Ethics and Eugenics

Eugenics has some tricky ethical problems. Nobody wants a holocaust. Nobody wants genocide. On the other hand nobody wants psychopathic killers or genetically transmitted diseases either. We also don’t feel right about telling people whether or not they should breed or how they should breed. So how can we improve humanities children without infringing on the rights or freedoms of specific parents or specific children?

In a sense humanity’s genes and the next generation of humans belong to humanity as a whole not to any particular people. Now some might say that these things all already belong to the next generation and not the current generations of humanity. The problem with this is that all potential humans if they deserve a say deserve an equal say in whether they get to be conceived or not, both those with weaker genes and those with stronger genes. If we have the power to tip the balance in favor of the stronger gene pool shouldn’t we do so?

Things seem relatively clear at this point. As long as we can change the next generation enough to weed out undesireable genetic burdens on humanity we should do so. However, this is not so simple as it may seem. How do we define which traits are desirable. Once we start breeding children to become stronger or more beautiful haven’t we already crossed the genocide line? Isn’t a preventative genocide of genetically sick people still genocide, even if they are being replaced before conception with healthy people? Is the luck of the draw really the only fair way for humanity to propogate?

Perhaps the best thing that humanity can do is draw up a list of specific genetic traits that simply do not do any good. These traits can then be tracked or treated to some extent. They may never be eliminated but at least we would have the knowledge to stop their transmission in many cases if we should choose to.

On the other hand. Some of us may choose to take this farther and start communities with a different set of genetic ethics. Some us may decide to genetically modify ourselves and our offspring to be any number of things. If some of us decide to artificially evolve in this manner should the rest of us tolerate it?

I am inclined to allow it. I am curious to see what new species might evolve out of humanity. Surely our evolutionary path is not complete simply because we have aquired advanced technology? I suspect that at least some of us will inevitably evolve into our technologies or into new biology, likely both.

Perhaps the only difference between evolution and genocide is the difference between selective breeding and selective killing.

Space Program

I am about as sure as I can be of anything that there are other worlds with other beings that are similar enough to us to be our friends. We are wholey capable of expending our space travel and communication programs enough to make first contact (assuming it hasn’t been made covertly already). I think that we are ethically obligated to do our best to explore the universe. Currently we are doing a mediocre job at best. This century should be the end of science fiction and the beginning of science actualization. It is time to invest in our fantasies and ideals.

On Poverty

We live in a world where some people profit and others do not. If we want to actualize equality we must become comfortable mixing socialism with capitalism. We must develop a standard, not for poverty, but for minimum wealth. Even if a person is unemployed and gives nothing (physical) to society, we must hold the conviction that it is better that a person be given the benefit of a doubt and the freedom to live in comfort and with the freedom to choose a type of life than for that person to be allowed to die or slip into suffering and servitude involuntarily. Whether we like to admit or not, at some point in our lives we are all completely dependent on others.

Now, at this point many of you will say two things: “There is not enough for everyone to have a fair and ample share of the world’s wealth” and “People must earn whatever it is that they have in order to justify their wealth.” I say, if there is not enough to go around that is a technical problem that we must come together to solve. That is not justification for classicism. I also say that none of us deserve anything and all of us deserve something. I am not willing to play God with people’s lives. I will make for damn sure that treat everybody else on this earth exactly how I would hope they would treat me were our positions reversed.

Nobody deserves to be poor and as long as people are poor, nobody deserves to be rich. I hope that you will join me in creating a world without poverty. I hope that you will help me solve the technical and technological problems that make it difficult for people to live comfortably and free. I hope you will also help me to change the perception that a person’s value is in a person’s productivity. People intrinsic worth just as our national forests do even if those people or forests lack any obvious utility.

At long last some of you will say, but if we end poverty who will plow the fields and unclog the toilets. At this I say, wow. What the crap. People shouldn’t have to be that specialized. People shouldn’t have to be like ants. People should be free. If we can’t create tools to plow the fields for us or unclog the toilets for us then to darn bad. If nobody wants to do it we shouldn’t make people do it my making it too hard for them to do anything else. We should find ways to make it so that nobody has to do it or we should do it ourselves or people should do it because they genuinely want to. They should want to because whatever they get from it in wealth or satisfaction is in addition to the plenty that they already enjoy not because they simply want to make a living.