necoandjeff wrote:

> "Brett Robson" <info@secret-web.com> wrote in message
> news:chh8th$5eq$1@nnrp.gol.com...
> >
> > > All I will say is, techniques that are designed to allow otherwise
> infertile
> > > couples to have a fighting chance of having their own children should
> not be
> > > confused with the Brave New World fantasyland you are attributing to
> these
> > > technologies.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe infertile couples shouldn't have children. More than
> > anything else that is playing with evolution.
>
> That's the most ridiculously asinine thing I've heard anyone say in a long
> time Brett.

Just last week I was reading (again) how some Buddhists and Hindus think
physical handicaps and other challenges in life are due to some sin of the
parents in this life, or of the person in a previous life, thus they may have
less of a tradition of charity than some practicing Christians.

> If nothing else it assumes (quite stupidly) that infertility is
> necessarily indicative of an undesirable genotype rather than a physical
> problem that has nothing to do with one's genetic makeup.

He is merely playing the Devil's Advocate, I'm sure. I have read of scientific
authorities saying in all seriousness (though NOT consciously promoting
racism) that recent trends to live and marry beyond traditional borders is
undoing tens of thousands of years of evolution which occurred in relative
isolation such as that which allowed some European people to have lighter
shades of skin for better absorption of vitamin D from the sun, while those in
warmer climates developed naturally darker shades of skin to protect against
solar UV radiation. Kume's two hour special on the origins of the Japanese
last year claimed that the narrower eyes and thicker eyelids of the people of
Asia also evolved as protection from the sun.