|
|
|
|
|
by something098
404 days ago
|
|
The issue here is that with this approach we have to ask who has to be limited next. Especially if you get older... >>>You can‘t seriously tell me it‘s not extremely unethical for people with huntington‘s disease or cystic fibrosis to have children.
Don't flatter yourself - your genes are basic and ridddled with bad genes. You do not know what time bomb you are carying in your DNA. The solution that you are offering is quite simple - procreate early as possible and die not in old age and voila - there are no issues in more than 99.99% cases. But something tells me that you are already older than healthy monkey and do not plan to live in a tree - your bones are too old for that and thanks to evolution are not meant for that. Evolution of humans in future includes even longer lifespan which naturally comes with children produced at much later age than we do now and that comes with diseases to be dealt with, as that is part of evolution. We do not know much about mutations in DNA - they are never good or bad - they are combinations of something. For example - diabetes type 2 seems to be from genes, that allowed humans to survive hunger for long period of time - are those genes bad, because people are obese nowadays?
As for mentioned diseases - we value other humans not by DNA, but what they are to us. You would sing a different song, when their offspring would have any of such disease and you are in luck and not planning to have any. |
|