During WWII, the practice of eugenics was generally understood as ranking human reproduction such that more of the desired heritable traits would be passed down to the next generation. Nazi policies led to the persecution and ultimately, the genocide of Jews, disabled people, and other minorities perceived to be ‘inferior’ by Nazi ‘Aryan’ ideology. These actions constitute a crime against humanity and represent one of the darkest chapters in humanity. From the average perspective, the process of eugenics is widely discredited as both unscientific and racially biased. The race for engineering modifications of organisms may bring the downfall of humanity, bringing unwanted risks and health problems down the road. With the implications of emerging …show more content…
In the movie “Gattaca” by Andrew Niccol, a character named Jerome, who was nearly perfect in every way through genetic alterations, tried to kill himself because he could not get 1st place in a swimming competition. He believed himself to be an unjust anomaly. Moreover, the idea of alternating visual traits like melanin, which is “the pigment that contributes to skin color” (Choudhary et al.) means that there is a possibility of color supremacy ideology, darker skin people may be filtered out of the population and would be more of a minority. While genetic alterations may come with some promising benefits, the drawbacks far outweigh them, bringing to light the worst to come. The cost of Modifying Humans is another topic that has to be taken into consideration, like health, environmental, and monetary costs. The serious threat here is the health issues that come with messing with human genes, some health costs include unknown long-term effects, psychological effects and even dependencies on technology that may become a …show more content…
Market Demand for Non-GMO Products: Labeling GMOs may create a market demand for natural, non-GMO products, incentivizing producers to offer more options and invest in non-GMO alternatives to meet consumer preferences and needs. Labeling also raises awareness about genetic modification and its potential health and environmental impact; “the use of environmental impact labels on products” (Bastounis et al.). encourages consumers to carefully rethink and reconsider their product choices. Without clear and standardized labeling guidelines, consumers may misinterpret or misunderstand GMO labels, leading to confusion or unwarranted concerns about the safety or nutritional value of labeled products. Labeling GMOs involves navigating complex regulatory frameworks and standards, which can vary between jurisdictions and create compliance challenges for producers, especially smaller-scale producers. The implied effect of GMO labeling on consumers underscores the importance of transparency in the food
Neoeugenics is the idea of new, “neo”, eugenics or a new way of creating a healthier race. Eugenics was first defined in the late 1800s by a man named Sir Francis Galton who said that it was basically the study of traits that will cause an advantage or disadvantage in the traits of future generations. Eugenics soon turned from being about the use of artificial selection of breeding to create a stronger species, to being about the advancement of certain races over others. When talking about neo eugenics, it is believed that it may turn into something similar to that of eugenics in that the use of artificial selection would now be used to bring the upper class higher in standards of health and wellbeing as well as beauty. Others believe that the use of neo eugenics will help create a healthier, more stable species. Whether bad or good, the way that eugenics will advance will be in designer babies.
Eugenics has been an increasingly popular concept in recent films and texts. The presence of eugenics in these films and texts has caused people to believe that eugenics could be helpful in society. The idea that the perfect person can be created or modified is simply irrational. Each individual person’s qualities are created by their surroundings as they grow up. In Always With Us, Howard Horwitz wishes that the eugenics movement in the United States never had gathered steam. The negative aspects of eugenics that Horowitz discusses are noticeable in works such as Gattaca, A Brave New World, and The Blade Runner. The notion that eugenics is a positive for society limits individuals’ potential by predetermining what they can achieve. By predetermining
Food is an essential part of everyday life without it one could not survive. Every day we make choices on what we put in to our bodies. There are countless varieties of food to choose from to meet the diverse tastes of the increasing population. Almost all food requires a label explaining the ingredients and the nutritional value allowing consumers to make informed decisions on what they are consuming. However, many may not be considering where that food is coming from or how it has been produced. Unfortunately, there is more to food than meets the eye. Since 1992, “ the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ruled, based on woefully limited data, that genetically modified foods were ‘substantially equivalent’ to their non-GM counterparts” (Why to Support Labeling). GM food advocates have promised to create more nutritious food that will be able to grow in harsh climate conditions and eventually put an end to world hunger in anticipation of the growing population. There is very little evidence to support these claims and study after study has proven just the opposite. GM crops are not only unsafe to consume, but their growing practices are harmful to the environment, and multinational corporations are putting farmers out of business.
Gattaca presents a world destroyed by the pursuit of perfection. Do you agree with this? “The word perfection cannot be defined as one person or one thing. Perfection can only be told or seen in a first person view. No one will genuinely think something or someone is as perfect as another person, it’s impossible to see eye to eye with something that is as powerful and subjective as perfection.”
A very valid point brought up by Clause (Say ‘no’), Hemphill, and Banerjee (both G.M.O. and the U.S.), is that consumers already have an easy and effective option to steer clear from GMOs: buying organic products. Through Hemphill’s and Banerjee’s article, we are informed that United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) “presently offers an organic certification for crops and processed food products, which by definition prohibits the use of GMO ingredients” (Page 455-466). This is certainly a label that has the ability to help concerned customers know exactly what they are eating. The co-authors call this solution the “Voluntary Labeling Strategy.” There is, however, one issue with this: not all products that don't contain GMOs qualify as organic. The resolution lies in an upcoming proposal from the U.S. Food and Drug administration (FDA). It's called “Voluntary Guidelines” and it allows, but doesn't force, GMO-free products to display a label of their own. I believe that this is a much smarter option than labeling every item containing GMOs because it is not binding by law, which would provide consumers with all of the benefits they need to choose the right foods for their preferences, while saving on all of the unnecessary extra costs discussed
The use of genetic modification in enhancing human characteristics has brought about negative issues, such as discrimination, ethical issues and corruption. With this in mind, genetic modification has benefitted humans immensely; developing the knowledge of the human mind, preventing hereditary diseases and improving the physical attributes of individuals. Nevertheless, the disadvantages surrounding the enhancement of human characteristics through genetic means outweigh the advantages as portrayed by the film and text, “Gattaca” and “Flowers for Algernon” respectively. In conclusion, the enhancement of human characteristics through genetic means should be strictly advocated against.
A non-GMO label doesn’t necessarily mean “healthy”. White sugar, flour, and processed ingredients if not genetically modified are considered non GMO. Recently Cheerios made their ingredients GMO free. This label made Cheerios seems as a “healthy conscience choice” when in fact they are not healthy at all. The truth is that this breakfast cereal is highly processed and is best to be avoided despite the “healthy halo” of being approved by the National Heart Association and GMO free. The truth appears on the nutrition label and the ingredients (Wartman). “If you can’t pronounce it, don’t buy it” The voluntary labeling places a burden on the consumer. The average Americans are forced to navigate confusing and cluttered food landscape” (Wartman). A mandatory labeling law is vital to give clear and concise information to citizens.
Eugenics, which had started long before my time, had once been defined as including free love and prevention of conception… Recently it had cropped up again in the form of selective breeding. (Margaret Sanger)
Next, companies that refuse the use of genetic modifications on their foods must begin to label foods that do not contain GMOs so that consumers can be sure of their safety, even if others that contain GMOs do not label. Due to this labeling, there will be an exposure to which foods are natural because the foods that are the most appealing will have “the ‘Non-GMO Project Verified’ seal [in order] to help shoppers recognize which products meet rigorous GMO avoidance practices” (“Whole Foods Market”).
Our attitudes toward GMO foods range from hostility to indifference. GMO foods, like pesticide-resistant Roundup Ready soybeans and fast-growing salmon, seem to exist primarily to pad corporate pockets. Most people are not aware that they are eating GMO foods. The greater percentage of the population is just looking at the price tag instead of what is in the food product. This technology has the potential to provide sustainable nutrient rich food sources throughout the ages if the science is not abused for the food industry’s
The idea of eugenics was first introduced by Sir Francis Galton, who believed that the breeding of two wealthy and successful members of society would produce a child superior to that of two members of the lower class. This assumption was based on the idea that genes for success or particular excellence were present in our DNA, which is passed from parent to child. Despite the blatant lack of research, two men, Georges Vacher de Lapouge and Jon Alfred Mjoen, played to the white supremacists’ desires and claimed that white genes were inherently superior to other races, and with this base formed the first eugenics society. The American Eugenics Movement attempted to unethically obliterate the rising tide of lower classes by immorally mandating organized sterilization and race based experimentation.
The history of harmful eugenic practices, spurring from the Nazi implementations of discrimination towards biologically inferior people has given eugenics a negative stigma (1,Kitcher, 190). Genetic testing, as Kitcher sees it through a minimalistic perspective, should be restrained to aiding future children with extremely low qualities of life (2,Kitcher, 190). He believes that genetic engineering should only be used to avoid disease and illness serving the role of creating a healthier human race. He promotes laissez-faire eugenics, a “hands off” concept that corresponds to three components of eugenic practice, discrimination, coercion and division of traits. It holds the underlying works of genetic testing, accurate information, open access, and freedom of choice. Laissez-faire eugenics promises to enhance reproductive freedom preventing early child death due to genetic disease (3,Kitcher, 198). However there are dangers in Laissez-faire that Kitcher wants to avoid. The first is the historical tendency of population control, eugenics can go from avoiding suffering, to catering to a set of social values that will cause the practice of genetics to become prejudiced, insensitive and superficial. The second is that prenatal testing will become limited to the upper class, leaving the lower class with fewer options, creating biologically driven social barriers. Furthermore the decay of disability support systems due to prenatal testing can lead to an increased pressure to eliminate those unfit for society (4,Kitcher, 214).
The Nazi’s perpetrated many horrors during the Holocaust. They enacted many cruel laws. They brainwashed millions into foolishly following them and believing their every word using deceitful propaganda tactics. They forced many to suffer doing embarrassing jobs and to live in crowded ghettos. They created mobile killing squads to exterminate their enemies. Finally, as part of “The Final Solution to the Jewish Question”, they made concentration and killing camps. Another thing the Nazi’s did was to use eugenics as another mean to micromanage the population. What is eugenics, you might ask? It’s the field of scientific study or the belief in genetically improving qualities, attributes and traits in the human race and/or improving the species as a whole—usually done by controlled/selective breeding. Those with positive, desirable, and superior traits are encouraged to reproduce and may be given monetary incentives by the government to have large families. Those with negative, undesirable, or inferior traits may be discouraged from having offspring. They may be sterilized, or undergo dangerous medical procedures or operations with high mortality rates. I chose this topic because it appealed to me and seemed interesting. In the following paragraphs, the tactics, methods, and propaganda the Nazi’s used will be exposed.
GMOs can also bear consequences in terms of genetic pollution and alteration, from contamination and mutation to adaptation to evolution to species extinction. Indeed, some claims are not well supported and may require testing, like genetic alteration through consumption or the validity of correlating animal health deficits with GM feeds. However, overall, GM foods clearly affect the world negatively in terms of biodiversity and ecosystem impacts. With all of the controversy surrounding GMO foods: health versus biodiversity; benefits versus dangers; pros versus cons, a topic that always arises is the subject of labeling. Labeling has been a matter of discussion for years and surprisingly, it is a hot debate that is still full of life.
The demand for non-GMO foods is on a great rise all around the world. "Non-GMO products accounted for $550 billion of the 5 trillion global food and beverage retail market in 2014". Many people, in today's times, are being offset by negative perceptions of GMO products. Numerous consumers have pre-dispositions and attitudes when it comes to their intentions of purchasing GMO foods. Consumers believe that "scientifically altered crops could be unethical and unsafe".