Subject:
|
Re: Is this sexism?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 1 Jul 2001 19:08:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
545 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> When certain organisms are naturally unsuccessful at
> reproduction, that's nature's way of getting rid of the bad
> genes. They die off for a reason.
I'm not sure if you meant it this way, or were just going quickly, but I think
that sounds like a circular argument and maybe anthropomorphic. "Bad" genes
are only defined after the fact because they failed to propogate. It sounds
like you are saying that some directive force is culling out the
unreproductive. And, that whenever a gene is lost from a species, that it is
because that particular gene was harmful to survival. A gene can be lost
incidentally without regard to that gene's "value." Evolution is sloppy.
> So, we step away from nature's rights and into the
> realm of manmade rights (our morals and ethics). Should everybody have kids?
> I say NO because there are exceptions.
I'm missing some meaning here. Exceptions to what? I'd say that people
certainly shouldn't have kids if they don't want to.
> For example, people with serious genetic abnormalities should not have
> children.
Unless they are seriously valuable, of course. Modern humans are not (I hope)
the end pinnacle of evolution. Hopefully we will continue to get better.
> Nature often keeps this from happening but modern medicine
> intervenes and we end up having seriously disabled or retarted children that
> would normally not survive and may never function normally and independently
> in our society.
Agreed completely. I wish we were less squeamish about putting them down.
> Another example is teens. Although they are capable of
> reproducing, there are too many health risks to the baby and teen.
Are you only meaning young teens? I read something when studying reproduction
several years ago that suggested a healthy (i.e. not annorexic) seventeen year
old woman was as fit for birthing a child as she would ever be. If I recal
that state lasts until something like age 23 and then starts to decrease.
> Also, the
> teens are not fit to independently support a child when they themselves are
> still children.
I don't think of teens as children. And their inability to support children of
their own is an artifact of our modern society. It hasn't always been true
here in the US and it isn't true in some other parts of the world today.
> In my opinion, nature is perfection. We have yet to learn, or perhaps
> unlearn, how to be as perfect as nature.
Interesting. I guess maybe I disagree. I think of nature as just being how it
is. We work within the framework of natural systems, but there is no reason to
keep things the way they were in the past. Even if humans weren't here, what
'nature' looks like would constantly change. Thinking back to your comments
about over medication (a few notes back) and not liking the degree to which we
fiddle with our physiology, I really disagree with what I think your point was.
I am all for medical technology increasing my comfort, improving on my
natural abilities, and bringing in a fascinating new world. If I can have
bionic knees that don't hurt, or gene therapy to end aging, or nano-assemblers
flowing through my body fighting cancer and synthesizing HGH, I'm all for it.
Just like I am with responsible applications of genetically engineered crops.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) No, I wouldn't say it's a directive force. Paraphrasing what you said, the results speak for themselves after the fact. (...) Sloppy, eh? Yeah, I guess it can look that way sometimes. When you say a gene is lost, you mean that it is not passed (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| Speaking strictly in a biological sense, all living beings have the natural right of reproduction. The presence of sex organs and sex hormones is proof enough that organisms are here to thrive and repopulate. Reproduction is a natural, hard-wired (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
244 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
