I refer to John McLarens message of 16:11 19/07/00 -0400:
(KH)
>> Indeed, I think that there is no doubt that within a
>> generation it will be common practice for young
>> middle-class individuals to have themselves tested, and
>> for intending couples to have their DNA profiles
>> compared by geneticists before deciding whether to form a
>> serious relationship from which children may issue. I
>> don't think there will be any greater danger from this
>> than the practice that has been going on from time
>> immemorial in human affairs -- rich and economically
>> powerful males marrying the best-looking females they can
>> find, even if they're poor. In both cases, such social
>> separation, whether genetic or economic, largely
>> disappears after two or three generations.
(JMcL)
>Sally's diplomatic reply notwithstanding, this troubles me.
>I read the discussion only for amusement and good
>recipes, I'll admit.
I'd have thought that discussion of eugenics was far too important to be
considered as amusement. What a curious way of introducing oneself!
(JMcL)
>And I wouldn't dare to contradict
>someone who so obviously knows what he's talking about.
>But I don't much care whether it appears inevitable that
>couples will have themselves screened as whether it is
>right or wrong -- less still whether it reminds anyone of
>eugenics practised by the Nazis and others closer to home.
>
>Is it right, or is it wrong? If it's wrong, it must be
>opposed, just as those who practise(d) eugenics
>involuntary on their victims must be condemned.
As I forewarned (or tried to), John has fallen into the trap of equating
voluntary eugenics with coercive eugenics as carried out by State
governments (and at a stage when eugenic knowledge was, and remains, fairly
primitive). How I tire of such black-and-white moralistic statements. There
are many practices which are perfectly moral if done voluntarily but which
are immoral if enforced by others.
(JMcL)
>I don't see any evidence that the advantage of inherited
>wealth is lost after 2 or 3 generations,
There's evidence all around if you read your history books. The only way
great wealth is protected is if the owners and their descendants are
granted special privileges by the State -- such as forming foundations, or
the avoidance of death duties. The largest proportion of wealth is
recycling all the time, mostly rapidly (well within a generation), with
only a very small fraction persisting beyond three of four generations.
And what is the reason for this? It is that the acquisition and retention
of wealth depends importantly upon intelligence, and this itself recycles
from the highest levels of genius down to normality within about three
generations. It's called "regression to the mean" and, in human affairs, is
equivalent to the law of thermodynamics in physics. It happens in business,
too. Only the smallest fraction of businesses last beyond two generations.
Even in the case of the largest businesses (apparently the most stable and
secure of all), the average lifetime is about 12 years.
(JMcL)
>but I'm more than
>a little cynical about the defence of anything that is
>founded upon the residual benefits to those who are
>perpetually disadvantaged.
But this is my point -- they're not perpetually disadvantaged. Genius and
innovation can spring from the (apparently) unlikeliest of sources -- just
as Ray Harrell has suggested in his contribution.
(JMcL)
> Was there ever a government
>subsidy to business that wasn't justified on the basis of
>job creation?
>
>Let the debate be polarised as it should be. It's an ethical
>issue of the first order. And as a lifelong atheist I'm proud
>to be on the losing side, if that's what it comes down to.
"I'm proud to be on the losing side" -- what do you mean? If mankind had
had this streak within its genes we would certainly not be here today.
And what's atheism to do with it? The fact that you pronounce yourself to
be atheist suggests to me that you have taken an intellectual decision (and
adopted a moral superiority) based on negative evidence alone. Relax a bit.
Become an agnostic, if you like.
I'm not saying that eugenics shouldn't be debated. It's just that we should
be cautious because many scenarios that are being discussed are way beyond
our present understanding. Taking up declamatory stances on this huge and
complex issue is altogether premature and unproductive. Meanwhile, certain
specific instances (the extinction of Tay-Sachs' and Huntington's diseases)
will quietly proceed step by step by individual voluntary decisions, just
as we try to eradicate the mosquito which carries malaria (which itself has
repercussions in the human gene pool).
(JMcL)
>Shame on you Keith.
I'm totally non-plussed by this comment.
Keith Hudson
