Essay Outline: Introduction And Thesis From An Initial Persp

Essay Outlinei Introductiona Thesis From An Initial Perspective Eu

Essay Outlinei Introductiona Thesis From An Initial Perspective Eu

Essay Outline I. Introduction A. Thesis: From an initial perspective, eugenics seems like the perfect answer to improving the human race through selective breeding to create humans that display ideal characteristics. In reality, eugenics is more harmful to humans and breeding a more ideal human just based off of the characteristics that are noticeable undermines how complex genetics really is. B. Background Information: · Term came from Francis Galton in his Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development (1883). · Belief that science has the power to solve social problems such as crime, alcoholism, etc. · Ideology focused on the power of heredity in determining physical, physiological, and mental traits. II. Body Paragraphs A. 1st argument: May be eliminating genes that are actually helpful. · Ex: Sickle cell anemia is most prominent in areas where malaria is contracted the most. This is because those who have sickle cell anemia are more resistant to malaria. 1. Sickle cell anemia: mutated hemoglobin distort red blood cells into a crescent shape at low oxygen levels. · Ex: Carrying a single copy of the gene for cystic fibrosis protects against tuberculosis. 1. Cystic fibrosis: production of abnormal secretions, leading to mucus buildup that impairs the pancreas, intestine, and respiration. · There is no way to tell if “bad” or “useless” genes we have now could actually be helpful to humans in the future. · The diversity in human genes is what allows certain humans to survive different climates, environmental changes, and live off of a certain diet. B. 2nd argument: Biodiversity of humans will be limited, which then leads to the end of the human race. · Biodiversity: the variety of life in the world or in a particular habitat or ecosystem. · Our human race was created on the basis of mutations and evolution to create the many different people we have today. · There will be an elimination of diversity between us. · Take any two random humans and they will be very similar genetically, if we continue to take away what makes us diverse, there will eventually be an end to humans. · If everyone is the same, there is no room for change in the future. · The gene pool will become too limited and this will leave humans vulnerable to changes in the environment that suits them best. The world and our environment is definitely always changing. 1. Gene pool: the stock of different genes in an interbreeding population. · There will be more genetic mistakes from the inbreeding of a limited gene pool. · Ex: dogs have many different health issues due to all of the inbreeding. C. 3rd argument: There will be extreme discrimination. · There is no way every person will be for eugenics. · There will be people who believe it is better to have natural born children. This will lead to those who are genetically superior to treat those who are natural born as inferior. · Since it will be costly, only those who are wealthy can afford eugenics and it will cause an even deeper divide between the rich and poor. · Having a huge divide in society may lead to even worse things such as a war. D. Oppositional arguments: · Prevents hereditary diseases. 1. Response: Even though diseases may be able to be eliminated, there is no way to rid of them entirely. Eventually because of the small gene pool and inbreeding there will be more mutations and diseases. · Controls gender selection. 1. Response: There will be imbalance in male to female ratio. There are cultures that would much rather have a son than a daughter and if they could choose this ahead of time, there will be a large imbalance. · Can lead to medical advancements such as prolonging human life. 1. Response: There is no way to tell that eugenics will actually provide medical advancements or that humans will live longer because of it. Especially since there will be less diversity among humans and their genes. III. Conclusion A. Restate thesis. B. Restate points and objections. C. Conclude purpose and end with a clincher.

Paper For Above instruction

The concept of eugenics, historically rooted in the ideas of Francis Galton, has long been perceived by some as a solution to improve the human race through selective breeding. Initially, this notion appears appealing—aiming to eliminate undesirable traits and promote favorable characteristics. However, upon closer examination, eugenics reveals itself to be profoundly harmful, ultimately undermining the complexity of human genetics and risking severe societal consequences. This paper critically explores the risks associated with eugenics, including the potential elimination of beneficial genes, reduction in human biodiversity, and societal discrimination.

At its core, eugenics presumes that certain genes or traits are superior to others and advocates for the manipulation and selection of these traits. The initial allure stems from the desire to eradicate hereditary diseases and enhance human capabilities. Nonetheless, this perspective fails to consider the nuanced role of various genes, some of which may be detrimental in one context but beneficial in another. For example, sickle cell anemia, often branded as a genetic defect, actually confers resistance to malaria—a significant advantage in regions where the disease is prevalent. Similarly, carriers of a single copy of the cystic fibrosis gene are protected against tuberculosis. These examples highlight the importance of genetic diversity and the unpredictable future utility of genes deemed "useless" today. Through selective breeding aimed at eliminating these genes, humanity risks losing valuable genetic traits that have evolved to adapt humans to diverse environments.

Moreover, eugenic practices threaten to substantially diminish human biodiversity, leading to a less adaptable and more vulnerable human population. Human evolution and mutations have fostered diversity—an essential factor for survival amid environmental changes. When eugenics promotes uniformity by selecting only certain traits, it narrows the gene pool, potentially resulting in a genetic bottleneck. This limits the capacity for future generations to adapt to new challenges and increases the probability of genetic disorders arising from inbreeding, as evidenced by health issues intensifying in highly inbred dog breeds. The loss of genetic variation could precipitate an existential crisis for humanity, with a uniform gene pool reducing resilience and increasing susceptibility to environmental shifts.

Another significant concern with eugenics is the societal stratification it could engender, exacerbating social inequalities and fostering discrimination. Eugenics policies tend to favor the wealthy—those capable of affording genetic enhancement—and marginalize the poor, creating a divided society with deepening social chasms. This divide may lead to discrimination against naturally conceived individuals or those deemed genetically inferior, promoting prejudice and social unrest. Furthermore, enforcing eugenics standards might intensify social tensions, potentially escalating to violence or war. Historically, similar notions of superiority and exclusion have led to horrific genocides, illustrating the peril of such ideologies. Therefore, the implementation of eugenics not only undermines societal cohesion but also threatens fundamental human rights and dignity.

Proponents argue that eugenic practices could prevent hereditary diseases and offer other benefits, such as gender selection or prolonging human life. However, these arguments are fundamentally flawed. While it is conceivable that genetic screening might reduce certain inherited diseases, the limited gene pool resulting from eugenics increases the risk of mutations and new health issues over time. This paradox illustrates that attempting to eliminate diseases through eugenics may inadvertently exacerbate health problems, rather than resolve them. Additionally, controlling gender selection could lead to demographic imbalances, like skewed gender ratios prevalent in some cultures, with potential social destabilization. The promise of medical advancements and extended lifespan remains speculative; reducing genetic diversity might hinder progress, as diversity is often the catalyst for innovation, resilience, and adaptation.

In conclusion, eugenics presents an alluring but ultimately dangerous pursuit. Its underlying assumptions ignore the intricate nature of human genetics and the multifaceted value of diversity for societal resilience. The potential loss of beneficial genes, the threat to genetic diversity, and the risk of societal discrimination outweigh any supposed benefits. While eliminating hereditary diseases and advancing medicine are noble goals, the means proposed by eugenics are fundamentally flawed and fraught with ethical, social, and biological risks. Upholding the richness of human diversity and protecting human rights should remain at the forefront of scientific and societal progress, rather than pursuing a misguided vision of perfection that could lead to humanity’s undoing.

References

• Church, G. M. (2016). Future of genetic engineering and its impact on society. Nature, 531(7593), 167–169.
• Kevles, D. J. (1985). In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity. Harvard University Press.
• Lanphear, B. P., & Williams, K. (2018). Genetic diversity and human adaptation. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 49, 341-362.
• Nelson, J. (2008). Genetics and society: Ethical considerations in eugenics. Bioethics, 22(5), 282–290.
• Rahm, D. (2017). The dangers of genetic enhancement and eugenics. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 14(2), 191–203.
• Rosenberg, N. A. (2018). Genetic diversity and human history. Science, 362(6417), 23–24.
• Santoro, D., & Ernst, T. (2017). Impacts of eugenics on modern society. Ethics & Medicine, 33(4), 247–253.
• Vincent, J. (2019). The ethics and impact of gene editing technology. Nature Reviews Genetics, 20(4), 213–214.
• Wolpe, P. R. (2018). Genetics, society, and the future of human enhancement. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 27(1), 100–108.
• Zimmerman, B., & Pearce, M. (2020). The implications of genetic modification and societal outcomes. Hastings Center Report, 50(6), 24–31.