breeding for beauty/intelligence

JBrown72073 at cs.com JBrown72073 at cs.com
Sat Mar 1 21:54:05 PST 2003



>On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 JBrown72073 at cs.com wrote:
>
>> Maybe we could start on the offspring with a program of feeding them well,
>> keeping them warm, encouraging them and not beating them or locking them
>> up. Once we've gotten the hang of that, then we can go on to more advanced
>> stuff like health care and education.
>
Luke:
>OK, and?

And, the department of the bleedin' obvious. With inequality like this, any additional tools in the hands of the powerful will be used to promote more inequality.


>> By then we'll be old and they won't need or
>> heed our dumb ideas
>
>Hightly speculative, yes, dumb, no.
>
>> about genetically engineering offspring to be pleasant,
>> flat-assed blondes
>
>Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder, but genetic engineering might
>allow us to one day reshape that eye such that it perceives the human body
>as beautiful regardless of its particular form.

Or, depending on the political circumstances, only when it takes a very narrowly defined form. How does this get administered? Is the selection done by the parents or a benevolent government agency? Or perhaps the contract will go to Lockheed. Is it a universal, publicly funded program? Do you choose these characteristics as on a multiple-choice survey or (probably cheaper) are there factory models in the showroom to pick among? Joanna's shopping point is well-taken.


>>that test well.
>
>What seperates Forrest Gump from Joe Sixpack and Joe Sixpack from the
>likes of Da Vinci, Hume, and Einstein isn't merely some irrelevant
>capacity to do well on tests.

But at some point there's a judgment call. Who makes it and how? For example, the fact that you misspelled 'separates' could mean to some that your genome is flawed. Even though you probably have other appealing characteristics--even ones affected by the same genetic sequence that makes you a questionable speller--sorry, bud, it's the end of the road for your kind.

And hey, if it's in the control of men I can take a good guess and what these #$!ers will come up with in their genetically engineered wet dream of the new race of women--smart but not *too* smart, subservient but subtle and flattering about it. Fortunately for those of us in the servant classes, it's likely that much of this is not genetically determined and is therefore out of reach of the engineers.

Oh, you're right, dumb is the wrong word. How about diabolical?

Jenny Brown



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list