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.
6 comments:
Beginning with Darwin provides a piece of the puzzle. What happened between Darwin and Watson & Crick?
You note that "tampering with gene manipulation could lead to unheard of numbers in population, thus taking death out of the cycle of life." Already we have population problems without considering "taking death out of the cycle of life." People are living too long. Why? Sanitation, pharmacology, the genetic engineering of foods, and transportation have changed the way we live and feed our bodies. There once was a time when large families were critical to survival. Today that is not the case.
As I reflect with you, I think of the latest news item about the child whose parents took steps to keep her forever a child. Called the "Ashley Treatment." I shudder when I think about it. Already we have done so much in society to alter the way we live.
It could be argued that pharmacology and genetic engineering of foods combined with sanitation are the reasons that people have been living longer. The truth is, though, that there is no way to test whether or not it was one of these changes, two, or all of them that have increased the world population. Because all of these changes in the world have been happening at the same time, there is no controlled variable as in a scientific experiment. So, while you said that these are the reasons people are living too long, you must make sure to say that those are the possible reasons you think people are living too long.
Another thing you should probably reflect with me that you said was "People are living too long". This is not accurate. The populations are increasing too greatly, and the world will not be able to sustain the exponential increase. Look at the wars that have taken 17 and 18 and 19 year old kids out of this world. I would hardly call a 19 year old life too long. In the past year, I have also lost a 25 year old and 19 year old in my life, and never for a second have thought they were alive too long. It is important to keep wording in mind. People are not living too long; there are just too many of them being created.
Overall, I think your essay had some very valid points that were well argued and the use of rhetorical questions only further enhances the reader's intrigue and personal connection to the issue at hand. Each example you gave, you also qualified, stating the short-term benefit and then displaying the long-term effects on society to overrule any benefits we may think will come from genetic engineering. I felt there was a lot of informative research done to back up the points you were making which only improves your credibility to speak on the topic. I found that as a whole, the paper came together very smoothly and logically displayed information that was concise and provided a very well developed and thought out argument.
FutureDevilDog writes: "The truth is, though, that there is no way to test whether or not it was one of these changes, two, or all of them that have increased the world population."
I did not say these factors increased the population. I wrote that we have "population problems" because people are living too long.
(Perhaps you would prefer I change the phrase to living longer than once was the norm.)
When there are more births than deaths the population increases. If it were not for the advances in sanitation, pharmacology and other factors, more people would die at a younger age. You can research longevity through the history of society to see this.
Here is a chart that may be of interest:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
Take a look at this data provided by the U.S. government.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf#027
Ordinarily I don't use Wikipedia, but for a quick overview, it sometimes is helpful, as long as one checks its sources. It provides sources for its entry on life expectancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_over_human_history
Geography is another influence of population. Have you read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel? You may find it interesting.
Have you read about efforts to achieve zero population growth?
You write, "you must make sure to say that those are the possible reasons you think people are living too long.."People are not living too long; there are just too many of them being created."
No, I will not say "possible reasons" because they are real reasons people are living longer. Longevity has increased because of sanitation, pharmacology, and genetic engineering of food. One example is the discovery of the polio vaccine. In my youth children were paralyzed, even died of polio. According to the Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics, there were some 3000 polio-related deaths in 1952. Some people lived their lives in iron lungs as a result of contracting polio. Because of the discovery of the vaccination, almost no one dies of polio in the United States.
I don't dispute that "there are just too many of them being created." I agree. But if an equal number would die, there would be no population growth. If more people would die than are born, there would be a drop in population.
I stand by my opinion. People are living too long. Of course the young person who dies at 19 or even younger is not living "too long." You cite individual cases. I too can tell you about people in my life, children who had not reached their adolescent years. They died of cancer. In a two year period I attended the funerals of about 2 dozen children and teens. At that time, over 25 years ago, only about 50% of the children treated for cancer survived. Today because of various treatments, the number surviving for more that 5 years is much greater. Pharmacology and sanitation certainly have been contributing factors.
I am speaking generally in terms of the relationship between birth and death rates. Should all nations act as China has and limit the number of children per family? We certainly are not going to suggest we end people's lives once they turn a certain age.
Here is a Univ. of Michigan site you may find interesting.
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/human_pop.html
I have enjoyed our exchange. And yes, choose words carefully. :) :)
I do not necessarily agree with the information that you provided to me; however, I understand the side that you are coming from. I do not, though, agree the information that you have provided to me, by means of links. Two of the links I could not access because of a lack of Adobe on my computer and the other said it did not exist of some crap, which is no fault of your own. The wikipedia site is one that I do not deem credible because it can be changed by anyone at any time. The only way it can be checked to be found valid or not is through cross referencing with other websites. The Life Expectancy by Age chart is simply a combination of data from different time periods and states. It may have ethos because of the fact that it is from the government, but the government can just as easily manipulate data to make it whatever they desire. There is no scientific control. Some of the data only pertains to blacks, some to Massachusetts, after a while it includes Hawaii and Alaska, some is from non-residents,and there are just too many inconsistencies and changes. As in any good scientifically conducted data, there has to be consistency. As I stated previously, if there are too many changes, there is no way to tell what the real effect was caused by.
Post a Comment