Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rocksvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!sam
From: sam@rocksvax.UUCP (Sam Houston)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Breeding of Humans
Message-ID: <1128@rocksvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Dec-83 10:54:31 EST
Article-I.D.: rocksvax.1128
Posted: Fri Dec 16 10:54:31 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Dec-83 06:24:12 EST
References: <331@hocda.UUCP>, <1123@rocksvax.UUCP>
Organization: Xerox, Rochester, N.Y.
Lines: 51


Has anyone out there in flame land followed the use of
the nobel laureate sperm bank?  In particular, I think
I heard on the news the other day that one of the bank's
customers now had a child showing precocious abilitys--
playing the violin at three, or something.  For some
strange reason this started me thinking:

> We breed animals in a very controlled way for desired
traits, why don't we do more of the same with ourselves?
It (mating to produce desired characteristics) is 
certainly done in a fairly loose manner now--eg. two
professionals (especially  if they are of the opposite sex)
in, say, physics are more likely to get together
and produce children than one partner from academia 
and the other with plumbing skills.  In this sense we
are "selecting" for scientific abilities.  

> Why does our western culture have (generally) taboos
against more direct selection; instead relying on family
selection of the mate for economic, etc. reasons historically,
and the more recent adoption of individual selection
via the concept of romantic love.  [we still do that, don't
we? i've been married quite a while now, and may not be
current]  In the sense that morals/ethics are cultural
adaptations that allow our species to survive, is there
something morally wrong with a more quantified mate
selection process?

> Are there any given human traits that "should" be
selected for or against?  I've got a few: intelligence
(several categories), low agression (in general), 
physical abilities (for good Monday night football),
artistic abilities (several categories)---.

> Personally, my own cultural bias causes me to look
askance at anyone so *coldhearted* as to select a mate
(or mates) based on his desires for a certain ability
in the offspring; even more so to reject someone else
(government, a computer program) telling me.  Memories
of the nazi breeding camps remain.

> However, the scientist/engineer part of me that feels
quite comfortable with the process of understanding and
modifying natural processes to suit a desired end, 
says: "why not?".  It seems for sure that some of us
(at least on an individual basis) are already doing it.

	to bettter human eugenics :-)

				sam