[kharin]
> By and large, I would be inclined to agree. If we can ensure that
> children are born without diseases and conditions, so much the better.
> In the longer term, the same might be said of enhancing intelliegence
> or removing the 'criminal gene' Jonathan referred to.
I missed that (probably in my last mass post deleating), but I was reading about it
here:
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb080702.shtml
> Regarding the above, there was the case of deaf parents ensuring that
> their child would also be deaf (not done through genetic modification,
> I should observe, but it is clearly a related topic), viewing deafness
> as being simply indicative of minority group status rather than an
> impairment.
DISABILITY
This idea of "minority" makes some sense. Many disabled people have never
experienced life in any other way than as disabled, and that disability has lent a
character to their lives that they aren't necessarily willing to change, and which they
find valuable. If you ask someone with a disability whether it would have be best
had they never been born, they'd probably say no. This is the reason why some
parents of Downs children oppose aborting Downs babies - disabled lives can still
be rich and valuable (IMO, any woman's reason is a good reason for abortion).
Viewing disability as another (political) minority group makes sense in a climate of
minority activism and pressure for rights/recognition. These deaf parents may well
be able to navigate life just as well as we do, viewing it not as a disadvantage, but
as a different way of perceiving.
This case may also be defensible on the grounds that deaf people will probably
soon have access to implants which will recover any lost hearing (an beyond that,
we may all have access to implants that augment hearing). Thus the parents
decision is reversable if the child so wishes (or rather, can afford it!).
Other disabilities need to be viewed case by case. What of the parents who want
their child to have spina-bifoda? How could this be defensible? I'm not sure it could.
Perhaps disabilities can be ranked according to what they affect - the senses, the
intellect etc, how much pain they might cause and whether the disability can be
reversed or provided for...
Shit. This is difficult!
What of the parents who want a facially deformed child in protest again the Western
beauty aesthetic? Or the parents who want a hermaphrodite or asexual child so as
to challenge our gender dualism? Can children be designed as a form of
social/political protest or moulded by ideology/political loyalties? The deaf parents
certainly wanted this, and in a sense. But also so do parents who want to avoid
diseases, stupidity, ugliness etc etc.
Perhaps the decision should be informed by how the children are likely to feel about
their augmentation. But then, children are terrible conformists....
Intuitively, who could have a problem with eliminating diseases, crippling disabilities
& insanities? But what does one consider insanity/disease? Homosexuality once
was considered as such...
> Equally, some parents in the American South begin grooming
> their children for beauth contests from a very early age and I can
> certainly see the prospect of genetically engineered barbie dolls.
Yes, beauty is likely to be a major demand, perhaps more so than intelligence and
certainly more likely to be a female's "gift".
> Similarly, as genes associated with intelligence have been identified
> I can see disturbing po! ssibilities; I recall John Wyndham noting
> that parents tend to have dual views on this; they want bright
> children but tend to feel alienated by children that are too bright. I
> wonder if the results might not be large numbers of children bright
> enough to be lawyers and doctors but a cap set above that.
Another case of parents limiting and stunt their children. A nation of lawyers and
doctors! Great.
> That said, while I think we should be prepared for a great many
> similar cases, I also suspect that the most likely outcome is greater
> social homogenisation. As an example, if parents were given the
> ability to create designer babies then I think we can be certain that
> male homosexuality would be eradicated within two generations maxiumum
> (prejudiced parents are an obvious case, but I have no doubts that
> liberal parents would be concerned over potential discrimination and
> do the same).
GAY/CRIMINAL GENE(T)S
Yes, this is a very good point, though I am suspicious that there is a "homosexual"
gene. Social categories like sexuality and criminality are historical and ideological
concepts, not purely biological. Even this counter-observation is problematic
because it sets up a dichotomy between the social and bioloical that I believe is
false. These two elements seem indissolubly intertwined, like a spiral, rather than a
dualism... I doubt if homosexuality or criminality could be removed as easily as a
gene can be. Thank god! (We'd have no Jean Genet without these "bad" genes!).
The same problem of homogenisation could be applied to those countries where
paler, whiter skin is seen as a status symbol. Also consider how the biological sex
ratio could be unbalanced (not that this matters for reproduction, but rather as a
political issue regarding gender).
> I suspect that much of this is due to different cultural attitudes.
> Designer babies seem to be a cause celebre for the more gung ho
> strains of American libertarianism, which holds that as parents know
> what is best for their children they should make the decisions, not
> the state. Following Larkin, I tend to think that most parents screw
> their children up and genetics opens up a whole new way for them to do
> that..
Agreed. But what are our options? The state?
Walpurgis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.noumenal.net/exiles
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:18 MDT