At 08:17 PM 11/19/1998 -0600, you wrote:
>John Foster wrote:
>
>> It would not be necessary to invoke a case for eugenics at all it it did not
>> exist both in human culture nor in other species. For instance, altruism in
>> chimpanzee's is common between sympatric relations, as it is in sympatric
>> human relations, but not as common as the deliberate selection for superior
>> traits in animal husbandry. My main point here is that sociobiology provides
>> many examples of various 'ethical constructs' in terms of analogy. These
>> examples unveil a field of values apon which many ethical theorists can cast
>> pebbles, rationalizing a basis of demonstration.
>
>Perhaps I am just ignorant, but I have a hard time understanding what you mean
>here. Can you be more clear?

What I mean here is that 'altruism' is synonymous with generosity, kindness,
mutual aid, compassion, and is an expression of respect for the other which
confers no direct benefits for the altruistic person or animal.
.
>
>[snip examples] Though I am not a biologist, from what I've read, altruistic
>behavior is actually quite common in the animal world. But perhaps it is a
>problem of definition. I believe evolutionary biologists describe as
"altruistic"
>any behavior which benefits another individual, yet is (potentially)
>dis-advantageous the the individual exhibiting the behavior. Described
this way,
>altruism is -- apparently -- quite common. Two different types of altruism
>exist. Kin altruism (that is altruism directed at biologically related
>individuals, i.e. parent-child, etc.), and reciprocal altruism. A great many
>species exhibit kin altruism. Fewer, but still a surprising number, exhibit
>reciprocal altruism.

I think this is very true. Kinship and reciprocal altruism as you describe
them are what - I agree is - meant by doing something for others without the
expectation of a reward. How would this work for reciprocal altruism? You
know it is very odd but the works that have been devoted to altruism such as
"Mutual Aid" by Kropotkin, and writings by some Anarchists such as Tolstoy,
Ghandi and Proudhon, for instance seem to be radical reorganizations of the
power relations between people who have very little power due to being
exploited by those who lack altruism.

>> I don't see any reason for ruling out an approach that would
>> culminate in eugenics: we breed animals and plants all the time for
>> qualities, and humans in the past possessed slaves, bred slaves, and men
>> used property rights to possess preferred women or vice versa women used
>> their rights to possess men, not because of mutual love or respect but
>> because of the desire to possess 'superior' qualities in or through them to
>> confer competitive advantage.
>
>I don't see how we always get back to eugenics so fast. Eugenics is a
possibility
>is practically any moral system, I will assert. The risk of justifying
eugenics
>is not unique to evolutionary ethics. Also, are we going to a reject a theory
>just because we don't like one of its potential implications? Such is
dangerous
>thinking.

Yes but a theory may explain a phenomena. If there are ways of reducing the
sort of problems that are associated with genetic engineering technologies
such as the use of farm animals for xenografts [the growing of new body
parts for humans], the use of farm animals to produce pharmacueticals in
milk and to use farm animals to produce only food in the supermarket, then
the only real purposes for farm animals is to feed, clothe and provide
medicines for humans, then we should actually look at colonizing another
planet and using chemo-autotrophs to produce carbohydrates. I think that if
farm animals are seen just as units of production, and fields of carrots as
materials to be supplied to the food processing industry, then in the next
several decades, re-engineering farm animals and plants evolved in the
past, on the basis of pure efficiency and profit or to relieve only
suffering in humans, we will need to find another place to carry on our
experiments, because the food supply will increase and mortality rates at
infancy will decline, leaving high recruitment rates will culminate in the
full utilization of all potential primary production on earth to feed the
ever expanding population. Genetic engineering is seen in this case as a
means to avoid the use of pesticides, improve crop yields and improve
disease resistance. Who could argue against this? Only one scenario if
things turn out well.

Is there a point where animal life must be considered sacred and
unexploitable and worthy of moral consideration? Is there a lesson to
learned from ethics which take a perspective developed from an evolutionary
sense? It appearsthat much of genetic technology brings up the need to look
at the possibility that there are serious ethical problems shaping up. If we
are prepared to insert the genes for a pig into a sheep or carrot, are we
then we are really prepared to do anything to other life? Is pain and
suffering then really the only criteria to be used to assess whether the
experiment is ethically a good thing. Because the consequences may be so
dramatic in the end if the organism is successful, that we may not be able
to stop the technology from doing even more. For instance, who will control
the technology? Will it be too expensive for poor people to afford and will
the disadvantaged in society be systematically selected against? The real
problem that is shaping up is that if the immune system of an animal is made
to become extremely resilient through genetic engineering, it may directly
result in a very strong or adverse form of a pathogen to be developed that
if it were to escape into wild populations of similarly related animals, the
pathogen or super bacteria would literally destroy the entire population or
even entire genera of animals or plants. This is the problem with messing
around with the genetics of animals and plants is the genetic improvement to
increase resistance to common diseases ends up therefore in the selection
for the very most virulent forms of the virus or pathogen. This is a deep
ethical issue, not whether we should be taking our ethical lessons from
Darwin or Wilson, even if they were extremely brilliant and productive
scientists, but what are the criteria that we need to apply to ethical
research in the field of genetic engineering. It is obvious that pain and
suffering of the test animals is not the only criteria, but simply a very
simple straightforward one. Farm animals have natural rights to be in the
sunlight, to be able to use the legs and crow in the morning on a fence
post. Research most look at the ecological and immunological consequences of
genetic engineering. For example look what happened when Italian Bees mated
with native bees in Brazil some ten years ago. The result was creation of a
strain of killer bees. This is not only possible with gene additions,
replacement, and splicing it is inevitable.

Ethicists and theologians have often wondered whether there is any good in
pathogens like the AIDS virus, or malaria. Well there certainly is some good
to these pathogens in nature, if you believe in evolutionary genetics. The
answer is quite simple I think. If there were no pathogens in nature that
were lethal, then the human species would not need an immune system. Since
the immune system is necessary for very many reasons besides defending
against viruses and bacteria, an effective immune system will be selected
for in humans who are exposed to pathogens and environmental or internal
cellular conditions which are potentially lethal. The first possible reason
why life on this planet needed an immune system was to protect the organism
from Ultraviolet light. The immune system in mammals and all animals is a
result of the exchange of chromosomes between sexes. Without sexual
reproduction there would be no immunity to pathogens, and therefore there
would only be very short lived and very small sized species that reproduce
asexually. Only very short lived species can reproduce asexually and they
often do not need an immune system. I don't mean here vegetative
reproduction that is found in higher plants, but sexual reproduction. I
would speculate that if the lessons that can be learned from evolutionary
biology are valid, then the lesson is very clear, maintain natural gene
flows and pools through maintaining the natural genetic diversity of all
genomes, and let animals be animals in the wild. This is the best place to
have species evolve. Or at least use simple Mendelian genetics do the
selecting on the farm. Genetic engineering that utilizes splicing of genes
from different species carries attendent risks that can never be predicted,
but the chances are that the natural immunity to pathogens may be lost
completely in native populations of plants and animals- super pathogens
could be a very significant problem in the future. It may be correct in
stating that evolutionary biology cannot even provide any advise here since
animals and plants are not capable of interbreeding outside the species
[well there are a few exceptions - llamas and vicunas - horses and donkeys].
Talk about scary.

 
>> I think if biology teaches us anything it teaches us the interdependence of
>> all things. Those species which appear to survive are the "functional
>> groups" or guilds that have adapted to other species and co-evolved
>> mechanisms to enhance the survival of both species.
>
>As I said, I am not a biologist, but from what I understand of Dawkins, he
would
>vigorously disagree with much of what you wrote there. The unit, he
argues, which
>is selected for survival is not the species, or even the individual, but the
>gene. The genes which survive are those that have the most successful survival
>strategy. Co-operation and even the sacrifice of a given individual is often a
>very successful survival strategy. Thus it has been extensively selected for.
>
>[snip rest]
>
>
>
        



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%