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