[extropy-chat] Eugenics and behavior modification

[David Lubkin]

I was just helping my daughter wordsmith a term paper in medical ethics, 
and my mind wandered. I thought I'd pose a series of scenarios for your 
deliberation. I'd like to hear both your immediate emotional reaction and 
your considered ethical analysis, and your read on how the general public 
would view these ideas. Ignore any issues of futility, cheating, or 
superseding biotechnologies.

I am *not* urging anything; I am examining a gedanken experiment.

One of Heinlein's ideas was what if a foundation identified people with 
four long-lived grandparents and offered them a cash gift for each child 
they had after marrying another such person, in a (successful) attempt to 
breed humans for longevity.

Would you object to such a plan?

Does it matter what the criteria they want to select for? Examples: being 
white, not being white, having a high SAT score, or honorably serving in 
the military?

What if couples are paid for every year they *don't* have a child? Consider 
blacks and Koreans in LA. Is there a difference between paying Koreans to 
have kids and paying blacks not to? Even though it is voluntary, does it 
smack too much of "genocide through economic pressure"?

Does it matter what the sponsor's motivation is?

What about rewards for other behaviors? Is there a difference between a 
group providing scholarships so that Hispanics can attend Harvard and a 
group that pays Hispanic students *not* to apply to Harvard?

Although libertarians would not consider it a proper role of government, 
our country has used tax policy to influence social patterns for 
generations. How do the questions change if it is the government that is 
providing the selective benefit for those who either do or refrain from 
having children (or other targeted behavior)? Is there a difference between 
(tax credit for X) and (tax for not-X)?


-- David Lubkin.