Eugenics is genetic manipulation in attempt to produce, introduce and maintain a more efficient more fit human genome. A fine example of Synthetic Evolution. The concept of Eugenics was originally introduced by Sir Francis Galton, it later spread to America where Charles B. Davenport adopted it and began pre-work. Unfortunately Eugenics was carried out through genocide by the Nazi Party during the Second World War, also there was a time in which sterilization was forced in 29 states in America. With the divulgence of this information many people are angered or flustered by the proposition. This primarily includes theists. Also the great philosopher Michael J. Sandel.
With the three options for different styles of Eugenics considered, the question arises, “is it right?” One major philosopher Michael J. Sandel would say no. He says Eugenics should not be practiced by human society, but why? First Sandel justifies his claim with his argument that as humans, we should sustain humility. We should view our talents as gifts in which we are indebted rather than achievements in which we are responsible. Sandel also claims that responsibility is a major factor. He says “we are not wholly responsible for who we are, so can we be responsible for the outcome? what’s the responsibility of parents?”
I must disagree with Sandel and the theists simply because his claims are slightly flawed and are also not very progressive, this runs contrary to the philosophy that i have built and practice. Sandel says we should remain humble. Absolutely not. Humble to whom or what? John Stuart Mill makes a very valid point that sometimes in nature, we “win the lottery” also it is very obvious that as sophistocated homosapiens any accolades accuired over a lifespan are derived from the toilsome efforts of the individual. Psychologists, Anthropologists and Sociologists alike would argue and agree that humans are a product of their upbringing and are shaped and molded by the details thereof. Humans should not exhibit modesty on any level of scientific exploration. Any trials and tribulations will only provide as lessons learned for future generations. Being humble or obsequious is to me, counter productive, and a mindset that will cause backward thinking and hold us back as a species making progress. Sandel also says “we are indebted.” Again I ask indebted to whom or what? One may draw the common conclusion that some sort of omniscient, omnipotent “god” or deity crafted us as individuals at some time before we came to exist. Knowing and creating far in advance the predestination of our futures and actions. Sandel does not clearly state whether or not skills, talents or achievements should be attributed to the works of a god, however he does take an agnostic standpoint considering it to be possibility. As an experienced musician I would be slightly offended by a statement such as this. I am offended. When I am finished performing Fernando Sor’s Opus. 48 No. 6 Rondeau in front of 500 people I am rather put off By someone telling me how lucky I am to be so “gifted,” “blessed,” or some nonsense along those lines. It is an appreciable gesture, however I know how many hundreds of hours of practice I have dedicated to playing guitar, the amount of sacrifice and determination it took to refine such a technical skill and present it with such earnest and sincerity. No god gave me the skills I have sought for myself, I have no god to thank for my admirable abilities. In fact, genetics and the course of gene recessiveness and dominance is responsible for only the aptitude for musical skill or talent. My Grandfather was a wonderful Hungarian Violinist and Jazz Drummer in a 16 piece band. Both my parents, no talent, aptitude or interest in the playing of music whatsoever. If however through Eugenic practice, perhaps we would all be excellent musicians. Maybe with Eugenics, Cancer would not be an issue. Maybe with Eugenics, obesity would digress into genetic extinction. Maybe with Eugenics, more human beings would be much more productive assets to the progress and discovery of this world and existence. If We don’t play god, who will?
I agree, if you're talking about liberal eugenics. There really is a lot of hope in it but Michael Sandel does have a few valid points. I don't think there should be any governmental involvement in it like the old eugenics because we've seen where that has taken us. We still need to maintain respect for our humanity and thus our inherent flaws. I fear living in a society where we judge people for their genetic endowments like in GATTACA. We already chase perfection in our society far too much.
ReplyDeleteYeah what you're saying makes a lot of sense. It is the things that set us apart that create diversity. Whatever those differences are, they make us unique to each other. I like to believe that in accordance to the laws of conservation of energy and matter, no time or efforts are wasted. Every individual contributes to society, some more than others. It's what you do that makes a difference in the world and that is what constitutes a life worth living. Guys like myself and Jim Watson would argue that the goal is to produce or craft people who are an asset to the world, yielding the greatest product. something like religion only inhibits this progress. Neil Peart and Geddy Lee explain it so artistically "We are secrets to each other each one's life a novel no one else has read even joined in bonds of love we're linked to one another by such slender threads." Or Limelight "All the world's indeed a stage, we are merely players, performers and portrayers, each another's audience outside the gilded cage."
DeleteIndeed, I love Rush. They're masterful musicians as well as poets.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete