> Joseph 1 wrote:
> > I would argue that yes, there are indeed individuals whose genetic
> > contribution to the gene pool would be better off left unmade, just as there
> > are individuals whose genetic contribution would be so valuable that it
> > would constitute a "duty" to the species as a whole to make sure it was
> > passed to further generations. But the criteria would be physical and
> > mental, not ethnic.
If it is genetically valuable, it *will* be passed on (bar chance catastrophes), by definition. Or were you using another definition of "valuable"?
You make many implicit assumptions as to values.
"better off" -- better TO WHO'S INTEREST? Presumably not the genes being removed from the gene pool. "valuable" -- valuable TO WHO? For WHAT PURPOSE? "duty" -- to the species as a whole. what makes you think that there is such a duty? What is the species you are talking about? The human species? But that is merely a range of genes, some of which are closely related to the reader or author of this document, and some of which are not closely related, and some of which are distantly related (other primates). Which group deserves duty? Why? What are you assuming?