X-Message-Number: 28196 Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:51:59 -0600 From: "Anthony ." <> Subject: Re: DNA screening > Message #28190 > Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 06:36:42 -0700 (PDT) > From: human screener <> > Maybe we can assist him in > developing a better case against my paradox. I thought you resolved your paradox with some reductivistic argument involving Mark's supposed "suicide genes"? > I used (Mark) as my initial example of someone who > supports a medical strategy that would have eliminated > him had he himself been subjected to it. As I've pointed out - the medical and non-medical reproductive technqiues are the same as the DNA screen. The womb "screens" embryos, your choices of how and when to reproduce will also lead to the rejection of some sperm and ova in favour of others. These may not be DNA screenings as such, but "screening" in this case is a word for examination leading to decision making based on criteria that defines a desired outcome - which is what all of the other reproductive techniques I mentioned involve. Let's imagine your paradox a bit differently. Let's say that Mark reproduced using IVF technology. Generations later, his great grandson opposes IVF. The generations between Mark's child and the great-grandson came into existence through ordinary intercourse. Does this great grandchild create a paradox? Or is he simply making an ideological choice? If Mark abstains from sex his whole life, and has no wish to reproduce, is this not a repudiation of the entire existence of humanity and hence another paradox? Or is it just another reproductive choice? Are you merely saying that only people who would pass the DNA test could support it because they avoid your paradox? Do we all support things that avoid the kind of paradox you highlight? Let's pretend I am my son. What if my Canadian government creates a new immigration policy barring English immigrants, which I then support. This would - had I not been born - prevent my existence from preventing my English father and Canadian mother from meeting, creating the paradox you describe. Is this also a problem for you? > My argument > does not attack abortions, Yes it does because support for abortion lands you in the same paradox. Or can you explain how the two do not relate? > the core of my point (is) the existence of a a DNA > blacklist Evolution itself is a DNA blacklist. If you don't make the criteria for survival, your DNA does not survive. >I'm not so > sure the paradox is pointless, as Anthony then says it > is. [10]. How is it not pointless? > Maybe the thing to do is to get a copy of that DNA > blacklist to see what sequences they're actually > trying to eliminate. I'd say this is a good idea. > further examination of the list would be in order-- > and perhaps a paring down of the list so that it's not > so draconian. You make these judgements and recommendations before even seeing the list! > Applying the principles of plants to > humans in this way would lead to the H.G.Wells Brave > New World future where we have various grades of > humans , manufactured for specific functions and > cognitive traits. As usual, reactionaries to technological advancement invoke the trite dystopia of Aldous Huxley (H.G.Well's did not write "Brave New World", which I take to mean, you have not read BNW?). It is true that we must consider these advances carefully - do we want to eliminate all disease? All ugliness? All weakness? If not, would you be one of those born with a severe deformity or painful illness? What kind of society would we have if everyone was healthy, attractive and long-lived? People may become less compassionate in such a society because there is less reason (i.e. suffering) to feel compassion - but perhaps there is an "empathy gene" which we could tweak, ensuring our Ubermensch are all very caring? Simply put - when do we stop improving human life? Is it before or after certain horrors are eliminated? And if you choose to keep the biological horrors - would you be the person to endure them? > The said messy elimination of 6 > million people in the 1940's would be tidied up so > that the elimination of 6 million DNA strands from the > human genome would be relatively bloodless war ... a > DNA war of microscopic proportions but every bit as > devastating to mankind as the big, loud horrible ones. I'm not saying that the DNA screen couldn't be misused. But what is worse - the horrible deaths of 6 million people or the non-existence of 6 million people 1 day after conception? If the latter freaks you out, you need to be catching every drop of sperm. > If Anthony wants to take a valid parting shot, he > ought to aim at the implications of a DNA blacklist as > I just described. I doubt anyone here is blind to the possibility of a looming nightmare. But I'd rather see what is on the blacklist and ask as to how accessible this tech. will be - both in the contents of the list and the application itself. Anthony Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28196