The Lives to Come: the Genetic Revolution and Human Possibilities [Paperback]

The Genetic Revolution and Human Possibilities by Philip Kitcher, he takes a shot at several aspects of eugenics without ever really coming to grips empirically with the data, but does a fair job of bringing forth relevant issues that need to be debated from all perspectives. Kitcher sounds the alarm with regards to disability activists who are fearful that terminating pregnancies because of genetic disease will "worsen the plight of those who are born with conditions, both through the withdrawal of support and through loss of respect." As I noted earlier, this is absurd, as society is marching towards ever greater empathy and concern for others, while improving human chances of a life free of disease. The polio vaccine did not bring about less support or empathy, and there is no evidence that genetic screening and aborting children who will have little chance of a meaningful life will do so either. So we must dismiss such concerns without some evidence to the contrary. Kitcher supports what he calls laissez-faire eugenics (personal eugenics henceforth) while dismissing utopian eugenics (social eugenics henceforth) as going too far. His objection is simply with social eugenics, asking what traits would be enhanced? I would argue that intelligence, being the only trait humans are noted for, one that separates us from other creatures, while all other traits are part of the limbic system and are common to other animals, that we can select intelligence as the one trait worth selecting for. Free of disease, the human that has a higher intelligence has been shown to be on average more moral, more responsible, freer of violent action, and will be more productive resulting in making more resources available for the betterment of all people. Kitcher points out that the most money spent on health care in the US is used to treat people in the last 18 months of life. It would seem that this will only become more of a financial burden on society, and we must have a population that is very productive in the short time allotted for production rather than benefiting from shared resources. That is, people in the future may only work about one-third of their natural lives. The majority must become more productive in order to meet the demands of an ever aging population. He does feel strongly that children that would be born into the world with little chance of hope should be aborted, and that this shows the greatest respect for human life. And I have to agree with him that even those who believe that humans have souls, abortion would only free the soul from a physical body that has little chance at a meaningful life, and may not even be capable of finding salvation because of a lack of cognition. Abortion it would seem would save such a soul from eternal damnation and would be the only humane thing to do. After all, God has given all humans free will according to evangelical Christians, and a severely retarded person could not have the required faith or understanding to meet the requirements for salvation. How could any Christian send a child to damnation, rather than sparing their souls? (See Nonbelief & Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God by T.M. Drange for an in-depth analysis of these contradictions.) I would take issue with Kitchner's warning that having a lot of smart people would not make a better world. He states, " Enhancing some human capacities, such as our ability to resist infectious diseases, might benefit us all. But a widespread practice of improving on nature--say, by increasing our cognitive powers--could easily have unhappy consequences. A future in which people are frustrated because they cannot lead lives consonant with their abilities is unattractive; one in which society is planned to contain people with enhanced abilities, the alphas, and diminished capacities, the epsilons, is morally repugnant." I agree that a wide gap in intelligence may be morally repugnant, but that is exactly what we have now! Sub-Saharan African's with an average IQ of 70, 85 in the US, Caucasian's with 103, Asian's with 106 and Jew's with 117. Has this not caused the greatest harm of all? Poverty, the Holocaust, Rampant AIDS and brutality in Africa, are all caused to one degree or another because of low IQs or a radical disparity in IQs. So if all people are raised to a high level of IQ, with a shrinking standard deviation, would we not all be better off? It seems to me we would. And as to the argument that we would have a lot of frustrated smart people, because they couldn't find meaningful work, I say bunk. Just because one is intelligent does not mean you cannot enjoy more physical forms of labor. I know an awful lot of very intelligent people who preferred not going to college in favor of going into the trades, getting married, or just enjoying life. A high intellect has a lot more benefit than just being a professor or a doctor, as Arthur Jensen has pointed out. It makes all aspects of life better. So unless there is evidence that intelligent people always prefer one life style over another, I would have to say there is no basis for this argument. Some of the happiest times I have had is when I worked at a grocery store, packing, stocking, and running about. I enjoyed packing a bag quickly and with skill, and I liked the camaraderie. In no way was I frustrated, I preferred it to going to school. The money I made for girls, cars, getting into mischief, dancing (I was going with an older girl who got me into bars) were all more appealing than more scholarly pursuits. For Kitcher to show that a society of high intelligent people would be unhappy, he would have to show that a society of Jews are less happy than Asians, Asians are less happy than Caucasians, and Caucasians are less happy than Africans. Finally, Kitcher states that "If people at high risk for certain diseases become uninsurable and unemployable, then society will indeed contain a new class with many of the attributes that cause stigmatization: These people will be poor, they will not work, they will be deprived of other opportunities, they may come to have a higher crime rate. Just as failure to solve the problems of insurance coverage echoes in the context of employment decisions, so too inability to prevent either of the tangible forms of genetic discrimination will produce new pariahs." Thus he warns against genetic disclosure, a fairly common argument for keeping genetic information out of the hands of employers, insurance companies, etc. I have some sympathy for this right to privacy, but it has in the past been abused in the other direction, when employers have been denied the opportunity to test employees for levels of intelligence because blacks did so poorly. So I ask, am I to be denied the right to present to an employer (or a mate) my list of credentials as to why I should be accepted, including: intelligence, conscientiousness, morality, good health, etc? What would prevent me from showing my good genes about, just like people show off their other talents and attributes for personal gain? Is the government going to deny me access to my own genetic information, or make it illegal for me to divulge it? These are all real problems and I would submit that it would be far less oppressive to let people compete as they do now, and try to cure or reduce genetic defects through eugenics rather than embrace authoritarianism in defense of the disabled. Such a world would lack the very freedom that makes life worth living.

This book spends an equal amount of time explaining how genetic practices work - as it does discussing the moral implications of them; which i find nice. If you already fully understand your biology though - then the frist half might be a bore for you.