Darwinism is a concept introduced by the scientist and social philosopher Charles Darwin. His studies and information helped shape the modern evolution theory. The first time his studies came under strict scrutiny and protest was during the Scopes Trial of 1925 when the Modernists and Fundamentalists clashed. Evolutionary theory and the cycle of life is only part of the stage that evolved into something more: genetics and genetic engineering. Since Watson and Crick discovered the double helix structure of DNA to present day cloning trials, scientists are continually advancing studies into a whole new realm of research. The field of study is shifting toward fixing genetic mutations or manipulating genomes or even changing DNA sequences. Some of the questions being drawn from this research include the following: will there be a limit to changing the nature of DNA, will this allow anyone to choose traits of children, will there be regulation of the genetic engineering, what types of diseases can eugenics cure, and even will genetic problems be cured forever? The decisions end up resting on such factors as cost, regulation and legislation, disease, classes, among others. While giving parents genetic engineering as an option for their children may eliminate disease or damage social problems, the consequences of unnatural manipulation are potentially more troubling.
Genetic engineering displays a combination of advancing science with scientific inquiries. It allows for the changing and manipulation of naturally occurring genetics. One of the positive allowances of this type of work is the potential for curing disease or genetic mutations or possibly death. On the other side of the spectrum, the disease ends up translating into death, in some cases. The consequence of curing death and disease could be the drastic ballooning of population. In a morbid way, illness and disease are a way of population control. Tampering with gene manipulation could lead to unheard of numbers in population, thus taking death out of the cycle of life.
Other than illness and disease and death, eugenics has many other facets that need to be considered. Programming genes to behave in a certain way could allow for parents to choose levels of intelligence, looks, skills, and other possible characteristics. These types of choices allow for children with greater potential and opportunity. This could then translate into helping low income families rise through prosperous offspring, breaking cycles of homelessness through education, and maybe even increasing democracy because of well educated voters. The negative aspect of this side arises when cost is tossed into thinking. Will genetic engineering be expensive? Who will pay for the genetic engineering? If the government ends up paying, who will qualify to receive the benefits of government funds for the procedure? Should individuals have to pay for genetic engineering on their own, will the lower income families be at disadvantages? If so, will there be bumping heads between the classes? There are various other questions that need to be well considered, beside the benefits.
Leaving the cost and disease aside, the actual legislation or lack thereof the genetic engineering needs to be carefully examined. Will regulating genetic engineering make it more or less effective? Regulating the process could lead to limits in the exploration of the field's potentials or even force people to limit their choices of children's combinations. Regulating the process could lead to limits of how much people can play God or even force their potential offspring to live a predetermined life. If the government allows for scientists to run freely with genetic engineering, will there eventually be a point where it has to step in, in an effort to control the slippery slope of manipulating genetics? This control could lead to a society of complete predetermination and government intervention. This control could lead to a society of contentment and perfected needs and actions of people through intervention. As a whole, the regulation of genetic engineering proves to be a layered problem that needs tending to each layer. Because regulating is more difficult and more compound than natural cycles of life, consequences of eugenics are likely compound and difficult, as well.
Many sides of the eugenics issue must be looked at while forming an opinion about the issue. Regulation, cost, and disease and death all must be individually looked at. The natural cycle of life must also be known in detail, too. There is a reason for death and disease; it allows for the cycle of life to continue. Eugenics may be a temporary answer to illness; however, in the long run, there are many more potential problems that can arise. These potential problems could be far more threatening and harmful than illness and death. Genetic engineering may be a way to solve other such societal problems, but again, survival of the fittest and social Darwinism are the natural solution of society. Genetic engineering has the potential to create great solutions for society. The unnatural manipulation, though, gives rise to more potential harm than good.
Genetic engineering displays a combination of advancing science with scientific inquiries. It allows for the changing and manipulation of naturally occurring genetics. One of the positive allowances of this type of work is the potential for curing disease or genetic mutations or possibly death. On the other side of the spectrum, the disease ends up translating into death, in some cases. The consequence of curing death and disease could be the drastic ballooning of population. In a morbid way, illness and disease are a way of population control. Tampering with gene manipulation could lead to unheard of numbers in population, thus taking death out of the cycle of life.
Other than illness and disease and death, eugenics has many other facets that need to be considered. Programming genes to behave in a certain way could allow for parents to choose levels of intelligence, looks, skills, and other possible characteristics. These types of choices allow for children with greater potential and opportunity. This could then translate into helping low income families rise through prosperous offspring, breaking cycles of homelessness through education, and maybe even increasing democracy because of well educated voters. The negative aspect of this side arises when cost is tossed into thinking. Will genetic engineering be expensive? Who will pay for the genetic engineering? If the government ends up paying, who will qualify to receive the benefits of government funds for the procedure? Should individuals have to pay for genetic engineering on their own, will the lower income families be at disadvantages? If so, will there be bumping heads between the classes? There are various other questions that need to be well considered, beside the benefits.
Leaving the cost and disease aside, the actual legislation or lack thereof the genetic engineering needs to be carefully examined. Will regulating genetic engineering make it more or less effective? Regulating the process could lead to limits in the exploration of the field's potentials or even force people to limit their choices of children's combinations. Regulating the process could lead to limits of how much people can play God or even force their potential offspring to live a predetermined life. If the government allows for scientists to run freely with genetic engineering, will there eventually be a point where it has to step in, in an effort to control the slippery slope of manipulating genetics? This control could lead to a society of complete predetermination and government intervention. This control could lead to a society of contentment and perfected needs and actions of people through intervention. As a whole, the regulation of genetic engineering proves to be a layered problem that needs tending to each layer. Because regulating is more difficult and more compound than natural cycles of life, consequences of eugenics are likely compound and difficult, as well.
Many sides of the eugenics issue must be looked at while forming an opinion about the issue. Regulation, cost, and disease and death all must be individually looked at. The natural cycle of life must also be known in detail, too. There is a reason for death and disease; it allows for the cycle of life to continue. Eugenics may be a temporary answer to illness; however, in the long run, there are many more potential problems that can arise. These potential problems could be far more threatening and harmful than illness and death. Genetic engineering may be a way to solve other such societal problems, but again, survival of the fittest and social Darwinism are the natural solution of society. Genetic engineering has the potential to create great solutions for society. The unnatural manipulation, though, gives rise to more potential harm than good.
