Would you consent to a scientifically arranged marriage based on genomes and the future of the human race?
It's easy to imagine our society genetically screening lovers to determine how genetically desirable their future progeny would be.
Would you ever take such a screening into account when choosing a spouse? Don't you think that would be a responsible choice for humanity and its future?
(by the way, I know that certain genetic screening services are currently available for individuals, but I couldn't find any for couples that would actually predict the probability of having a genetically desirable child. If any exist, please share.)
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$3 Answers
I'm assuming that we really need to do this because we've corrupted our gene pool by keeping alive and breeding with people who would have died if not for massive amounts of medical interference.
I would accept a "breeding marriage partner" who I was expected to have babies with ( but maybe by then they have artifical wombs - I am female I would have to carry and survive the pregancies ) IF I could also have a "love marriage partner". I am allowed to live with and love whomever I please but I must produce babies from another partner.
Monogomy would not be important in my world if I was expected to breed for genes. I would have to accept society changing to allow both types of partnerships. I actually think people would accept some form of breeding program if this were the case ....
I don't know of a program that does this type of testing at the moment.
PS - I love Gattaca, its one of my favorite movies!
personal opinion
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$However, this question implies a whole other topic of conversation: Where is the state of marriage heading? With divorce rates skyrocketing over the last 20 years it seems that nothing is sacred. Perhaps marriage will one day just be a title where it is acceptable for two people to have kids without others turning their nose up at them. If this is the case, I don't see what it would be totally illogical to expect that science will one day determine who is qualified to marry the other based on genetics.
That being said, I am still a hopeless romantic and wait for the day when marriage regains its spender. Hopefully the divorce rates start to go down and people really evaluate what those vows mean and it can be seen, once again, as a sacred bond centered around understanding, devotion, and love. No matter how advanced science becomes I don't think DNA will ever be able to determine if two people will fall in love with each other.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Not only do I think you can fall in love (infatuated love, not true, genuine love) with anyone, but I also think you can be in love with more than one person at once.
With an increasingly complex world, don't you think that a heightened gene pool would be beneficial?
It almost looks like the average human being is declining now, in terms of potential, but I can't say if that's becasue of genetics or other factors.
I was implying that the scientifically arranged marriages would function to harbor a sort of eugenics program.
Humans don't really compete with each other to mate, have kids, survive, or whatever. Everyone survives, and, if you think of it, the gene pool is stagnant. This would be seen as a way to facilitate a better gene pool, or maybe even expedite evolution.
The science wouldn't be able to determine who falls in love with who.
And, I'm going to let you in on a secret that I'm sure you or everyone else will argue with me about: anyone can fall in love with anyone.
There doesn't really seem to be a reason that we, at this point in time, would need to facilitate a better gene pool to expedite evolution. There has been no strong evidence (that I am aware of) that DNA facilitates a more substantial IQ. Of course there is evidence that specific DNA can have an effect on immunity to disease, development, etc., but science is not at the point of being able to control that.
If science were at the point to control a more receptive gene pool I don't see that it would be necessary unless some wide spread catastrophe happen with the decline of the human population. I know, I know, this is where you say, "Well why does there have to be a catastrophe for us to want to create a better gene pool?" Darwin has a lot to do with my answer to this question. It is counter productive to create a super race of humans, that are already destructive beings, which can withstand any disease or ailment only to over populate and destroy the earth. There has to be some that are weak and susceptible to dying off.
Additionally, I will rebuttal your last comment: "anyone can fall in love with anyone." I do think that anyone can develop feelings for anyone, but I don't think you can call that love. If you spend enough time around someone you will obviously have some sort of connection with them, or develop feelings. However, I don't think this can be called love.
Great question and basis for discussion! I look forward to further comments.
On your second topic, some of us find one partner that we love. I have always said to completely love someone you must give your all to them. You can’t do this with multiple ‘loves’, simultaneously.
@tonesofgray, marriage may not be sacred to everyone. But there are those of us who still believe it is worth keeping.
I think the reason why there are so many divorces is because they get married too early (notice I did not say too young). They don’t fully know the person they want to get married to, and when they do, things are just a little different living with them.
Now, my thoughts:
Absolutely not.
1)What if the science is wrong?!?!
2)What if the science is wrong?!?!
3)What if the science is wrong?!?!
4)It isn’t ‘much better’ (I use this phrase loosely) than parents giving children orders, or forced marriages.
5)I like the idea of choice. If my DNA said I was good for car manufacturing but I like to sew, I would be forced to do what my DNA thought was good for me, and not something I liked. This reminds me of those occupation tests we took in middle school and high school. I don’t remember what mine was…but I didn’t like it.
6)For those who have minor health problems, minor asthma for me, would I be allowed to reproduce? Also my husband has a heart ‘flutter’ I think. Would we both not be allowed to produce?
7)What if the science is wrong?!?!
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
The first thing that I thought was "lie back and think of England"
so yes, I would, I might not enjoy it and I'd hope it wouldn't be too onerous :) but if the survival of the species meant I had to be inpregnated by someone I didn't love and that couldn't be done artificially then yes, I would do that.
and...I hope all my answers are thoughtful ones :) I do try hehehe
That's a very thoughtful answer.
If coitus increased the chances of a better (genetically) baby, would you be willing to have sex with the breeding partner in lieu of artificial insemination, which would have lower chances of a better baby?