Below are three paragraphs that I need help writing at least 100 word response to. I need at least 100 word response to each separate paragraph. Each paragraph was to answer this following question: “How does the attempt to control and codify plants and animals lead to eugenics? How are both of these views optimistic? Pessimistic?“
1. The attempt to control and codify plants and animals is already happening. Most of the plants and animals we eat today have been bred from the best plants and animals. The plants and animals that look healthy are bred, we, as humans, want only the best and healthiest plants and animals meats in our diet. In the United States the majority of the food we eat comes from controlled “farms.” The plants we eat have been bred and rebred to grow the largest, juiciest, most radiant colored plants. For instance, grapes found in the grocery stores are much larger than what’s found in a vineyard that doesn’t use chemicals. (my uncle owns a vineyard that doesn’t use chemicals. My sister had no idea the little things hanging from the vines were actually grapes. She thought the ones in the grocery store were normal size). By controlling what we eat, the human population has increased, life spans are longer, people are living healthier, even with disease. Those that are able to afford the healthy, organic, well controlled foods are living healthy, full lives, and those that can not afford the healthy foods are becoming malnourished and are becoming disease stricken due to the lack of an important nutrient. The optimistic standpoint is, all of this science behind nutrition is helping us live longer, healthier lives. However, the pessimistic side is what are we losing by controlling and codifying the plants and animals? By controlling the plants and animals we are also seeing higher quantities of plants and animals but is the quality any better?
2. We first need to understand what eugenics before trying to link it to something greater than it is. Eugenics refers to “the selection of desired heritable characteristics in a bid to improve future generations.” Typically the term is used when referring to human genomes, but it doesn’t always have to be human genomes. To codify simply means to put things in an orderly manner. Science has enabled humans to dissect plants, persons or animals and get rid of undesired traits and replace them with superior ones (“Science as Salvation: Weimar Eugenics, 1919–1933”, 2017). From an optimistic side eliminating factors of bug infestation and drought or poor soil issues enables us to grow better quality crops. This will consequently help in reducing world hunger and other avoidable social issues worldwide. Human genes responsible for diseases such as cancer, blindness, cerebral palsy or deafness can also be removed and these problems reduced. This is a good idea, but the problem arises when scientists take this power to far. Like many other wonderful scientific breakthroughs, people attempt to monetize eugenics for their benefit. For example, Jack and Jane a couple get pregnant and are so happy about the possibility of getting a baby boy. The doctor tells them that he can make sure they get a baby boy by codifying their genes. He can also ensure the baby has blonde hair, blue eyes or even grow to seven feet. This, however, can only be done at a set price. A question, therefore, arises on where to draw the line in such cases. I don’t think eugenic is a bad practice, its utilization, however, is the problem.
3. The genetic modification and cultivation of plants and animals was directly leveraged as the scientific foundation for eugenics. Eugenics was conceptualized in 1863 by Sir Francis Galton as an optimistic theory that desirable traits, such as superior intelligence, were hereditary and advocated for selective breeding to target passing on desirable traits. The concept was correlated to the ability to” obtain by careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar powers.” The United States led the eugenics movement in the early 1900’s with the founding of the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) and other organizations and societies.This movement led to a more pessimistic view than Galton’s original efforts because the efforts were no longer seeking to increase the reproduction of desirable traits and instead focused on the elimination of negative traits.Sadly, the movement gained momentum and government support which resulted in the forced sterilization of over 64,000 people and the horrors of Nazi Germany (Bouche & Rivard, 2014).Interestingly, today’s scientific endeavors include concepts such as human cloning and gene therapy which, if allowed to get reach the same level as eugenics did, could have similarly devastating consequences.