new start

victoriatangoman wrote:

> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ian Woollard
> wrote:
>
> > Sounds like you want to redefine the word they way you want it to
> be,
> > not the way it is used. Dangerous idea for you since the word is
> highly
> > inflamatory, dangerous for society, since it is easy for the
> meaning to
> > slip back to its old usage.
>
> I don't seek to redefine it. Look to dictionaries and other sources
> for a pretty uniform definition. See here for a good primer on the
> history and concept:
>
> http://www.genesage.com/professionals/geneletter/archives/eugenicsdefinitions.html

No, this guy is engaged in the same thing you are. He's gone back to the
word root and gone 'look the word literally means healthy baby'. Big
deal. That's not the way it is used in the real world. I mean, it's not
a midwifery term is it?

> I completely agree that it is a loaded term. Very inflamatory.

It's a bit like using the term 'nigger'. In theory that is not an
offensive term; it comes from negro, which just means 'black person'. In
practice, it's generally considered very offensive; because it is used
that way.

The term 'eugenics' to be similarly tainted, it cannot sensibly be
rescued, no matter how much you argue it means 'healthy baby', in
practice it means 'sterilising white trash, jews and anyone else I
consider undesirable'.

> If the discussion comes back to the negative aspects JUST because of
> the word eugenics, and this can be avoided by using another word,
> then let's do so. What word do you suggest?

Parental choice?

> > No, no. Eugenics isn't ultimately about abortion, it's about power-
> it's
> > about who decides. If it's society or doctors deciding for
> couples, then
> > it's eugenics. If it's the couples then it's family planning in
> the true
> > sense of the word, not the ghastly eugenics sense. There is a big,
> big
> > difference. It's like the difference between slaves and servants
> or
> > employees.
>
> No, eugenics is about "improving" the genetic stock.

Exactly. Suddenly human beings are 'stock'. A herd. To be culled. That
just shows exactly what I'm talking about.

> The choice issue doesn't define eugenics. The fact that the choice
> was removed from people is indeed ghastly.

Yes, but eugenics- the term- easily encompasses doing that. That's the
whole point. So when you throw it around like that it makes it alright
in people's mind. "Sure I've just sterilised these white trash, but
that's ok, it's eugenics, I'm improving the stock." Uh huh. And these
'white trash' very probably actually had a vitamin deficiency or a
disease; and were genetically sound.

> I'm quite confident that in the coming decades that human genome
> engineering will be possible where individual sequences can be
> excised and replaced by different sequences, thus foreverafter
> removing a recessive from the genome the couple would pass to their
> descendants.

I think testing is going to be much more common though; it's going to be
dirt cheap. Germ line genetic engineering is much harder and more risky.

> > As a concrete example, sickle cell anemia requires two different
> genes
> > to be present at once- so as blacks interbreed with other races
> the
> > disease should gradually fade away- the genes are still there, but
> > almost never meet up in one individual. Indeed, having either one
> of the
> > genes is an advantage as they seem to give increased resistance to
> > malaria, you just don't want both of them at once. Should we
> sterilise
> > or abort everyone with one or other of these genes? No, of course
> not.
> > (Although lots of racists would probably suggest it as a "good
> idea").
>
> Your last comment alludes to a problem and tarnishes the good that
> can come from the attention given to genetic choice. If the term
> eugenics always invokes references to sterilization, abortion, and
> killing then the discussion will always get bogged down at that
> point.

It always does; because eugenics leads there.

> It's eugenics when the choice is made for "improving" the genetic
> stock. It doesn't matter who makes the choice.

Of course it does! You see? You've proven my point for me! You've just
as much as said that it's ok for a government or a racist doctor or
whoever to decide that 'undesirables' shall not have any children, since
that improves the genetic stock in their eyes. I don't think you
intended to, but you said it. And some people out there will take that
and just do it.

The whole idea that it doesn't necessarily matter automatically pops out
of the eugenics term, and is what makes eugenics evil. It's not that the
term eugenics just 'happened' to get associated with very worrying
practices, it's built in- 'healthy babies' are the only concern. But
what's healthy? What does improvement mean? Improved for what? More
white? Less jewish? The concept behind eugenics is that it is a moral
necessity to make only improved babies. That society should control it.
That's where the coercion starts. It does not end well.