<<<<where we can cut out the well-worn cycle of pain and death. We can desist from this enormous wastage of individuals in the blind quest for a healthier whole. This will totally rewrite the ethics of reproduction. Because the chance element in conceiving and bearing offspring... will be reined in. We will predetermine the health, beauty, mental vigor of any offspring we choose or are authorized to have.>>>>
You paint a sort of utopia which I strongly suspect would not look in reality very much like the improvement on the well-worn cycle of pain and death that you are anticipating.
The "or are authorized to have," shows you understand some of what my reaction was bound to be.
Your comment contains four "we's." Those "we's" are the ones who will do the authorizing, of course. You, like FT, clearly identify with the 'we's' who will do the authorizing, and will get favorable authorizations.
A third world person engaged in this discussion, however excellently endowed mentally and physically, would use a different pronoun.
I understand what you're saying. It instills more dread in me than does Nature red in tooth and claw.
No, it doesn't. It instills the same dread. Because it will still be Nature red in tooth and claw playing itself out, but on a novel stage. The powerful will use or extinguish the less powerful, as is the way of the world. The weaker children of the powerful will be favored over the fitter children of the less powerful, forever.
Yes, the "ethics" of reproduction will be totally "rewritten"; but, of course, the writers will still be the powerful, and the end of the story will still be happy, for them.
I don't know what to do about this. |
