The Ethics of Artificial Darwinism et al: is the Part Morally Greater than the Whole? (locked)

2 posts

Flag Post

How exactly has our longevity caused an atrophy of our environment? I cannot see the cause and effect you are claiming here. There is not a corrolary between longer life and a population explosion. The developed world which has these longer projected lifespans also tends to have barrel-like population distributions (a stable population), whereas it is those countries who lack sufficient medical infrastructure, that see a population explosion. Families have more kids precisely because they don’t expect they will all survive to adulthood.

In regards to the future, by killing off the weaker members of our species, be they lesser in faculty of mind or facility of body, it is possible to restore the ecology of the planet and reverse the damage done on a global scale.

How exactly, is killing off the disabled, supposed to be a good thing? Especially as, as you point out, we can utilise our technology to remove this disability. We are removing sentient, self-aware minds for no purpose other than to support a hypothesis with no evidence, that somehow disabled individuals are bad for the planet.

 
Flag Post

The idea of artificial darwinism is a perversion of Darwin’s ideas.
Darwin’s survival of the fitness depends in part of diversity. The diversity of a population helps in the case of an adversity, e.g a disease or a toxin. Resistant ones will live and weak ones die. This is why many [prefix]cide make hard to kill pests (bad use also helps, through).
Now defining what’s “weak” in the human species is the question. This was used to justify racism and the persecution of other minorities (gays, for example). Then comes a nature vs. nurture over the origins of attributes (gays strike again). Like vikaTae said, the “defects” can be fixed now or in a years (genetic engineering and gene therapy look like interesting options).
Edit: i remembered, also with “weak”, people could think about poor people, aka Social Darwinism.