Subject:
|
Re: Is this sexism?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 1 Jul 2001 19:33:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
457 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim wrote:
> > 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.
No, I wouldn't say it's a directive force. Paraphrasing what you said, the
results speak for themselves after the fact.
> 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.
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 on, right? I think genes can
also be lost because that species or version of that species doesn't survive
(for natural reasons or for outright deliberate reasons).
> > 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.
Right.
> > 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.
Yeah, I do think our technology advanced too fast and we are still fighting
our violent, territorial nature.
> > 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.
It's not a moral dilemma for me but other's feel differently and really
believe it is murder. Who's to say who is right, though?
> > 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?
<snipped stuff>
Yes, pre 18 year olds.
> > 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.
When in Rome... :)
> > 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.
Yeah, I know what you mean. But I still think the very essence of nature,
which has been cultivating for billions of years just on this planet (who
knows how old the universe is) is true perfection, even in it's calamity.
People say God is perfection, I say nature is perfection.
> 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.
Different views, my friend. I think playing God has it's price and history
is replete with examples of man's foolishness. Just because we can doesn't
mean we should.
Dan
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-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
|
|
|
|
