Eugenics

=== REBUTTAL === PRO begins his 2nd argument by graciously answering my request to substantiate the assertion that only 10% of our DNA is used. It only became apparent as to what he was referring to after he sourced a link concerning junk DNA, which I already knew about. I thought, however, that it's been common knowledge since the close of the 1990's that we know that so-called junk DNA is not junk at all, only that in the early years of genomics that non-coding DNA was well understood -- that molecular biologists didn't quite understand its function. According to multiple studies, what was once known as "Junk DNA" has been demonstrated to perform the following functions, among others: 1. Regulation of gene expression during development 2. Enhancers for transcription of proximal genes 3. Silencers for suppression of transcription of proximal genes 4. Regulate translation of proteins SOURCE: http://www.psrast.org... === UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS === PRO asserted in Round 1, and alluded to in Round 2, that human vices in the form of greed and the desire to commit felonies would vanish. There is no such thing as an "evil gene," so I hardly see how this is possible. I respectfully request that PRO substantiate this argument in detail. === SOCIAL AND PRAGMATIC CONCERNS === PRO concedes that eugenics is still in its infancy and that we may not see its benefit within our lifetime. He asserts that perfection will be achieved only through trial and error. On a strictly clinical basis, there is some room for that argument. However, my premise, if you'll recall in Round 1, was questioning the potential bio-ethical consequences. Who is held liable for any malpractice? Is the child entitled to protection? Is the child entitled the right to live, even in the event of genetic anomalies at the hands of geneticists who created the problem? The social implications are staggering and need to be addressed long before any human experiment is conducted. PRO further postulates that discrimination already occurs, so therefore it doesn't matter what we can add to it as long as it's done in the name of science. That's like stating because racism exists it automatically grandfathers in sexism as a legitimate argument. Making sexism acceptable as a de facto position on the basis of other forms of discrimination's prevalence is a straw man. The obvious answer then to such a glib reply is that eugenics is not necessary then. Human beings already pick and choose mates based off of characteristics they find attractive, and this form of natural selection has obviously served the animal kingdom great good without impacting any ethical concerns. But let us say for the sake of the argument that geneticists have gotten everything right from their perspective, and somehow all the ethical concerns have been assessed and corrected. We still have a practical problem, a major one, in the form of population growth. It is a statistical fact that the human population growth curve has always increased throughout human history, with only minor hiccups in the form of warfare, pestilence, and famine. The only thing that has managed to keep these numbers in check is death. As macabre as it is, death is as much a part of life as life itself. Artificially engineering a race of superhumans only means that the population increase would spike dramatically, thus endangering the lives of all. The earth's natural resources can only withstand so much of a population increase, and with people living longer, it invariably means that less resources are available. Famine, pestilence, over-population affect people whether they are more or less genetically fit, to the detriment of all of them. As Thomas Malthus first noted, "Must it not then be acknowledged by an attentive examiner of the histories of mankind, that in every age and in every State in which man has existed, or does now exist, that the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence; that population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase, and, that the superior power of population is repressed, and the actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery and vice." SOURCE: http://www.esp.org... In essence, there is a reason why natural selection exists. Natural selection purges without the least bit of human interference. Nature cannot be blamed for killing human beings in some moral context, but humans genetically interfering in the affairs of nature is an aberration all its own. === MONETARY & ETHICAL CONCERNS === Other concerns that I have is the cost, both monetarily and ethically. PRO states that eugenics could be a public good, in other words, paid for through taxes. Health care, by leaps and bounds, dwarfs any other federal spending as it is. $850 billion dollars are poured in to health care, which is already burgeoning on the verge of collapse. The average tax payer is strapped as it is, and doesn't have a whole lot to show for it in terms of "public good." SOURCE: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org... Secondly, I assume that PRO agrees that it should be the right of the parents to decide whether or not you'd like to have a naturally conceived child, or one that is genetically altered. Those whose genome has not been mapped, will they be less likely to receive definitive care? Will they be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions? Or vastly worse, will the government not even give you the option? When Social Security first came out, it was promised by the president that it would not be a compulsory tax -- that you could opt in or out. So much for promises on the campaign trail. SSI is now a mandatory tax, whether you or I ever see a dime of it. In the event the government signs a mandate stating that everyone must have this medical procedures against their will, "for the good of all," I ask PRO what his assurance is that we will not be forced to partake in his Social Darwin project. At the end of the day, what this all comes back to is other people deciding for many the what is or isn't desirable. People's short term memory makes it so that they forget eugenics has been tried before, several times, all under the guise and pretense of "benefiting society." The Nazi and Imperial Japanese eugenics programs go without saying, foisting unspeakable atrocities on the common modality. But what about in America? It's been done, and in a landmark Supreme Court case known as Buck v. Bell, forced sterilizations of "undesirable traits" from the human gene pool were sought to be eradicated.... legally. These aren't simply whimsical concerns I bring mention. Some of them have already occurred with dire consequences. SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org... === CLOSING ARGUMENT === I do not deny that eugenics has some merit to it on a very limited scale, but the naively grandiose world that PRO wants to create is no different than other "heaven on earth" program that's been offered to humanity. All have fallen in to disrepute, and I caution anyone ready to play God to think very long and hard about what we legislate in to law, lest we forget that all atrocities are hidden in the pretense of doing society a favor.