ext_21147 (
futurebird.livejournal.com) wrote in
talkpolitics2011-08-11 10:52 am
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
Entry tags:
Eugenics, genetics, your kids and mine...
An important question looming on the horizon is: "to what extent can couples determine the genetic make-up of their kids."
I have a simple answer: "It's not evil eugenics if a majority of those with the genetic trait advocate helping future children avoid it. "
For example, I'm quite short, this has not really had a positive impact on my life my husband is tall and I'd be quite happy to let his genes take over the whole height thing. I'd have a similar feeling were I abnormally tall. On the other hand it'd make me angry if someone ruled out darker skin for our child, that'd be cowing to the pressure of racism, I think ... and creepy. (dark skin also protects one from skin cancers and painful sunburns) I don't envy the lengths my husband must go to avoid getting burned. My husband has often been quite cheerful about the prospect of his kids not having a hard time with the sun as he has.
So, I think the solution is to ask people who have these traits if they *want* them passed on or not. In that sense, maybe the "looming question" isn't so big-- most couples will naturally want persevere human diversity, but will not have much interest in saving traits that just make life more difficult.
But of course things are not that simple. Many black folks (for example) might have chosen lighter skin (and some might do so today) to protect their child from racism. I find this depressing and my instinct is to find a way to prevent it. But, should the state have any place in such choices?
There are lots of people who would quickly choose to reduce the chance of their child being gay (I doubt being gay is as simple as a single gene, so mercifully it may not be possible to tamper with this without tampering with other traits) --on the one hand, maybe it's good that gay kids don't end up being born to intolerant people, on the other, there are enough intolerant people that, if the genetics of sexuality were simple enough, we'd probably see a sharp decine in the gay population. I think this is really depressing.
Now I treated the height issue like it was simple, but there are probably some short people who feel differently.
I think we could come up with reasonable laws by asking those who have a given gene what they think about people selecting for it or against it.
And now for a incomplete poll:
[Poll #1768916]
PS. Here is a great documentary that relates to these questions.
I have a simple answer: "It's not evil eugenics if a majority of those with the genetic trait advocate helping future children avoid it. "
For example, I'm quite short, this has not really had a positive impact on my life my husband is tall and I'd be quite happy to let his genes take over the whole height thing. I'd have a similar feeling were I abnormally tall. On the other hand it'd make me angry if someone ruled out darker skin for our child, that'd be cowing to the pressure of racism, I think ... and creepy. (dark skin also protects one from skin cancers and painful sunburns) I don't envy the lengths my husband must go to avoid getting burned. My husband has often been quite cheerful about the prospect of his kids not having a hard time with the sun as he has.
So, I think the solution is to ask people who have these traits if they *want* them passed on or not. In that sense, maybe the "looming question" isn't so big-- most couples will naturally want persevere human diversity, but will not have much interest in saving traits that just make life more difficult.
But of course things are not that simple. Many black folks (for example) might have chosen lighter skin (and some might do so today) to protect their child from racism. I find this depressing and my instinct is to find a way to prevent it. But, should the state have any place in such choices?
There are lots of people who would quickly choose to reduce the chance of their child being gay (I doubt being gay is as simple as a single gene, so mercifully it may not be possible to tamper with this without tampering with other traits) --on the one hand, maybe it's good that gay kids don't end up being born to intolerant people, on the other, there are enough intolerant people that, if the genetics of sexuality were simple enough, we'd probably see a sharp decine in the gay population. I think this is really depressing.
Now I treated the height issue like it was simple, but there are probably some short people who feel differently.
I think we could come up with reasonable laws by asking those who have a given gene what they think about people selecting for it or against it.
And now for a incomplete poll:
[Poll #1768916]
PS. Here is a great documentary that relates to these questions.
no subject
For example: The fact the bone extension surgery has changed people's lives for the better in some cases is very comforting to me. I just think about that, and the whole thing feels less oppressive. I don't think I'll ever have the money for such an operation, but it's nice to dream about it.
The complex psychological reasoning about all this is missing the simple fact that I've been unhappy because I feel I'm too short and I would feel better were I taller. Full stop. There's no need to make it anymore complex than that. Thinking positive thoughts dosen't work. This does. I don't think I can undo the damage.
And I'm not bitter either. Not in the least. I'm just very very realistic. And my upbringing was not hellish it was quite typical. (Or maybe hellish upbringings are typical?) I know a lot of people who were teased, since we all banded together in high school, there were one or two in every grade it seemed.
We really want to tell young people that being different dosen't matter. But it matters! We have a responsibility to teach them how to simply survive, how to avoid becoming a target and geting beaten up every other day. This isn't cynical, it's freaking honest! A short kid can blend in or, you can stick out like a sore thumb and become the punching bag. The things is one has a *some* control over this happening, and that is very valuable. Kids are pretty predictable. They don't attack the strangest looking one, but the one who is most sensitive and makes the most amusing crying and whimpering sounds when tortured.
I don't think being taller would have spared me this, but at least it'd be about something else, something less frustrating and in my face every single day.
When I call myself a "freak" i"m not being self-derogatory. The term fits me, metaphorically and technically.
Sorry I misinterpreted you. To me it has a very different meaning.
Best!
no subject
I said it's okay to be different. Sorry you don't agree with that. I have two children with Autism and I hope people like you stay far away from them. I'm sorry you don't think its okay to be different. But that's YOU.
Telling my kids its OKAY to be different and not to hate themselves or their difference is how i grew up and how i believe because its how i live and I'm very very happy. I am not hating on my shortness or even my Jarcho-Levin so tell me again why I'm supposed to think telling my kids its not okay to be different is somehow GOOD for them? cuz I'm not seeing it.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I think you mis-understood what I wrote perhaps it isn't clear.
no subject
no subject