Warning: include_once(/home/tabrez/www/talk/mtrefsearch.php) [function.include-once]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/tabrezsyed/mandalivia.com/talk/archives/000691.php on line 118

Warning: include_once() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/tabrez/www/talk/mtrefsearch.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/local/lib/php:/usr/local/php5/lib/pear') in /home/tabrezsyed/mandalivia.com/talk/archives/000691.php on line 118

March 27, 2005

Eugenics

The New York Times > Week in Review > Did Descartes Doom Terri Schiavo?

I was reading this article on the philosophical perception of the existence of life. Descartian weltanschauung deems perception of consciousness the fundamental requirement for sentient life. Breathing and metabolism are not sufficient.

The next question is one of the sanctity of life. Early in the 20th century the US practiced a form of Eugenics by sterilizing people who were pronounced 'retarded'. The problem is that their diagnosis was flawed and the US had violated a fundamental right (right to procreate?).

The question I am currently pondering is my stand on Eugenics. In the past I was incontrovertibly against it. I can't see how it is possible for society to decide that we need everybody to look like Jude Law and Danny DeVito's genes need to be terminated. (The existentialist point is 'existence before essence' - hence we can't pre-judge people on nature alone). Now, I'm a lot more open to the idea. I suppose core to my change is the realization that we already practice eugenics on a limited scale. The 'arranged marriages' of India are an example of channeling the mixing of compatible genes on the basis of family background. Assuming evolutionary psychology is sound, today women choose mates on some genetic basis (tall enough to reach the top-shelf, rich enough to buy flowers that wilt and diamonds which provide limited utility). The way the system works today allows people at the 'bottom of the value ladder' to still make choices relative to their level (i.e.: trite platitude - "there is someone for everyone"). An eugenic system might deem that some genes are not worth procreating independent of the desires of the possessor of the gene. Is it possible for a central entity (computer or board for gene distribution) to make the decision on how genes should mix for the benefit of humanity? In some weird sense this system would only externalize the decision being made by couples today. Case in point women who make lists ('things I like about him' and 'things I don't like about him').

Time to re-read A brave new world.

Posted at March 27, 2005 11:57 AM



Archives
December 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
Recent Entries
Books '05
Eco, Truman
Quotes
Zen koan
Illiberal Democracy
The Cold War vs today
Money
Life stories
Swim with the fishes
Blink of an eye
Categories
aphorisms
books
business
general
history
misc
philosophy
pop-culture
quotes
tech
Blogs
Metafilter
Arts and Letters Daily
Sapta-Sindhu
Beemblog
dineoutindia
Sponsorship