altogether impossible for most people to pay. What we have is a monopoly on perfection (which is, of course, a relative term). But what of the billions upon billions of people who cannot afford such a procedure? === MANUFACTURED DISCRIMINATION === Borne in with this idea is the unintended consequence of creating a new kind of discrimination. The new discrimination details how those who have been genetically engineered have a preferential advantage over those who have not. Those who were born naturally, like you or I, could be shoved aside for the man who has the documentation proving that he was genetically engineered. Because he's supposed to be healthier and smarter, we who are not fortunate are cast aside. The population of the genetically altered people increases because it's now becoming cheaper as the demand is higher. The superhumans are beginning to populate at a rate competitive with those conceived by completely natural means. The superhumans snub their nose at those who are deemed inferior, and it progressively gets worse with time. For example, insurance agencies would be able to look at one's genome and decide if you are eligible for coverage by seeing if you are pre-disposed to specific diseases. The societal implications are numerous. === GENETIC MISTAKES === There is another potential consequence that must be looked at before seriously considering entering in to a genetic experiment of this magnitude. By altering somatic cells, you are essentially making everyone's genetic makeup similar in order to prevent disease. The problem with this is that narrowing a gene pool leads to more genetic problems down the line. We see this today with dog breeding. Purebreds are disposed to all sorts of ailments specifically because the gene pool is so shallow, even though certain dogs were paired to improve upon it. Artificial selection is not always better than natural selection. And what of the horrible genetic mistakes that one can almost certainly guarantee? One cannot imagine that trial and error must be necessary before geneticists actually got this right. What of the horrible chimera's that are created? Do they have a right to live? What about the parents -- do they have a right to sue? They paid geneticists a lot of money for the perfect baby, instead they received a baby that's deformed and riddled with disease because someone decided they can play God better than natural selection. === CLOSING ARGUEMENT === While I appreciate my opponents enthusiasm on the subject, he is nonetheless trying to sell you the horizon. You see it, but you can quite ever reach it, no matter how long you sail for. In this vain quest for immortality, it will ultimately end as all other promises of eternal youth and health. Utopia and perfection are things to aim towards, but one must always remember that is an unachievable goal. It's simply a standard to strive for, not something that can be seen in reality. One MUST not neglect to examine the potential disasters in the name of science. The sordid history alone of eugenics is enough to prove Murphy's Law, that what can go wrong, will go wrong, and to seriously dissuade anyone from playing God. To say the least, there is a fine line between benevolent and malevolent when it comes to the topic of eugenics. I thank you for your time and look forward to my opponents next installment. === SOURCES === . http://campus.udayton.edu... . http://www.usatoday.com...