Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (26030)	9/5/2001 1:09:52 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

And genetic manipulation is, for me at least, not even remotely an acceptable option. Need I get into that?? Ay, there's the rub. I'm not determinedly against it - I can see a lot of benefits. But the potential for abuse is huge, and the likelihood of abuse - or what some, at least would consider abuse - is overwhelming. However, I don't this this genie will go back in the bottle. The knowledge is there to be discovered, the tools for manipulation will be, and I don't think it's something that even the most powerful government will be able to ban. The more so as if it gets banned in one country, say the US, then all the competitors will be at an advantage if they can harness it first. Or can you see, say, India from refraining from such research while China goes ahead? Or indeed, if China does not? Meanwhile, on the individual case - again, I agree with you, genetics is definitely not the sole determinant of behaviour. [as, er, any parent of genetically identical twins will surely attest]. But if it is a component of unacceptable behaviour, should we take action to counter it - if we can? Here's another ethical nasty: if there is a genetic disposition to violence, then logically it's going to be common in violent criminals. If we test them, and find this predisposition - should they be allowed to have children? Remember, they're unlikely to provide a good role model as a parent, even if they stick around: so both nature and nurture will indicate that any child is likely (but not certain) to take to violence itself. And, even more horrifically, apply the same logic to paedphiles - who are often married men, with children themselves, who may well be raised to see sexual abuse as a required part of parenting... It may not be merely 'hard' for some such to control their unacceptable behaviour... because not only their genes but their upbringing dictate this course. Like you, I believe it should be possible for someone to control their own behaviour, whether they find it easy or difficult. But when it may be possible to remove or block one trigger, will we always hesitate? Or will we ultimately decide to remove unacceptable genes form the pool - 'for the greater good'...?