"In Defense of Dangerous Ideas"

[1951Campbell]

C'mon, all you Chicago folks, this was in the Sun-Times

BY STEVEN PINKER
Do women, on average, have a different profile of aptitudes and emotions than men?

Were the events in the Bible fictitious -- not just the miracles, but those involving kings and empires?

Has the state of the environment improved in the last 50 years?

Did Native Americans engage in genocide and despoil the landscape?

Do men have an innate tendency to rape?

Did the crime rate go down in the 1990s because two decades earlier poor women aborted children who would have been prone to violence?

Are suicide terrorists well-educated, mentally healthy and morally driven?

Would the incidence of rape go down if prostitution were legalized?

Do African-American men have higher levels of testosterone, on average, than white men?

Is morality just a product of the evolution of our brains, with no inherent reality?

Would society be better off if heroin and cocaine were legalized?

Is homosexuality the symptom of an infectious disease?

Would it be consistent with our moral principles to give parents the option of euthanizing newborns with birth defects that would consign them to a life of pain and disability?

Do parents have any effect on the character or intelligence of their children?

Have religions killed a greater proportion of people than Nazism?

Would damage from terrorism be reduced if the police could torture suspects in special circumstances?

Would Africa have a better chance of rising out of poverty if it hosted more polluting industries or accepted Europe's nuclear waste?

Is the average intelligence of Western nations declining because duller people are having more children than smarter people?

Would unwanted children be better off if there were a market in adoption rights, with babies going to the highest bidder?

Would lives be saved if we instituted a free market in organs for transplantation?

Should people have the right to clone themselves, or enhance the genetic traits of their children?

Perhaps you can feel your blood pressure rise as you read these questions. Perhaps you are appalled that people can so much as think such things. Perhaps you think less of me for bringing them up. These are dangerous ideas -- ideas that are denounced not because they are self-evidently false, nor because they advocate harmful action, but because they are thought to corrode the prevailing moral order.


Think about it
By "dangerous ideas" I don't have in mind harmful technologies, like those behind weapons of mass destruction, or evil ideologies, like those of racist, fascist or other fanatical cults. I have in mind statements of fact or policy that are defended with evidence and argument by serious scientists and thinkers but which are felt to challenge the collective decency of an age. The ideas listed above, and the moral panic that each one of them has incited during the past quarter century, are examples. Writers who have raised ideas like these have been vilified, censored, fired, threatened and in some cases physically assaulted.
Every era has its dangerous ideas. For millennia, the monotheistic religions have persecuted countless heresies, together with nuisances from science such as geocentrism, biblical archeology, and the theory of evolution. We can be thankful that the punishments have changed from torture and mutilation to the canceling of grants and the writing of vituperative reviews. But intellectual intimidation, whether by sword or by pen, inevitably shapes the ideas that are taken seriously in a given era, and the rear-view mirror of history presents us with a warning.

Time and again, people have invested factual claims with ethical implications that today look ludicrous. The fear that the structure of our solar system has grave moral consequences is a venerable example, and the foisting of "intelligent design" on biology students is a contemporary one. These travesties should lead us to ask whether the contemporary intellectual mainstream might be entertaining similar moral delusions. Are we enraged by our own infidels and heretics whom history may some day vindicate?


Unsettling possibilities
Dangerous ideas are likely to confront us at an increasing rate and we are ill equipped to deal with them. When done right, science (together with other truth-seeking institutions, such as history and journalism) characterizes the world as it is, without regard to whose feelings get hurt. Science in particular has always been a source of heresy, and today the galloping advances in touchy areas like genetics, evolution and the environment sciences are bound to throw unsettling possibilities at us. Moreover, the rise of globalization and the Internet are allowing heretics to find one another and work around the barriers of traditional media and academic journals. I also suspect that a change in generational sensibilities will hasten the process. The term "political correctness" captures the 1960s conception of moral rectitude that we baby boomers brought with us as we took over academia, journalism and government. In my experience, today's students -- black and white, male and female -- are bewildered by the idea, common among their parents, that certain scientific opinions are immoral or certain questions too hot to handle.
What makes an idea "dangerous"? One factor is an imaginable train of events in which acceptance of the idea could lead to an outcome recognized as harmful. In religious societies, the fear is that if people ever stopped believing in the literal truth of the Bible they would also stop believing in the authority of its moral commandments. That is, if today people dismiss the part about God creating the Earth in six days, tomorrow they'll dismiss the part about "Thou shalt not kill." In progressive circles, the fear is that if people ever were to acknowledge any differences between races, sexes or individuals, they would feel justified in discrimination or oppression. Other dangerous ideas set off fears that people will neglect or abuse their children, become indifferent to the environment, devalue human life, accept violence and prematurely resign themselves to social problems that could be solved with sufficient commitment and optimism.

All these outcomes, needless to say, would be deplorable. But none of them actually follows from the supposedly dangerous idea. Even if it turns out, for instance, that groups of people are different in their averages, the overlap is certainly so great that it would be irrational and unfair to discriminate against individuals on that basis. Likewise, even if it turns out that parents don't have the power to shape their children's personalities, it would be wrong on grounds of simple human decency to abuse or neglect one's children. And if currently popular ideas about how to improve the environment are shown to be ineffective, it only highlights the need to know what would be effective.

Rest of article here:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/469317,CST-CONT-danger15.article

[gbergman]

Interesting

[maurice]

I own 2 books by Steven Pinker and highly recommend his work. He's a psych professor at Harvard with an evolutionary approach, and he likes to write about how the mind works and especially sexual differences. He also occasionally writes for The New Republic. His stuff is extremely hard-science-based and attempts to explain or debunk what he calls cultural "taboos" (aka PC bullshit).

Pinker got his panties in a bunch over this sort of thing, because the president of Harvard got shown the door for daring to express the scientifically sound but un-PC notion that maybe, just maybe women have different academic proficiencies than men.

[Prope]

The authors of Freakanomics (for the life of me can't remember their names/too lazy to look it up) were the ones that brought up the idea of the crime rate going down because of abortion.

That is a highly interesting read. Sadly, the majority of these questions can not be asked.

[samram]

The authors of Freakanomics (for the life of me can't remember their names/too lazy to look it up) were the ones that brought up the idea of the crime rate going down because of abortion.

That is a highly interesting read. Sadly, the majority of these questions can not be asked.

Steve Leavitt, IIRC.

I like this question here:


Would lives be saved if we instituted a free market in organs for transplantation?

[Prope]

This one kind of scares me....

Would unwanted children be better off if there were a market in adoption rights, with babies going to the highest bidder?

[Dan Mega]

Is homosexuality the symptom of an infectious disease?

I found this (http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/68/gay_or_straight) to be pretty interesting. Creating gay rats simply with an injection? Is it chemical? Or is it truly in the genes?

Beats me.

[maurice]

There is some evidence that homosexuality is caused by testosterone levels in the womb, which vary depending on the mother and # of pregnancies.

[1951Campbell]

I will dare to answer weighty ethical questions in 50 words or less. :D To wit:

Do women, on average, have a different profile of aptitudes and emotions than men? Yes.

Were the events in the Bible fictitious -- not just the miracles, but those involving kings and empires? The events probably happened, but were embellished, sort of like in, say, Herodotus.

Has the state of the environment improved in the last 50 years? Yes.

Did Native Americans engage in genocide and despoil the landscape? Genocide yes, despoil the landscape not really, there weren't that many of them.

Do men have an innate tendency to rape? No.

Did the crime rate go down in the 1990s because two decades earlier poor women aborted children who would have been prone to violence? Probably.

Are suicide terrorists well-educated, mentally healthy and morally driven? Some of them.

Would the incidence of rape go down if prostitution were legalized? Probably not.

Do African-American men have higher levels of testosterone, on average, than white men? Probably not.

Is morality just a product of the evolution of our brains, with no inherent reality? No.

Would society be better off if heroin and cocaine were legalized? Yes.

Is homosexuality the symptom of an infectious disease? No.

Would it be consistent with our moral principles to give parents the option of euthanizing newborns with birth defects that would consign them to a life of pain and disability? No.

Do parents have any effect on the character or intelligence of their children? Yes.

Have religions killed a greater proportion of people than Nazism? Since the inception of religion? Yes. From 1933-1945? The Nazis killed way more.

Would damage from terrorism be reduced if the police could torture suspects in special circumstances? No.

Would Africa have a better chance of rising out of poverty if it hosted more polluting industries or accepted Europe's nuclear waste? Yes.

Is the average intelligence of Western nations declining because duller people are having more children than smarter people? Yes.

Would unwanted children be better off if there were a market in adoption rights, with babies going to the highest bidder? Yes.

Would lives be saved if we instituted a free market in organs for transplantation? Yes.

Should people have the right to clone themselves, or enhance the genetic traits of their children? Yes.

[CaptainBallz]

Would unwanted children be better off if there were a market in adoption rights, with babies going to the highest bidder? Yes.

Should people have the right to clone themselves, or enhance the genetic traits of their children? Yes.

You're a sick, twisted man...

[maurice]

Do women, on average, have a different profile of aptitudes and emotions than men? Obviously. This is not really open to debate.

Were the events in the Bible fictitious -- not just the miracles, but those involving kings and empires? Most of them. Only an idiot would claim that there was no such thing as Egyptian Kings and the Roman Empire.

Has the state of the environment improved in the last 50 years? Locally but not globally.

Did Native Americans engage in genocide and despoil the landscape? Sure, though not in the 20th Century sense.

Do men have an innate tendency to rape? Yes.

Did the crime rate go down in the 1990s because two decades earlier poor women aborted children who would have been prone to violence? Yes.

Are suicide terrorists well-educated, mentally healthy and morally driven? Some of them are well-educated. I suspect that all of them are depressed.

Would the incidence of rape go down if prostitution were legalized? No.

Do African-American men have higher levels of testosterone, on average, than white men? I have no idea.

Is morality just a product of the evolution of our brains, with no inherent reality? Yes.

Would society be better off if heroin and cocaine were legalized? Yes.

Is homosexuality the symptom of an infectious disease? No.

Would it be consistent with our moral principles to give parents the option of euthanizing newborns with birth defects that would consign them to a life of pain and disability? No. You shouldn't wait that long.

Do parents have any effect on the character or intelligence of their children? Yes. They're the primary factor, providing genes, womb environment, and (in most cases) early childhood nutrition, etc.

Have religions killed a greater proportion of people than Nazism? By far.

Would damage from terrorism be reduced if the police could torture suspects in special circumstances? No. Local police and the federal government torture people all the time, and it doesn't make us any safer. On the contrary.

Would Africa have a better chance of rising out of poverty if it hosted more polluting industries or accepted Europe's nuclear waste? Yes.

Is the average intelligence of Western nations declining because duller people are having more children than smarter people? I don't even know whether the premise is true.

Would unwanted children be better off if there were a market in adoption rights, with babies going to the highest bidder? No.

Would lives be saved if we instituted a free market in organs for transplantation? Probably.

Should people have the right to clone themselves, or enhance the genetic traits of their children? No, not a legal "right." These things probably should be allowed, but they'd need to be closely regulated.

[TeeDeeGee]

You're a sick, twisted man...

http://genomics.unc.edu/cgf/images/gattaca.jpg

[Myrtle]

Do women, on average, have a different profile of aptitudes and emotions than men? On average, yes, but individuals vary greatly. And my answer does not imply why these differences occur.

Were the events in the Bible fictitious -- not just the miracles, but those involving kings and empires? They may have based on real events but are largely fictional.

Has the state of the environment improved in the last 50 years? Depends on what area of the world the question is directed at. Some places yes, some places no. Overall, no.

Did Native Americans engage in genocide and despoil the landscape? No and no.

Do men have an innate tendency to rape? No.

Did the crime rate go down in the 1990s because two decades earlier poor women aborted children who would have been prone to violence? No.

Are suicide terrorists well-educated, mentally healthy and morally driven? I'm sure some of them are.

Would the incidence of rape go down if prostitution were legalized? Rape is not about prostitution, it's about power, so no.

Do African-American men have higher levels of testosterone, on average, than white men? No.

Is morality just a product of the evolution of our brains, with no inherent reality? No.

Would society be better off if heroin and cocaine were legalized? In some ways yes, in others no. Overall, I'd say maybe...

Is homosexuality the symptom of an infectious disease? No.

Would it be consistent with our moral principles to give parents the option of euthanizing newborns with birth defects that would consign them to a life of pain and disability? What exactly are "our" moral principles? With my personal moral principles, no.

Do parents have any effect on the character or intelligence of their children? Yes.

Have religions killed a greater proportion of people than Nazism? Over time, yes.

Would damage from terrorism be reduced if the police could torture suspects in special circumstances? I doubt it.

Would Africa have a better chance of rising out of poverty if it hosted more polluting industries or accepted Europe's nuclear waste? A better chance of rising out of poverty, yes. That doesn't mean they should, though.

Is the average intelligence of Western nations declining because duller people are having more children than smarter people? Probably.

Would unwanted children be better off if there were a market in adoption rights, with babies going to the highest bidder? Define "better off." That would just make it so only rich people could adopt babies, doesn't necessarily sound like "better off" to me.

Would lives be saved if we instituted a free market in organs for transplantation? Yes.

Should people have the right to clone themselves, or enhance the genetic traits of their children? I'm inclined to say no...

[samram]

Do women, on average, have a different profile of aptitudes and emotions than men? Yes.

Were the events in the Bible fictitious -- not just the miracles, but those involving kings and empires? I think the historical landscape may have been true, but not the stories about the main character.

Has the state of the environment improved in the last 50 years? Yes.

Did Native Americans engage in genocide and despoil the landscape? Genocide yes, despoil the landscape, no.

Do men have an innate tendency to rape? No.

Did the crime rate go down in the 1990s because two decades earlier poor women aborted children who would have been prone to violence? I suspect this is true.

Are suicide terrorists well-educated, mentally healthy and morally driven? In some cases, although I suspect that description in many cases fits those recruiting people to actually carry out the suicide bombings, who may not quite be so well-educated.

Would the incidence of rape go down if prostitution were legalized? No.

Do African-American men have higher levels of testosterone, on average, than white men? I doubt it.

Is morality just a product of the evolution of our brains, with no inherent reality? Probably.

Would society be better off if heroin and cocaine were legalized? Yes.

Is homosexuality the symptom of an infectious disease? No.

Would it be consistent with our moral principles to give parents the option of euthanizing newborns with birth defects that would consign them to a life of pain and disability? No. I think you can tell these things before birth anyway and it can be taken care of then.

Do parents have any effect on the character or intelligence of their children? Yes. Is this really taboo?

Have religions killed a greater proportion of people than Nazism? Yeah, but what's the point of comparing all of human history to a 12 year period?

Would damage from terrorism be reduced if the police could torture suspects in special circumstances? No.

Would Africa have a better chance of rising out of poverty if it hosted more polluting industries or accepted Europe's nuclear waste? Yes.

Is the average intelligence of Western nations declining because duller people are having more children than smarter people? Yes.

Would unwanted children be better off if there were a market in adoption rights, with babies going to the highest bidder? Yes.

Would lives be saved if we instituted a free market in organs for transplantation? Yes.

Should people have the right to clone themselves, or enhance the genetic traits of their children? Cloning? I don't know. I don't see that enhancing any right to control one's own life. Enhancing genetic traits? Yes.

[MSquad]

Do women, on average, have a different profile of aptitudes and emotions than men?
Most definitely yes. Why on earth was the President of Harvard raked over the coals for that?

Were the events in the Bible fictitious -- not just the miracles, but those involving kings and empires?
Maurice gave the perfect answer to this.

Has the state of the environment improved in the last 50 years?
See Maurce for this one too.


Did Native Americans engage in genocide and despoil the landscape?
Yes to genocide, and yes occasionally to despoiling on a very small scale.


Do men have an innate tendency to rape?
Some men do, and some don’t. I don’t.

Did the crime rate go down in the 1990s because two decades earlier poor women aborted children who would have been prone to violence?
No, or at best it had a small affect. The reasons for crime are little understood. In the prosperous 20s crime skyrocketed. In the 30s, it went down considerably. A number of complicated factors are always at work here, and the knee jerk explanations are never right.

Are suicide terrorists well-educated, mentally healthy and morally driven?
Well educated, for the most part yes. Mentally healthy, hell no. Their societies are as hateful, backward and unhealthy as can be.

Would the incidence of rape go down if prostitution were legalized?
No, see Myrtle for a very good answer.


Do African-American men have higher levels of testosterone, on average, than white men?
I don’t know about the testosterone part, but definitely a more pronounced tendency towards immediate action, aggression and confrontation. That doesn’t make them necessarily more violent in the long run, just more immediate.

Is morality just a product of the evolution of our brains, with no inherent reality?
I see where this one is headed and all I can tell you is that I couldn’t possibly disagree more on any subject you can think of. A most emphatic no.


Would society be better off if heroin and cocaine were legalized?
Yes. The Harrison Act was the beginnings of a national disaster.

Is homosexuality the symptom of an infectious disease?
No, but I think the pre 1973 DSM distinction was much more accurate than the feel good politically correct attitudes of today.


Would it be consistent with our moral principles to give parents the option of euthanizing newborns with birth defects that would consign them to a life of pain and disability?
I don’t want to do down that slippery slope. This is a path to a real nightmare.


Do parents have any effect on the character or intelligence of their children?
The strongest effects of all. Even if they’re absent.


Have religions killed a greater proportion of people than Nazism?
A real no brainer. Yes.


Would damage from terrorism be reduced if the police could torture suspects in special circumstances?
Probably not in the long run. In an individual circumstance or two, maybe yes. The long term damage to civil liberties wouldn’t be worth it. Improving our intelligence capabilities, and better long term military and diplomatic strategies are much better than torturing Abdul, so he’ll give up his comrades and the location of that suitcase nuke.

Would Africa have a better chance of rising out of poverty if it hosted more polluting industries or accepted Europe's nuclear waste?
I don’t know what would help Africa. It seems to me like a totally hopeless lost cause.


Is the average intelligence of Western nations declining because duller people are having more children than smarter people?
Yes. If you can’t see this as obvious, then nothing I can say will change your mind.


Would unwanted children be better off if there were a market in adoption rights, with babies going to the highest bidder?
Auction them off to the highest bidding pedophile? No.


Would lives be saved if we instituted a free market in organs for transplantation?
Not sure. Maybe.


Should people have the right to clone themselves, or enhance the genetic traits of their children?
Whether I agree or not, it’s going to happen, and the results I think will be most disappointing to the cloners and genetic manipulators.

[Myrtle]

Should people have the right to clone themselves, or enhance the genetic traits of their children?
Whether I agree or not, it’s going to happen, and the results I think will be most disappointing to the cloners and genetic manipulators.

I'm just curious, why do you think the results will be disappointing?

[Prope]

Do women, on average, have a different profile of aptitudes and emotions than men? [Probably
Were the events in the Bible fictitious -- not just the miracles, but those involving kings and empires? Not necessarily. Historians who are on the victorious side always embellish. What is the point in being on the winning side if you cant try to make it seem bigger than it is. (Incidentally, the 1985 Bears were the best team ever. Period. See how easy that was?)
Has the state of the environment improved in the last 50 years? With greater technology every gets better. That doesn't mean some things have been taken advantaged of and places have gotten worse.
Did Native Americans engage in genocide and despoil the landscape? yes to both
Do men have an innate tendency to rape? Only the crazy ones

Did the crime rate go down in the 1990s because two decades earlier poor women aborted children who would have been prone to violence? Yes
Are suicide terrorists well-educated, mentally healthy and morally driven? I'm sure some of that are.

Would the incidence of rape go down if prostitution were legalized? Not at all. But maybe the prostitutes could unionize and get some health care.

Do African-American men have higher levels of testosterone, on average, than white men? I would have no idea how you test for that, nor would I know how to read/analyze the data

Is morality just a product of the evolution of our brains, with no inherent reality? I very much believe it is

Would society be better off if heroin and cocaine were legalized? In theory yes. I doubt you will see a drop in drug-related deaths and murders though
Is homosexuality the symptom of an infectious disease? No.

Would it be consistent with our moral principles to give parents the option of euthanizing newborns with birth defects that would consign them to a life of pain and disability? Not mine. Although this may be the toughest question of the whole list.

Do parents have any effect on the character or intelligence of their children? Absolutely.

Have religions killed a greater proportion of people than Nazism? Like what Samram said, it is not fair to make historical comparisons when you are dealing with 12 years.

Would damage from terrorism be reduced if the police could torture suspects in special circumstances? There has been absolutely no evidence to show that it would

Would Africa have a better chance of rising out of poverty if it hosted more polluting industries or accepted Europe's nuclear waste? Africa will get out of poverty a lot sooner once they stop killing each other. After that, they should stop killing doctors that travel there. Then invite some industry.

Is the average intelligence of Western nations declining because duller people are having more children than smarter people? Shouldn't 'duller' actually read 'dumber?'

Would unwanted children be better off if there were a market in adoption rights, with babies going to the highest bidder? Yes I think so, but just because it is going to the highest bidder doesn't mean we should relax on the adoption screening process. Also, while I think it would make the babies better off in the long run, I don't like the idea of valuing on child more than another. And when they say babies in this case, why don't they just say 'blonde haired-blue eyed white kids?'
Would lives be saved if we instituted a free market in organs for transplantation? 100% it would

Should people have the right to clone themselves, or enhance the genetic traits of their children? If I knew my father had diabetes, and I had a 100% chance of contracting it when I reached a certain age, why would I want to pass that to my child?

[Myrtle]

Would unwanted children be better off if there were a market in adoption rights, with babies going to the highest bidder? Yes I think so, but just because it is going to the highest bidder doesn't mean we should relax on the adoption screening process. Also, while I think it would make the babies better off in the long run, I don't like the idea of valuing on child more than another. And when they say babies in this case, why don't they just say 'blonde haired-blue eyed white kids?'

It doesn't mean they SHOULD relax on the screening process, but I'm pretty sure that they would. The financial gain that the government could get from marketing adoption rights is huge and I'm sure they would take advantage of it over making sure orphaned children get homes.

And I completely agree with you on the issue of valuing one child over another.

[Prope]

It doesn't mean they SHOULD relax on the screening process, but I'm pretty sure that they would. The financial gain that the government could get from marketing adoption rights is huge and I'm sure they would take advantage of it over making sure orphaned children get homes.

And I completely agree with you on the issue of valuing one child over another.
I think you are overestimating the states willingness to give a child to 'certain' couples, regardless of the financial gain. What I find interesting about this question though is if the system would then become nationalized and taken away from the states. Unless I'm completely ignorant of the system I'm thinking each individual state has their own adoption laws. With this, would you see a rich couple in say Connecticut be able to adopt a child from Oregon?

Kind of seems like cherry-picking in a way.

[Myrtle]

I think you are overestimating the states willingness to give a child to 'certain' couples, regardless of the financial gain. What I find interesting about this question though is if the system would then become nationalized and taken away from the states. Unless I'm completely ignorant of the system I'm thinking each individual state has their own adoption laws. With this, would you see a rich couple in say Connecticut be able to adopt a child from Oregon?

Kind of seems like cherry-picking in a way.

That would definitely add a few extra layers to the adoption process, but I kind of thought it was already like cheery-picking anyway... From my (limited) understanding of adoption, I thought that parents quite often pick certain traits in their children like choosing a newborn over a five year old or choosing a child who's mom was not addicted to crack while she was pregnant, or choosing a child who's physical characteristics might match their own, etc.

I don't know a whole lot about adoption though, anyone have more information on this?

[1951Campbell]

That would definitely add a few extra layers to the adoption process, but I kind of thought it was already like cheery-picking anyway... From my (limited) understanding of adoption, I thought that parents quite often pick certain traits in their children like choosing a newborn over a five year old or choosing a child who's mom was not addicted to crack while she was pregnant, or choosing a child who's physical characteristics might match their own, etc.

I don't know a whole lot about adoption though, anyone have more information on this?

There's the "easy" way to adopt...you adopt a step-child, you adopt a relative if both parents are dead, etc.

Then's there when you go through an agency. As I understand it from a few clients of mine (and an old secretary of ours who adopted), you're essentially paying the mother's expenses that they incur during the pregnancy, plus any legal costs, and I'm pretty sure the adoptive parents pay any costs associated with vetting the people who are to adopt (criminal background check, home visits, etc.). And "expenses" seems fairly broadly interpreted. I think my secretary and her husband paid about $25,000 all told.

So I'm confused with the idea that only "rich people" could adopt a baby they had no connection with...it's pretty damn expensive anyway, so rich people and people who are very motivated to make serious financial sacrifices can make a go of it anyway.

Also, you can pick traits if you wish...but let's face it, if you want a kid who really "looks like you", it's a long wait. Most people who are medically unable to conceive don't pick and choose. I have a client who is in prison and may have fathered a child with a 19-year-old girl who is not that bright, but that kid was still in high demand. And yes, each state does adoption differently, and you can certainly adopt an out-of-state child.

One last thing I'm confused about:

The financial gain that the government could get from marketing adoption rights is huge and I'm sure they would take advantage of it over making sure orphaned children get homes.


How does the government make money off of this again? Filing fees? Charging for home visits? Licenses?



Should people have the right to clone themselves, or enhance the genetic traits of their children? I'm inclined to say no...

Why can't you genetically enhance your kids? How is that not simply reproductive choice?

[maurice]

There's a third way to adopt: adopt a kid who already exists and who is not related to you. I'll take this route. Most people don't want to do this because they insist on a baby (especially a non-black baby), causing them to go the route Campbell described or to other countries like China and Russia.

My primary objection to the last question is that "genetically enhance" is vague. Everybody is thinking of things like health and eye color, but what if they want an "enhanced" baby with tiger stripes?

[Myrtle]

How does the government make money off of this again? Filing fees? Charging for home visits? Licenses?

I would imagine all of the above are possible. It just seems to me that if you create a market for adoption it will be a huge source of wealth that the government will be able to draw upon.

You're right, middle to upper class people are currently the only ones who can adopt anyway, but that price will only get steeper with a market for it. I can't see it being something that's in the best interest for the children anymore if you involve financial gain.


Why can't you genetically enhance your kids? How is that not simply reproductive choice?

I don't really know, my answer was kind of unsure, if you noticed. I'm pretty much against cloning because I don't exactly see the point, but I suppose from an evolutionary perspective you could argue that we have just reached the point in our evolution where this is possible to pass off as "reproductive choice" along with genetically enhancing your kids.

But can you imagine the reprocussions of being able to genetically enhance your children? Again, rich people would be the fittest and poor people would be, well, toast. I see a hugely magnified version of the socioecomonic divides that we have right now if that were possible.

[1951Campbell]

There's a third way to adopt: adopt a kid who already exists and who is not related to you. I'll take this route. Most people don't want to do this because they insist on a baby (especially a non-black baby), causing them to go the route Campbell described or to other countries like China and Russia.

My primary objection to the last question is that "genetically enhance" is vague. Everybody is thinking of things like health and eye color, but what if they want an "enhanced" baby with tiger stripes?

Third way: yes, for instance you can always take in foster children and adopt them if the parents crap out or die.

Tiger stripes: hey, being dumb like that isn't any skin off my nose, so...:shrug:

I would imagine all of the above are possible. It just seems to me that if you create a market for adoption it will be a huge source of wealth that the government will be able to draw upon.

You're right, middle to upper class people are currently the only ones who can adopt anyway, but that price will only get steeper with a market for it. I can't see it being something that's in the best interest for the children anymore if you involve financial gain.

If we're considering the best interests of the children, let's consider this: if you're poor, you probably shouldn't be given children via adoption you will have trouble supporting, because that's not in the best interest of the child. Children generally do better when parents have at least some resources at their disposal.

I don't really know, my answer was kind of unsure, if you noticed. I'm pretty much against cloning because I don't exactly see the point, but I suppose from an evolutionary perspective you could argue that we have just reached the point in our evolution where this is possible to pass off as "reproductive choice" along with genetically enhancing your kids.

But can you imagine the reprocussions of being able to genetically enhance your children? Again, rich people would be the fittest and poor people would be, well, toast. I see a hugely magnified version of the socioecomonic divides that we have right now if that were possible.

Yeah, I can imagine. A lot of grief would be spared if you could, say, make sure your kids won't get your MS or diabetes or whatever.

[Myrtle]

If we're considering the best interests of the children, let's consider this: if you're poor, you probably shouldn't be given children via adoption you will have trouble supporting, because that's not in the best interest of the child. Children generally do better when parents have at least some resources at their disposal.


I wasn't just talking about "poor" people, I was talking about middle to mid-upper class people as well. There are lots of people who would have no trouble supporting their children and providing a healthy and happy life for the children who wouldn't be able to afford adoption, at least, that is my assumption.


Yeah, I can imagine. A lot of grief would be spared if you could, say, make sure your kids won't get your MS or diabetes or whatever.

I would support genetic enhancement if it was solely to prevent children from getting debilitating or life threatening diseased and if it were covered under medical insurance.