Why is social engineering considered OK but genetic engineering is not?

Question

Smacking children to condition their behaviour when very young is a practise that dates back to egyptian times at least, and probably much earlier since apes are known to discipline their children with the odd cuff now and then. This is a behaviour that has obviously worked for thousands of years, since humans have flourished, developed agriculture, language, civilisation etc. It might be considered a 'natural' form of behaviour. No-one invented it, it just evolved to fit a need.

I am not aware that any unbiased scientific study has ever been performed with appropriate controls to quantitatively measure the effects of smacking as a form of discipline compared with the no-smacking approach. Whereas genetic engineering is based on years of hard scientific research.

Yet the very same people who are most vocal about the harm that smacking causes are often the same people that say you shouldn't mess with plant genetics to create GM foods. Why then is it OK to mess with society?

I'd like to point out that my main aim here is to make people think.

sovereign_carrie, you've given a good answer, but you're incorrect to say that anti-smacking advocates and lobbyists aren't trying to perform social engineering whereas climate change lobbyists are. (Perhaps we are simply quibbling over definitions here). Both are groups who believe we need to change our behaviour in order to improve or save our world. The difference is that huge amounts of scientific research has been carried out on climate change whereas anti-smacking - where's the research? Where are the numbers?

People who lobby for a total ban on smacking are advocating an uncontrolled social experiment on a vast scale, the effects of which may take years to become apparent. Yet it is often the case in my experience that there is a substantial intersection between these people and the group of people who are opposed to genetic experimentation on plant organisms even under controlled conditions.

Futher to this, I have managed to find links to papers analysing the effects of the ban on smacking that has been in force in Sweden since 1979.

The most prominent anti-smacking researcher I have identified is Dr Joan Durrant. Here is a paper she published through 'Save The Children':

http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/pdfs/GenerationwithoutSmacking.pdf

However, she has been accused of bias by other researchers:

http://www.nkmr.org/english/sweden_data_does_not_support_success_claims.htm
http://www.nkmr.org/english/differentiating_evidence_from_advocacy.htm

I have had a brief skim through Dr Durrant's paper. My main critique is that it presents figures showing falling incidence of child abuse since the ban and simply assumes a causal link between this and the smacking ban. I did not see comparisons between Sweden and other western democracies. The trouble is that other nordic countries have also instituted smacking bans (otherwise they might have been useful controls).

By the way I am British and thus speaking from a British perspective.

The debate in Britain has recently been stirred up by this:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/20092006/344/smacking-acceptable-say-parents.html

Answer 1

You seem to have your definition of social engineering slightly off kilter. Social engineering doesn't really apply to disciplinary behavior, more it applies to political campaigns and manipulation of an individual to divulge sensitive information. Al Gore's sky is falling end of the world film is an example of social engineering. He's trying to present what he believes as true to get more of the population to believe it's true. Mud slinging campaigns by elected officials during election year is an example of social engineering. Marketing of major brands and chains is also social engineering.

Behavioral correction and corporal punishment, such as you are exampling, is a very different field. To equate discipline as social engineering and compare it to genetic engineering is like asking if the number 5 is married. It doesn't work. It seems like you are trying to oversimplify the issue. If I'm totally off in how I'm understanding your question, I apologize now. I am going to address it in two parts.

Now, enough nit picking.

When it comes to behavioral correction, I firmly support a spanking when appropriate and when the child is old enough to understand what they did wrong and why it is wrong. To be perfectly honest, based on my personal experience and speaking with others, corporal punishment has been less damaging to them than the manipulative psychological punishments and battles which parents now engage in because of "Oh my god, you can't hit your child." As an example;

I don't dislike my dad for spanking me. I damn well deserved it every time I received a spanking. I dislike him because he took every advantage to psychologically manipulate and harm me that he possibly could. He tried to make me feel worthless, invaluable and as though I was a failure. I know these things aren't true. My current situation, employment, relationship, achievements, and so forth, reflect that I am NOT worthless, invaluable or a failure. But in knowing that I will never live up to my dad's impossible standards, I'll take brief physical pain over psychological pain any day, thank you very much.

I could continue forever on the topic of discipline and psychological warfare, but I think the above effectively puts out there my personal belief on the topic.

Genetic engineering is quite different than smacking a kid, and is almost too broad of a field to address concisely. When you alter the genetics of a plant, we don't inherently know what the end result will be and how it will affect an individual. We're tampering with something that has been pre-established and that has evolved over thousands of years. This is only one branch of genetic engineering. You are aware that genetic engineering was used to create today's insulin, correct?

My problem with genetic engineering is when you apply it to a human. I don't care if you engineer fruit, vegetables, grain, etc, have fun with it. We have now the ability to alter the genetics of an embryo, and this is already taking place. Parents are being allowed to select the gender of their children here in Florida. Ok, so we've established this. What next? What regulations are going to be in place to prevent parents from saying, ok, I want this in my child. I want that in my child. I want my child to have red hair. Pick anything that's controlled by genetics. Is it really worth the experiment to find out the results of genetic testing on humans? Is it worth creating an imbalance as such that the rich can custom tailor their child, and the poor just get what their bodies give them?

Without further information and direction as to what your point is and without further clarification and narrowing the scope of some issues you touch on, this is really all I can say and as far as I really feel like touching on the subject. I could write essay after essay on multiple aspects of every topic touched on and carry on for hours in an incessant tirade, but I'm trying to keep it brief for the sake of room.

Edit;


Ok, NOW I can delve a little deeper. I still see it as not so much social engineering as it is psychological warfare. From my knowledge, most of the lobbyists are psychiatrists, therapists, etc, that have a “Spare the rod, spoil the child” approach. Beyond banning it from schools, I haven’t seen that much actual progress or lobbying. This is taken up on a city by city basis. There is no federal regulation saying "You cannot spank children in a school." Alot of schools in the mid west still practice corporal punishment.

CPS and the police, in most circumstances, aren’t going to take a child out of an otherwise suitable home because of a spanking. The child has to show signs of abuse, such as bruises, scars, welts, broken bones, etc. The definition of physical child abuse is an injury sustained from hitting, slapping, pushing, shaking, burning, etc. Obviously, some of these are going to cause a clear and apparent injury, such as burning. But a simple spanking, a slap for mouthing off, etc, does NOT meet the definition of abuse as put forward by the CPS and anti-abuse advocates. I’ll try to clarify with an example.

Say, you slap your child and he/she falls and cuts his head. An injury has been sustained that will possibly require medical treatment. This may possibly be considered abuse if it can be substantiated that the parent DID hit the child and the child fell DIRECTLY as a result of the parent. Leaving their cheek red isn’t considered an injury. No medical treatment has to be applied other than for a bruised ego.

Another example. Your child mouths off, steals something, and you give them a simple spanking. They call the cops. Cops come out, take a look around, see your child isn’t bleeding and nothing is broken, they are going to talk to the parent, then the child, and pretty much tell the child “Stop wasting our time and resources.”. Trust me. I know this one from personal experience.

In most cases, it’s actually pretty hard to get your child taken away from you for abuse. There are certain criteria which the CPS looks for when they are determining if abuse has or is occurring. If you don’t meet something like 80% of the criteria, most of the time they will NOT take the child. CPS is already severely overworked and underpaid.

I’ll keep an eye on this discussion and add if I notice anything else to remark on. By the way, are you from the United States or an another country? I'm relaying based purely on information I have available which directly relates to the United States. I don't know nor will pretend to know about other countries and what they deem as abuse.

Edit 2;

I wouldn't mind discussing this further, though it's getting a bit lengthy for Y! Answers. I'm reviewing the links you posted currently, so I can't comment yet. I can be contacted on Yahoo IM using my display name here (sovereign_carrie) or by email at [e-mail] if you're interested in tossing around some ideas.

Answer 2

Genetic engineering concerning food and social engineering are two completely different topics, that are by no means related. Social engineering only works to a certain extent because our genetics do dictate in way how we will respond to that engineering, and there are fail safes in all of us to insure our continued survival. Genetic engineering in foos has to do with what we put in our bodies, and if it's really all that safe to eat, and no, there hasn't been any real hard evidence to say that it's ok. There aer results saying it's ok in the shirt term, but not the long term. And that's just with about how our bodies will handle the food, not the results it'll have on the ecosystem (and then in turn, on us). Also, we have no way of knowing how the genetic manipulation of plants will naturally mutate in the future. I think that there's this underlying, subconcious belief that if we leave things to evolve naturally, then it won't turn into something bad for us, but if we are manioulating it to get what we want, and then it randomnly mutates, or nature mutates something created by good ole homo sapiens, there's a greater fear that because we messed with it and the process, that it's more likely to turn ill (a favorite sci fi horro movie theme).Genetic engineering is just so new, that we really don't know the fulle ffects and ramifications of it all, and there are no long term studies, on top of that there are conflicting short term studies. But everything is interconnected, and we don't knowhow manipulating one thing, will affect everything else (Butterfly Effect - yes, actual scientific term, not just a movie :) )

Answer 3

Hmm i do no longer think of so. I think of that Christians are not monolithic of their ideals, and that there is various variety of opinion. i've got constantly supported genetic engineering and transhumanism as i've got self belief in its means for the progression of the human race. to boot, we've been changing organisms for our own earnings for 1000's of years with the aid of selectively breeding animals and flora: ever seen a wild banana? they are pitifully small and comprise a super type of seeds. Why ought to rushing up the approach be incorrect?

Answer 4

Social engineering is a tool that nations have been doing for years... secret or otherwise. I don't think we would have survived without it. Even the natives do it maybe but using different terms.

Social engineering is interveening into the affiars of man; genetic engineering is considered by some to be interfearing into the affairs of God.

Answer 5

We'll just smack you around for a little while..... you can let us know if it worked after.
A young child does not associate smacking or spanking with a crime.

Answer 6

Cuz' it's "natural" to us now.