Would it not be a survival advantage? Would it not be considered evolution?
2006-07-04 00:41:45 · 17 answers · asked by Engineer Smurf 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Homo sapiens are a part of nature and a product of it. Any act we perform is natural.
2006-07-04 01:15:40 · update #1
Convenience? Sure, I'll go with that, but it doesn't preclude evolution. A change through evolution need only be an advantage, not a neccesity. I would say you have answered the primary question in the affirmative
2006-07-04 01:35:15 · update #2
Only if God OR every person living and who has lived can agree on a single definition of "hereditary disability."
Anything outside of that would be "convenience," not evolution
2006-07-04 01:15:59 · answer #1 · answered by 4999_Basque 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This question covers a lot of very controversial topics. It would not be evolution in the short period of time, but it would be given a 500 years. I would never suggest anything like that on the regular basis, but euthanasia as an act of mercy, on the patient's request after a long consideration and psychiatric evaluation and counseling, would be the way to go. People are against euthanasia because they were never in the position not to be able to move, and live normally. I was in bad for only 1.5 month, and if they did not drug me with all kinds of medication, I would have chosen to end it. Imagine living like that for ever. That is unmerciful, to force someone to live like that.
2006-07-18 12:56:16 · answer #2 · answered by sheba 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
While I don't offer this science fiction author as an authority, take a look at Anne McCaffrey's "The Ship Who Sang" and other similar books in this series. The world she describes came up with an innovative way to handle "onerous" hereditary disabilities and one which I like much more than euthanasia.
2006-07-16 13:14:30 · answer #3 · answered by m'bones23 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is a moot point. Yes we could genetically engineer man to have superior genetic qualities, but to what end?
As far as i'm concerned man is following the footsteps of the dinosaur. I don't see any advantage to altering man as man is set on a self-destructive course.
We are mis-treating our world and our fellow man, and one or both of these factors will be our demise.
We are taking steps daily to ensure that our environment will not be able to survive in the long run.
2006-07-19 14:50:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
u dont know what evolution is do u? Euthanizing someone would be murder acted out by a person, evolution would be natures selection and nothing to do with humans or our choices.
2006-07-04 08:12:33 · answer #5 · answered by bobatemydog 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If humanity across the globe develops a compulsion to kill (or prevent from ever living, i.e., selective abortions) a person who has a proven genetic flaw, we will become monsters. It would not be considered evolution, it would be de-volution; as we would have lost our ability to empathize.
2006-07-04 07:46:53 · answer #6 · answered by Iamnotarobot (former believer) 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This sick unconscionable suggestion is not an original idea. It is exactly what the social Darwinist movement post world war one purported to do. It was a precursor to the Holocaust. I think idiots who advocate this crap should be euthanized.
2006-07-19 02:29:05 · answer #7 · answered by ValleyViolet 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Compulsion comes from mental make up.Evolution comes by natural selection by which it means genetic and eugenic consideration before mating (marriage)eliminate some diseases from occuring.
2006-07-04 07:48:09 · answer #8 · answered by J.SWAMY I ఇ జ స్వామి 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Murdering disabled would not be evolution, it would be evil personified. Intelligent people would not consider this idea for a second.
2006-07-17 14:54:24 · answer #9 · answered by shepherd 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, that's called eugenics. It would be unnatural, it is wrong for us to try and alter the course of natural evolution.
2006-07-04 08:08:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋