|
@Supple Cow: I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea of eugenics, no. I'm familiar with the subject.
The MEANS to which people employ the betterment of the human race are usually too dirty to justify the ends though. Let us assume that we had a way to extract and edit gene that 100% caused sickle-cell anemia. Obviously, we would change it (notwithstanding ethical obligations about whether or not changing ANYTHING in a human's DNA is wrong). We can now cure humanity of one of it's ILLS through no damage to its members whatsoever.
This is obviously slightly more complex than that because homosexuality is not an ill, persay. Rather, it's effects are not wholly negative on the human race. It may not benefit our evolutionary capabilities but I'd wager most homosexual people don't feel they are 'sick'. Thus, the situation is arguably more complex.
I'm still in favor of it. I wouldn't be ok with affecting a single existing human, but the possibility to remove this argument from my grandchildren's lives? It'd be quite nice. One less form of discrimination in their world is how I see it.
|