a new super race?

[rosieglo]

Re the article in the guardian about the baby that was successfully screened for the breast cancer gene and the controversy about 'designer babies' - what's the fuss? I'm thinking that breeding out illness and disabilty is a great thing. Improving intelligence also; hopefully the smarter the future generations are the more likely they will find ways to halt our destruction of the planet and stop fighting. What's wrong with wanting fitter, stronger, cleverer and healthier children? And I think it is so wrong for a deaf or blind parent to actively seek out a way to pass their disability on, I cannot begin to understand how they could want to deprive their child of the ability to hear music or see the world around them.
hmmn - for me it's a pretty straight forward matter.

Google 'functional explanation' and 'intentional explanation'. The latter is a subset of the former.

By RaspberryBlower on Fri 23-Jan-09 19:22:05
That statistic doesn't take into account how many people choose not to have the test in the first place, either.

good point, but sadly one the "anti's" ignore.

It's purposeful - to improve us on a continuous basis, to root out imperfection, ensure the survival of this species. It's an incredible process. It's why we aren't 90% deaf or 90% without limbs because we need those elements to be at our best given how the world is. if we had developed in and lived in caves we might well have found being blind and not needing sight helped us better and we'd be blind.

The more interesting issue is when is something a difference rather than a disability. It is a difference that some people have blue and some brown eyes. the fact you have brown eyes if you're from a hot country is because you needed that with darker skin to survive in that climate but to live in the UK now it matters not whether your eyes are brown or blue.

Height - the taller men are the more they earn in the UK and we are all gradually getting taller and have a better diet which has probably led to it. I am not sure taller is "better" or more useful either. So then look at personality traits - some people are very sociable and others aren't. Recent studies showed introverts were actually happier than extroverts but studies in the perss this week show people who have a lot of friends and social contacts are less likely to get dementia. So I suppose some differences matter and some don't. I certainliy don't want us all to be clones.

as long as there are no wheelchairs involved you're happy?

It's a direction not a purpose.

rosieglo, re your OP (haven't read the thread), there is noithing wrong with wanting those things. Some people however think if you want those things you must also want to euthanise disabled people already alive. The two things do not follow, though it is a common argument.

When one big centre in the US put pregnany mums in touch with children with Down's syndrome, the rate of abortions for Down's syndrome fell to 62%.

So almost one in three people just assumed all the negatives because they'd not been in the company of someone with Down's syndrome. They changed their minds once they'd had a chance to meet them.

Interesting.

The idea that evolution is "purposeful" is very bizarre indeed and suggests a quasi religious view. Survival of the fittest does not mean "survival of the best" - it just means the survival of characteristics that happen to fit the environment. It has bugger all to do with human decisions about which traits are desirable and which should be eradicated.

Quite IB.

And it's not even survival of the fittest either. There is no point surviving if you do not procreate.

"There is no point surviving if you do not procreate."

ffs this thread gtes more and more offensive

"There's no point surviving if you do not procreate"

Well, depends what you view as worthwhile.

Take the works of Leonardo da Vinci, Einstein, Shakespeare, Dickens, Mozart, Beethoven.

If they had never procreated, was there a purpose to them having lived? Absolutely there is.

Human knowledge or talent allows us to pass on information that enhances quality of life, improves quality of life, even without our own genetic input.

Incidentally, many of those on that list had a disability, too.

So...if a person's life means that we learn something or helps us appreciate the world around us, that IS a contribution to society that helps our overall 'fitness'. Those qualities are not limited to genius.

Jean Vanier talks about the work he does with those with a learning disability. Well worth seeing his videos online/getting his books. He sees that kind of 'added value' in each person, and explains it far better than I can.

very, very tricky. Can you imagine, any of your children, carrying a gene that might make them develop an illness? Can you imagine not having the same child because that child as an embryo was discarded in favour of a 'perfect' one?

re "There's no point surviving if you do not procreate"

That is obviously from an evolutionary perspective, not our (human) perspective at this point in time.

Are you people trying to get offended at everything?

Riven - Is it your view than we should continue to have disabled babies although we can prevent this with new technology, so that existing disabled population feel better?

We should'nt act like mother nature, it will backfire on us.

I have worked with adults and children with disabilities some severe and some minor and can I just say that most of which are the most caring, loving and happy people I have ever met. I think that whilst yes we would all like to ensure that our children were going to be happy, healthy and confirm to whatever some narrow minded people's standard of 'normal' are.

It is disgusting to think that so many people may not be here if we went along with this (sorry to say it) slightly nazi outlook on things. Those who are ' not perfect' should be destroyed. Bloody rediculouswe should love our children no matter what.

Shall we just confine the disabled people of the present to some sort of Island where hey can quietly die off and then destroy any traces of those in future? Personally I'd rather get rid of murderers, paedophiles and rapists than disabled people but if they are seen as they enemy in your eyes fair enough god help any child of yours if they have an accident which compramises their mental/physical abilities rendering them 'useless' shall we just kill them off too?

That's a dangerous route I for one would not be happy to go down.

Do you think you should slect partners based on what you see as desirable or non-desirable traits.

Selection is very definetly part of nature.

Monkey that is a totally different thing.

It's one thing to say 'don't want to go out with him because he has big nose/smelly feet/swears a lot whatever' as opposed to well no I don't think I'd like that child as it may have a mild 'problem'.

I think this thread needs to die.

I think this thread needs to die.

I think this thread needs to die.

I think this thread needs to die.

I think this thread needs to die.