Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!uoregon!stevev
From: stevev@uoregon.uoregon.edu (Steve VanDevender)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Gene pool
Message-ID: <3714@uoregon.uoregon.edu>
Date: 4 Feb 89 23:51:21 GMT
References: <674@intvax.UUCP> <9091@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: stevev@drizzle.UUCP (Steve VanDevender)
Organization: University of Oregon, Computer Science, Eugene OR
Lines: 54

In article <9091@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> sethg@athena.mit.edu (Seth Gordon) writes:
>morimoto@intvax.UUCP (Alan Morimoto) in <674@intvax.UUCP>:
>`  My point is that maybe
>`we need to look at what long term effects we are creating by breeding
>`diseases into our future generations.
>
>The effect, dear sir, is called "freedom."  People with genetic diseases
>have *every right* to have children, because they have *no moral
>responsibility* to keep "our future generations" hale and hearty in a
>"stronger gene pool."
>
>BEING DISABLED IS *NOT* IMMORAL.  
>
>Therefore, 
>
>BEARING CHILDREN WHO ARE DISABLED IS *NOT* IMMORAL.

As someone who is disabled with a congenital, genetically based disease,
I agree with Seth that disability is not immoral.  However, I am reluctant
to have children of my own.  Since my variety of osteogenesis imperfecta is
dominantly inherited, half of my children would have it.  Even though I
don't think it's immoral to bear a child with a disability (am I going to
blame my parents for having me, particularly since I was a spontaneous
mutation?) I know what I went through while growing up (some forty broken
bones) and would hardly want one of my children to go through the same.
This doesn't mean that I disliked my childhood or feel bad about myself
having this disease.  If I can avoid having a child who has to go through
the same, I will--not only would it be hard on the child, but hard on me
and the child's mother.

>`                {       Humans are the only animals that       }
>`                {       don't breed to improve the species.    }

This statement by Mr. Morimoto almost lead me to comment when I first saw
it.  Since it's here again, I will now.

It is a common fallacy that evolution is somehow geared to improving species.
Evolution, as I understand it, is simply another adaptive mechanism.  Species
are not improved by evolution, except in that evolutionary processes allow
them to adapt to changing conditions instead of being locked into one form
forever.  Neither do animals selectively breed themselves, or make any
effort to improve their species by their behavior.  Humans, in fact, are
the only animals that conceivably could make such efforts, having 
knowledge of the mechanisms of evolution and opinions about what constitutes
improvement of the species.  (Note that I said "opinions."  I do not trust
any global statements about what would make humans genetically better.)

Seth said roughly the same in his followup, only with much more satire.

-- 
Steve VanDevender 	stevev@drizzle.cs.uoregon.edu
"Bipedalism--an unrecognized disease affecting over 99% of the population.
Symptoms include lack of traffic sense, slow rate of travel, and the
classic, easily recognized behavior known as walking."