Originally posted by no1marauderSee what I mean ?
This argument proves too much; such reasoning could just as well be used to say that all children shouldn't get anything but a minimal education. After all, what use is differential calculus to street cleaners? An increase in the number of people with "desirable" abilities doesn't seem to me to lead to any particular negative consequences.
Originally posted by NemesioI don't think it's unreasonable to think we can breed for piano skills if we want to. Nobel Peace Prize winner is a different story though.
Because, it seems, that 'genetic breeding' has a very limited impact on the way in which a human
being involves into a personality, I think. As I cited above, and as many geneticists have observed,
the role of nurture is for more indicative of the type of person an individual will be. The idea that
we could take 'Hitler's DNA,' put it in a test tube, po ...[text shortened]... piano skills' or 'nobel peace prize winner,' that is the realm of fantasy.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by wucky3Wouldn't it be less moral to leave matters to chance?
"we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons". (Dawkins)
Is there a moral difference by forcing a child to have piano lessons or by breeding for ability. ?? (I don't think there is) Shouldn't a child have an 'open future'? Wouldn't it be morally wrong for paren a good life'. Wouldn't genetic enhancement kind of deny the child their own character?
For example, would you let your child have a 50% chance of being conceived with below average health, intelligence, and physique when, thanks to science, you could readily intervene to make the chance much lower, say 10%?
You certainly wouldn't act so complacently after your child had been born. Many mothers would do everything possible to maximize the health, intelligence, and physique of their growing child. And if they were indifferent to their child's health, intelligence, and physique, letting matters turn out as they will, wouldn't they be considered less than conscientious mothers?
Originally posted by no1marauderWhether it be true or fiction you must conceede it to be ironic. The intellectually enlightened who have chosen the eugenic path of birth control and abortion have chosen the path of near extinction and have succumb to the power of the "unenlightened". If its true it is nothing short of another eugenic masterpiece! It would be like taking the goals of eugenics and throwing the throddle into reverse.
A bunch of hysterical nonsense. Because of birth control/abortion "Western Civiliation may one day disappear altogether"?????? Please.
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderYou really don't have any substantial point of view on the issue of eugenics. You simply entertain the "I cannot see anything wrong with it" attitude and then you challenge your opponents to put forward arguments against it. That's why you don't even bother to bring forward any arguments in favour of it .... and you absolutely refuse to see the negative sides. You simply push the arguments made by your opponents aside by making your usual evasive manoeuvres and accusing your opponents of all sorts of things without actually giving evidence or even elaborating on it.
No, I don't. I do see that you refuse to participate in the discussion in any meaningful way.
1 edit
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI'm pretty sure when most couples plan to have a child they hope their child will be intelligent and healthy without gentetic intervention. But if for any reason for example a couples genes may not be compatible then I accept and would support those parents in choosing to have some form of genetic intervention.
Wouldn't it be less moral to leave matters to chance?
For example, would you let your child have a 50% chance of being conceived with below average health, intelligence, and physique when, thanks to science, you could readily intervene to make the chance much lower, say 10%?
You certainly wouldn't act so complacently after your child had been born matters turn out as they will, wouldn't they be considered less than conscientious mothers?
I agree, you wouldn't act so compacently after the child has been born. Every parent wants their child to be 'the best' but i wasn't discussing health issues I was referring to the example from the quote. Isn't it fair to say a parent should support their child to reach their full potential whatever that may be (artistic, sporty, musical). Isn' half the fun of raising a child getting to discover what they excel in and what they're not so good at. Whilst a good parent will nurture and encourage this without forcing them to sit at a piano all day or play tennis etc.
I've seen documentaries about pushy parents and their kids, well..they just seem a little odd as they get older. (isolation etc)
Originally posted by no1marauderwouldn't it lead to people with 'less desirable' abilities being devalued even more than they are already in todays society ( disabled people, mental illness etc)
This argument proves too much; such reasoning could just as well be used to say that all children shouldn't get anything but a minimal education. After all, what use is differential calculus to street cleaners? An increase in the number of people with "desirable" abilities doesn't seem to me to lead to any particular negative consequences.
Originally posted by wucky3I agree completely. Unfortunately it's not incommon that parents try to live their own dreams through their children and forget that their children's dreams might be totally different. When they force their children to take piano lessons (for example), it's often because they regret that they didn't learn to play the piano themselves when they were young. This rarely works if the child doesn't have the same wish. So I find this quote from Dawkins' article quite interesting: "I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons." I think it's morally wrong to force a child to take music lessons (although to "force them" could be meant in different ways, not all of which I would disapprove of). I don't really think this can be compared to breeding for musical ability, because in the first case you are working against the nature of the child, while in the other case the potential child lacking musical ability never comes into existence. So looking at the individual child, there doesn't seem much wrong with breeding for certain abilities. However, as I said earlier, if this became widespread, the consequences on society - positively and negatively - would be hard to predict.
Isn' half the fun of raising a child getting to discover what they excel in and what they're not so good at. Whilst a good parent will nurture and encourage this without forcing them to sit at a piano all day or play tennis etc.
I've seen documentaries about pushy parents and their kids, well..they just seem a little odd as they get older.
Of course a child with musical ability doesn't necessarily have an inclination to use this ability, and even if you could breed for musical ability, I doubt you could breed for motivation to use your potential in that area. So if you breed musically talented children, you might still have to force them to take musical lessons if you wanted them to become great musicians. While it's harder to accept that a child doesn't have that inclination if you can see that the child is very gifted (I once had a cello student like that; I would really have loved to have her continue), I would still see it as morally wrong to force it.