Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

Reply to comment

Emily Alspector's picture

Blurred lines..

To me, talking about diversity is such an interesting topic because, as was made apparent in last class' discussion, there are many ways to define it. It can be seen in a biological, social or even anatomical sense. Like Rebeccca W., I was also very interested in the conversation about how our bodies contain nothing but diversity and seem to function perfectly well (most of the time..). I think it's important to note the obvious differences between physical diversity and mental diversity, as Liz has above. I think our ideas of diversity, be it through race, religion, hair color, cell size, or anything, are examples of physical diversity. What is key in this idea of productivity is mental diversity. It interests me that we struggle with separating the two, and assume that someone who is physically diverse might also be mentally diverse (addressed in Delton's article).

On another topic, having recently visited the Holocaust museum in Jerusalem, it is difficult for me to not equate much of our discussion on eugenics and "designing" a child to my experience there. Many of the Holocaust victims were mentally challenged, and people across Europe were convinced that they were doing these people (children and adults) a favor by killing them because of their inability to care for themselves or their lower intelligence. I would say that even the idea of selecting for dwarfism in a child is going over the line of appropriateness when it comes to gene alteration in an unborn child. For some reason (and maybe someone else can comment on this), I find it more acceptable, socially and morally, to offer a child a cochlear implant rather than adjust the child before its birth. But, if genetics research can help to prevent a child from being born with a fatal illness, like cystic fibrosis or some other disease where the patient often doesn't live to adulthood, that seems like a worthwhile intervention. Dwarfism and deafness will most likley not cut the child's life any shorter than a child born with hearing or without dwarfism, and it seems like that is the line that is getting blurrier due to what we as humans "want" in our children. We are forgetting that the ultimate goal is survival, and instead we run the risk of exploiting our scientific advances to make sure we have a brown eyed daughter with long straight hair.

One last point I would like to make is that we must respect both physical and mental diversity in the workplace and in our social lives. Regardless of facts and figures and algorithms, our race will not survive if we can't cooperate and acknowledge our differences. An interesting example that counterpoints the "higher race" argument that was brought up in class was the example of the bird species whose genes were too similar for effective reproduction, leading to their extinction. It's important to keep both of these stories in mind, and that we shouldn't strive for complete diversity or complete homogeneity, but to keep a safe middle ground where mental and physical diversity can thrive.

Reply

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
3 + 16 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.