Hey, Del, nice to see you are still here!!! While my computer has been broken, I was thinking of creating or finding a quiet place at SI just for talking, so you would be more comfortable there, and we could discuss things very quietly. Now I have finally gotten AOL to work, at least, so I'm right here catching up on posts. I'm glad you are around, but maybe we should still think of a less frenetic posting area somewhere. There are lots of strange little threads at SI, so maybe we could borrow one or something, where not much is happening.
I am personally very confused by the whole eugenics issue. China had a population which would have, if left to its own breeding devices, increased so rapidly that there would have been mass starvation, and probably bloody war as well while small neighboring island nations, etc., were conquered. I think it is absolutely sickening that Chinese women are forced to get late term-abortions, that most children are growing up in one-child families, which is a huge social experiment, and that human rights are so grossly violated in China. However, if some artificial controls are not placed on population growth--and I would much prefer to use economic incentives rather than coercion and force--the population of the planet may well soon explode to the point where there are so many wars, and so much starvation, that natural forces will accomplish the same goal. This is a very confusing issue!!
Given that parents are allowed to produce only one child, it would seem the logical next step to assure that all children are "perfect"! Eugenics hugs that same slippery slope that euthanasia does. Like Pandora's box (sorry for the mixed metaphors), once we start into one of these areas, it is difficult to regulate what is, or is not, an acceptable use of the policy.
Christine
|
