Norwescon, part 3
Apr. 28th, 2007 12:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
plutherusAfter posting my last entry, I finally got to Google.
Mary Rosenblum is an author who, if I recall correctly, was one of the panelists. Horizons is one of her novels.
Teosinte is a precursor to Maize, the ancestor of corn. More info here (with pictures!) . And Wikipedia has a nice entry on it as well. Although I'm sure some on my friends list know all about it, this is the first I've heard of it.
This was, I believe, mentioned during the genetic engineering panel, though I don't remember in what context.
In the genetic engineering panel, the question was brought up is when does it become eugenics. One of the audience made the claim, which I agree with, is that it already has. Since we can do pre-screening for many genetic diseases already, and decisions are made daily in fertility clinics which embryo to implant based on those tests, or whether to have abortions depending on tests in early pregnancy, eugenics is already upon us. The part where I disagree is that this is a horrible thing. Just because Hitler was a proponent of eugenics doesn't mean that everything about it is evil. Hitler also ate bagels.
OK, yes, there's a qualitative difference there, I admit it. But it struck again one of my pet peeves. That is, the fear of the word itself, rather than understanding what that word means. This is one of the reasons we don't have universal health care in this country. My father, who is otherwise a rather brilliant man, has a very simple argument against it: “That would be socialism.” That's it. The end. He has, and always will, vote against any attempt at bringing about universal health care because it would be Socialism. End of discussion. Fear of the word, not the thing. Sure, actually, yeah, it would be socialism. So what? You can't ask that kind of question. The Nazi's were Socialist. And so were the Russkies. Socialism is bad, therefore anything that would be socialism is bad. Look at Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia. Nobody in their right mind can say that Hitler or Stalin were good people. Therefore, we don't have universal health care in America.
Of course, public libraries, schools, and fire departments are also Socialist, but very few people aside from the overly religious and hardcore Libertarians complain about those.
A word is a symbol, and I always get pissed off when people who can't tell the difference between a symbol and the thing it represents try to make policy. Like laws against flag burning. Protect the symbol of our liberty by destroying our liberty itself. Never made sense to me, but it does to some people. I guess those are the same people who are all fired up to get of our freedoms in this country in the name of fighting against terrorism. I guess that makes sense if you believe Fox news' parroting of Roves' claim that the terrorists hate our freedom. Get rid of that, and we'll be safe from them.
Back to genetic engineering, though, yeah, taking living adults and killing them, or even forcefully sterilizing them, would be Bad. And I'll admit to my own end of reasoning here. Why is it bad? Because it deprives innocent people of their liberty, and that's Bad. It's not our, or society's, place to decide who can and can't have children. It's not mentioned in the Constitution, but it is, I will claim, one of our fundamental essential rights. Like most of our rights, there are exceptions, of course. I have no problem with the idea of requiring, say, the woman who killed her five children because she thought they were possessed by Satan, or the man who tortured his three children for years until he was caught, to undergo irreversible sterilization. These people had their chance, they blew it. They proved they cannot act responsibly, so they can have that responsibility taken away from them.
But it's a big difference between rounding people up and forcing them to undergo sterilization and allowing people to decide for themselves not to have a child with a crippling disease. I am not going to claim that people with Downs' Syndrome are evil, or should be rounded up, or killed, or sterilized, or that parents to choose to go ahead with a pregnancy, knowing the kid will have Downs' syndrome are evil. I don't believe any of that. But if you can have the choice as to whether or not your child will be born with Downs' Syndrome, why shouldn't the parent have that choice, even though it is indeed eugenics? Indeed, if you are insisting that decisions cannot be made based on genetic screening because you don't want Downs' Syndrome to be lost from the world, then you are again practicing eugenics. Failure to make a choice is still a choice. Goes right back to my first panel discussion. If Picard chooses not to divert the asteroid that's going to destroy the planet, he has chosen that the people on that planet will die. He cannot escape moral responsibility for his choice by pretending that he didn't make one. We have the great power to make these kinds of decisions, therefore we have the great responsibility to do so wisely, without hiding behind pretense of not choosing. Even banning research into it, or banning the tests that already exist won't help. The possibility exists, therefore even deciding to hide from it is still a choice.
The more interesting question though, beyond when does it become eugenics, is when does it become silly? And how much should be allowed? I am not an advocate of giving parents unlimited control over their children. Society does have a vested interest in how children are raised. Parents should not be allowed to beat their children, chain them in the closet for days at a time as punishment, and there should be a minimum required level of education. And it is in society's interest to enforce these rules. I would even, and I know this part is somewhat controversial and there are good arguments against it, go so far as to say that life-saving medicine should not be withheld from a child based on a parent's religious belief. Of course, I'd also go so far to say that it shouldn't be withheld based on the parents' economic status either, but that's because I'm a Socialist.
Anyway, what I mean by silliness is things that, sure you can make an argument that it's not really harmful, but is it? For instance, should the parents who play Klingons at cons be allowed to splice in genes giving their kid the forehead ridges? Or even going all the way and creating an entire Klingon with double spine, backup heart, and the works? We're not too many decades away from this kind of technology. How about the couple that wants their little girl to have four arms? Blue skin? Purple hair? How much is too much? Surely, there's nothing harmful to the child, or society at large, if she has purple hair. Skin color is a sore subject, especially in this country. What about a Black couple who want their child to be born White? Or green? Or, and this one is already relevant today with advances in surgery, how about the deaf couple who want their baby to be deaf, even though technology exists so the choice is available. What is more important? The disadvantages to the child from not being able to hear, or the disadvantages of not not fitting in to their parents' culture?
OK, enough of that for now. Next up, xenobiology, musical genome, space elevators, and, yes, science fiction.
But for now, I'm off to Mountain View to finish up packing and moving and cleaning and stuff. Yay, I'll finally have all my stuff with me in my new apartment. Now I just gotta figure out where to put it...
Mary Rosenblum is an author who, if I recall correctly, was one of the panelists. Horizons is one of her novels.
Teosinte is a precursor to Maize, the ancestor of corn. More info here (with pictures!) . And Wikipedia has a nice entry on it as well. Although I'm sure some on my friends list know all about it, this is the first I've heard of it.
This was, I believe, mentioned during the genetic engineering panel, though I don't remember in what context.
In the genetic engineering panel, the question was brought up is when does it become eugenics. One of the audience made the claim, which I agree with, is that it already has. Since we can do pre-screening for many genetic diseases already, and decisions are made daily in fertility clinics which embryo to implant based on those tests, or whether to have abortions depending on tests in early pregnancy, eugenics is already upon us. The part where I disagree is that this is a horrible thing. Just because Hitler was a proponent of eugenics doesn't mean that everything about it is evil. Hitler also ate bagels.
OK, yes, there's a qualitative difference there, I admit it. But it struck again one of my pet peeves. That is, the fear of the word itself, rather than understanding what that word means. This is one of the reasons we don't have universal health care in this country. My father, who is otherwise a rather brilliant man, has a very simple argument against it: “That would be socialism.” That's it. The end. He has, and always will, vote against any attempt at bringing about universal health care because it would be Socialism. End of discussion. Fear of the word, not the thing. Sure, actually, yeah, it would be socialism. So what? You can't ask that kind of question. The Nazi's were Socialist. And so were the Russkies. Socialism is bad, therefore anything that would be socialism is bad. Look at Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia. Nobody in their right mind can say that Hitler or Stalin were good people. Therefore, we don't have universal health care in America.
Of course, public libraries, schools, and fire departments are also Socialist, but very few people aside from the overly religious and hardcore Libertarians complain about those.
A word is a symbol, and I always get pissed off when people who can't tell the difference between a symbol and the thing it represents try to make policy. Like laws against flag burning. Protect the symbol of our liberty by destroying our liberty itself. Never made sense to me, but it does to some people. I guess those are the same people who are all fired up to get of our freedoms in this country in the name of fighting against terrorism. I guess that makes sense if you believe Fox news' parroting of Roves' claim that the terrorists hate our freedom. Get rid of that, and we'll be safe from them.
Back to genetic engineering, though, yeah, taking living adults and killing them, or even forcefully sterilizing them, would be Bad. And I'll admit to my own end of reasoning here. Why is it bad? Because it deprives innocent people of their liberty, and that's Bad. It's not our, or society's, place to decide who can and can't have children. It's not mentioned in the Constitution, but it is, I will claim, one of our fundamental essential rights. Like most of our rights, there are exceptions, of course. I have no problem with the idea of requiring, say, the woman who killed her five children because she thought they were possessed by Satan, or the man who tortured his three children for years until he was caught, to undergo irreversible sterilization. These people had their chance, they blew it. They proved they cannot act responsibly, so they can have that responsibility taken away from them.
But it's a big difference between rounding people up and forcing them to undergo sterilization and allowing people to decide for themselves not to have a child with a crippling disease. I am not going to claim that people with Downs' Syndrome are evil, or should be rounded up, or killed, or sterilized, or that parents to choose to go ahead with a pregnancy, knowing the kid will have Downs' syndrome are evil. I don't believe any of that. But if you can have the choice as to whether or not your child will be born with Downs' Syndrome, why shouldn't the parent have that choice, even though it is indeed eugenics? Indeed, if you are insisting that decisions cannot be made based on genetic screening because you don't want Downs' Syndrome to be lost from the world, then you are again practicing eugenics. Failure to make a choice is still a choice. Goes right back to my first panel discussion. If Picard chooses not to divert the asteroid that's going to destroy the planet, he has chosen that the people on that planet will die. He cannot escape moral responsibility for his choice by pretending that he didn't make one. We have the great power to make these kinds of decisions, therefore we have the great responsibility to do so wisely, without hiding behind pretense of not choosing. Even banning research into it, or banning the tests that already exist won't help. The possibility exists, therefore even deciding to hide from it is still a choice.
The more interesting question though, beyond when does it become eugenics, is when does it become silly? And how much should be allowed? I am not an advocate of giving parents unlimited control over their children. Society does have a vested interest in how children are raised. Parents should not be allowed to beat their children, chain them in the closet for days at a time as punishment, and there should be a minimum required level of education. And it is in society's interest to enforce these rules. I would even, and I know this part is somewhat controversial and there are good arguments against it, go so far as to say that life-saving medicine should not be withheld from a child based on a parent's religious belief. Of course, I'd also go so far to say that it shouldn't be withheld based on the parents' economic status either, but that's because I'm a Socialist.
Anyway, what I mean by silliness is things that, sure you can make an argument that it's not really harmful, but is it? For instance, should the parents who play Klingons at cons be allowed to splice in genes giving their kid the forehead ridges? Or even going all the way and creating an entire Klingon with double spine, backup heart, and the works? We're not too many decades away from this kind of technology. How about the couple that wants their little girl to have four arms? Blue skin? Purple hair? How much is too much? Surely, there's nothing harmful to the child, or society at large, if she has purple hair. Skin color is a sore subject, especially in this country. What about a Black couple who want their child to be born White? Or green? Or, and this one is already relevant today with advances in surgery, how about the deaf couple who want their baby to be deaf, even though technology exists so the choice is available. What is more important? The disadvantages to the child from not being able to hear, or the disadvantages of not not fitting in to their parents' culture?
OK, enough of that for now. Next up, xenobiology, musical genome, space elevators, and, yes, science fiction.
But for now, I'm off to Mountain View to finish up packing and moving and cleaning and stuff. Yay, I'll finally have all my stuff with me in my new apartment. Now I just gotta figure out where to put it...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From a self-described Socialist
Date: 2007-04-29 06:09 am (UTC)Second, calling Stalin and Mao Socialists is like calling Rome under Claudius and Nero a Republic. The name was there, but the leadership took a piss on what it stood for at any and all opportunities.
Yes, I've read Mein Kamph. AND I have a really nice copy of the Essential Writings of Marx on my bookshelf. So bloody amazing how many people will refuse to read the damn things to understand what they're so against...
Oh, and on eugenics, it was interesting to note that the Federation of Star Trek banned it in most every case aside from greivous illness. Geordi, for example, was blind at birth. And when someone DID tinker with the kids genetics, it pretty much coemned the kid (see Julian Bashir - I think the reason he and Ezri stayed put wasn't really because they were an item, but that their names were mud on their respective homeworlds).
no subject
Date: 2007-04-29 07:43 am (UTC)