Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

nafex - Re: [NAFEX] culling

nafex@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Keith Benson <kgbenson@mindspring.com>
  • To: North American Fruit Explorers <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [NAFEX] culling
  • Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 13:41:26 -0400


Now in all seriousness if you would get over your visceral, personalized response to my statement you might come to realize there are benefits to a society that supports via education the "personal decision" for some people to step out of the gene pool for future benefit of society.
Never happen on anything other than a small scale - there is a reason why every organism strives to reproduce, all of it's ancestors did - regardless of their "fit". Anyone whose ancestors ahd a lackluster desire to reproduce would simply not be here. Sort of the ultimate selection process.
Culling is essentially a process of selecting, it does not imply immediately
exterminating the life that already exists.

No, selecting is the process as you describe. Culling involves removal of individuals, geographically or in terms of deady force. In the vernacular it nost often referes to the later.

There are several diseases that are genetic in nature and are not acquired
through lifestyle or the environment, nor naturally mutating in statistical
significance. These ailments could simply be eliminated from the gene pool,
in terms of future generations, if those carrying the genes opted out of
reproduction.

Lemmie ask you a question. What if said individuals happen to have other outstanding genetic characteristics? They might outweigh the genetic problems no? Tough to decide where the greatest good lies - the human genome is poorly understood and such decisions would be rash at this time. And there is that whole evolutionary drive - tough to buck a few million years of precedence.

Consider this example. Sickle cell anemia and its relationship to malaria. Being heterozygous for sickle cell in much of Africa is a good thing, confering some resistance to malaria, but in N. America, not so (we have very little by way fo malaria infections). SO do we cull folks in this country with the gene, but preserve the folks in Africa? Methinks thou oversimplifies the situation.

In the past that might have been viewed in terms of society as noble, distinguished, and honorable and people in the past found societal support for such decisions. Today, every defect is celebrated as worthy of inclusion in our future breeding stock. That, in essence, is what I am opposed to; some traits are simply better off not passed on to future generations.
Who gets to choose what traits are good or bad? People have tried in the past, they are generally not remembered as kind folks - in fact many are famous.

Keith




  • [NAFEX] culling, fuwa fuwa usagi, 05/29/2003
    • Re: [NAFEX] culling, Keith Benson, 05/29/2003

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page