Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism
As to Riddle's non sequitur, what's stopping Darwinists from adopting Eugenics? I can give a scientific answer to that.
Darwinin's is a theory of evolution by natural selection. Two of the predominate things which effect the evolution of a species are its environment and random mutations. Eugenics, conversely, is a process of artificial selection which, at time of its conception until now, cannot adequately account for our natural environment and does anything but promote random mutations. While the result of Evolution on Earth is a process of five billion years of slow, gradual changes, Eugenics, being subjected to man's ideal of fitness, is inherently shortsighted.
Let's put it this way: most of the functions of our brains are unconscious. We breath in air, our hearts beat without so much of a conscious thought. When we are ill, we don't tell our bodies to deploy white blood cells and when injured we don't tell our bodies to heal our wounds. We aren't conscious of these actions and frankly we don't need to be. The responsibility required for proper Eugenics is like the responsibility required for giving us conscious control over even the most basic unconscious functions of our brain. (In which case we'd all be dead within minutes.)
Also, lest we forget, nobody is perfect. You may have a genetically intelligent, attractive woman*, but what if she has a hereditary inclination for breast cancer? Does Eugenics see her as fit or unfit? Chances are that we all have genetic "defects" of one kind or another. The question is by what criteria are we deeming fitness and how do we know enough to know that the defects aren't in some way advantages? (For example, people with a natural inclination toward obsessive compulsive behavior are as productive as they are annoying.) Further, as Eugenics by its nature (pun intended) frowns upon random mutations, it may end up limiting our further evolution altogether.
Selective breeding works for animals because they often serve us very few direct purposes, chief of which are our consumption. Humans, on the other hand, serve multiple purposes to other humans. While practicing homosexuals may not pass their genes on to the next generation, they are just as capable as anyone else of producing memes through engineering, architecture, literature, fashion, music, medicine, culture and so on.
Finally, the advancements in medicine may defeat the purpose of selective breeding altogether. Don't know about you, but I'd rather identify and modify the gene which causes an allergic reaction to peanuts than I would stop those who suffer from it from fucking.
See, there is a rational, scientific argument against Eugenics, even in spite of it being morally flat wrong.
*And I do stress "may have" because I'm not convinced that "intelligence" is all that different between the average human.
Last edited by Nicato; 01-23-2007 at 02:48 PM.