Subject: Re: Eugenics (Gordon Banks) writes: / ;Probably within 50 years, a new type of eugenics will be possible.  ;Maybe even sooner.  We are now mapping the human genome.  We will  ;then start to work on manipulation of that genome.  Using genetic ;engineering, we will be able to insert whatever genes we want. ;No breeding, no "hybrids", etc.  The ethical question is, should ;we?   Two past problems with eugenics have been  1) reducing the gene pool and  2) defining the status of the eugenized.   Inserting genes would not seem to reduce the gene pool unless the inserted genes later became transmissible to progeny. Then they may be able to crowd out "garbage genes." This may in the future become possible. Even if it does, awareness of the need to maintain the gene pool would hopefully mean provisions will be made for saving genes that may come in handy later. Evidently the genes for sickle cell disease in equatorial Africa and for diabetes in the Hopi *promoted* survival in some conditions. We don't really know what the future may hold for our environment. The reduced wilderness- and disease-survival capacity of our relatively inbred domesticated animals comes to mind. Vulcanism, nuclear winter, ice age, meteor impact, new microbiological threats, famine, global warming, etc., etc., are all conceivable. Therefore, having as many genes as possible available is a good strategy for species survival.    Of course, the status of genetically altered individuals would start out as no different than anyone else's. But if we could make "philosopher-kings" with great bodies and long lives, would we (or they) want to give them elevated status? We could. The Romans did it with their kings *without* the benefits of such eugenics. The race eventually realized and dealt with the problems which that caused, but for a while, it was a problem. Orwell introduced us to the notion of what might happen to persons genetically altered for more menial tasks. But there is nothing new under the sun. We treated slaves the same way for millennia before "1984."      I see no inherent problem with gene therapy which avoids at least these 2 problems. Humans have always had trouble having the virtue and wisdom to use any power that falls into their hands to good ends all the time. That hasn't stopped the race as a whole yet. Many are the civilizations which have died from inability to adapt to environmental change. However, also many are the civilizations which have died from the abuse of their own power. The ones which survived have hopefully learned a lesson from the fates of others, and have survived by making better choices when their turns came.   Not that I don't think that this gene altering power couldn't wipe us off the face of the earth or cause endless suffering. Nuclear power or global warming or whatever could and may still do that, too.    The real issue is an issue of wisdom and virtue. I personally don't think man has enough wisdom and virtue to pull this next challenge off any better than he did the for last few. We, as eugenists, may make it, an we may not. If we don't, I hope there are reservoirs of "garbage" people out in some backwater with otherwise long discarded "garbage" genes which will pull us through.    I believe that the real problem is and will probably always be the same. Man needs to accept input from the great spirit of God to overcome his lacks in the area of knowing how to use the power he has. Some men have, and I believe all men may, listen to and obey the still small voice of God in their hearts. This is the way to begin to recieve the wisdom and virtue needed to escape the problems consequent to poor choices. Peoples have died out for many reasons. The societies which failed to accept enough input from God to safely use the power they had developed have destroyed themselves, and often others in the process. It is self-evident that the ones which survive today have either accepted enough input from the Spirit to use their powers wisely enough to avoid or survive their own mistakes thus far, or else haven't had enough power for long enough.    In summary, I would say that the question of whether to use this new technology is really an ancient one. And the answer, in some ways hard, in some ways easy, is the same ancient answer. It isn't the power, it is the Spirit.   Sorry for the long post. Got carried away.