Post by Bishop on Apr 20, 2016 11:18:54 GMT
Choosing our children’s genetic future
The human species has stood the test of time, being a prime example of natural progression gone right. Through the ups and downs of nature we have evolved from the apeman walking the plains, hundreds of thousands of years ago, to the modern day human - the “spaceman”. These changes in our genetic code were precariously carried out over the ages, making seamless alterations between generations. There is no saying what the result would be of rapidly changing our own genetic future - or in this case, our children’s future.
First of all, there are some possible obstacles to tackle in this new future of ours. Let’s say that genetic engineering becomes an intricate part of our society - how will these services be accessed and/or distributed? Governments could regulate the usage of these services by raising a big paywall, which there probably would have to be any way, considering the cost of the actual technology and of course the salary of the people managing it. This then gives raise to a new set of questions. The economic barrier would prevent normal people from using the service, possibly creating a “rift” between high- and low income earners. I could see there being a huge backlash from the general public when rich celebrities show up with their “super babies”. Like I said, most people probably wouldn’t even be able to afford to use the service as a medical treatment. This is not even talking about the rift that would form between first -, second - and third world countries. Wealthier countries could continue to exceed in competing areas, possibly even creating “super armies” and “super sports teams” to wage warfare and to completely crush the current sports scene.
Secondly, there is an ethical side to the topic that needs to be addressed. For example, is it okay to change your child’s genetic code without their consent? This is of course in the context of enhancing your child, rather than curing it of a genetic disease. As a parent you would probably think that you had the right to do so. However, some complications could arise. For instance, what if your child later asks you why their eye colour is a radiant pink. What do you say to them? How do you explain that you thought that they would look better that way? Furthermore, isn’t that basically the same as to say that they wouldn’t have been perfect the way they were “supposed to be”. Another aspect of the ethical discussion is the “fairness factor”. Let’s say that a parent could pay to have their child “enhanced” with a gene that made them smarter - would there be separate schools for enhanced children and “normal” children? Furthermore, would there be any chance for you - as a normal person - to possibly achieve the same things as a person who had their genetical code optimized to be “flat out better” than yours.
On the other hand, a person of the opposite opinion would of course bring into light the possibility of using genetic engineering as a medical treatment. You could possibly cure genetic diseases and prevent children from being born with mental - and/or physical disabilities. This sure sounds good and all, but since the technology has not really been tested on humans yet, there is no telling how often it would work or how reliable it would be. It would most likely lead to miscarriage in some cases. In addition, having the tool to change someone’s genetic future, also comes with a great responsibility. Where do you draw the line of what is considered a disease? Some would argue that “signs of low intelligence” could be regarded as a genetic disease. If you could change that, then you could probably change anything. You would have parents begging left and right to have their child’s hair colour changed to neon blue.
Lastly, there is a great chance of severe consequences when defying the laws of nature and the mechanical groundwork that is evolution. Having a good biodiversity means having a wide range of different, thriving, species and for there to be a great genetic diversity within the species. In the case of a natural disaster, rapid climate change or any other thing that would change a species living conditions in a significant way, it is important that a few individuals can adapt to these new conditions. Of course, if there is a wider spectrum of individuals - a larger gene pool - there is a higher chance of some having the traits that make them more suitable for the situation. These individuals would in turn get the opportunity to reproduce and to pass on their genetic traits to their offspring. It goes without saying that those who are ill-prepared have a lesser chance of survival. This is called natural selection and it is the very driveforce of evolution. What if we in the future start plucking away specific genes that seem unimportant at the time. We can’t know if these traits might become handy later on. They could even be the difference between survival and extinction. However, you could say that we would be better off for the time being, as we would have replaced our “bad traits” with better ones. Nevertheless, wouldn’t there be a set of “the best traits”, and wouldn’t everyone want them? This begs the question of what would happen if we would all have the same genetic build - if we would all be the same. A drastic change of our living conditions could either be in everyone’s favor or in no one’s favor - possibly meaning our extinction.
In conclusion, it all comes down to one rudimentary question - do we need this? Is it worth possibly throwing spanners in the work of evolution, just to feed the population with this idea of future-fiction-fantasy, that we have been able to live without for millenniums? There is no guarantee that it would not just bring on an era of economic segregation, or make it even worse for today’s economically segregated cities and countries. Quite the opposite, I think that the positive effects would be minimal in comparison to the ethical -and economic controversy that it could cause. Given that there are about as many different opinions as there are people on earth, I think it is safe to say that conflict is inevitable. Nonetheless, people tend to say that everyone is perfect in their own right - and so do I.
The human species has stood the test of time, being a prime example of natural progression gone right. Through the ups and downs of nature we have evolved from the apeman walking the plains, hundreds of thousands of years ago, to the modern day human - the “spaceman”. These changes in our genetic code were precariously carried out over the ages, making seamless alterations between generations. There is no saying what the result would be of rapidly changing our own genetic future - or in this case, our children’s future.
First of all, there are some possible obstacles to tackle in this new future of ours. Let’s say that genetic engineering becomes an intricate part of our society - how will these services be accessed and/or distributed? Governments could regulate the usage of these services by raising a big paywall, which there probably would have to be any way, considering the cost of the actual technology and of course the salary of the people managing it. This then gives raise to a new set of questions. The economic barrier would prevent normal people from using the service, possibly creating a “rift” between high- and low income earners. I could see there being a huge backlash from the general public when rich celebrities show up with their “super babies”. Like I said, most people probably wouldn’t even be able to afford to use the service as a medical treatment. This is not even talking about the rift that would form between first -, second - and third world countries. Wealthier countries could continue to exceed in competing areas, possibly even creating “super armies” and “super sports teams” to wage warfare and to completely crush the current sports scene.
Secondly, there is an ethical side to the topic that needs to be addressed. For example, is it okay to change your child’s genetic code without their consent? This is of course in the context of enhancing your child, rather than curing it of a genetic disease. As a parent you would probably think that you had the right to do so. However, some complications could arise. For instance, what if your child later asks you why their eye colour is a radiant pink. What do you say to them? How do you explain that you thought that they would look better that way? Furthermore, isn’t that basically the same as to say that they wouldn’t have been perfect the way they were “supposed to be”. Another aspect of the ethical discussion is the “fairness factor”. Let’s say that a parent could pay to have their child “enhanced” with a gene that made them smarter - would there be separate schools for enhanced children and “normal” children? Furthermore, would there be any chance for you - as a normal person - to possibly achieve the same things as a person who had their genetical code optimized to be “flat out better” than yours.
On the other hand, a person of the opposite opinion would of course bring into light the possibility of using genetic engineering as a medical treatment. You could possibly cure genetic diseases and prevent children from being born with mental - and/or physical disabilities. This sure sounds good and all, but since the technology has not really been tested on humans yet, there is no telling how often it would work or how reliable it would be. It would most likely lead to miscarriage in some cases. In addition, having the tool to change someone’s genetic future, also comes with a great responsibility. Where do you draw the line of what is considered a disease? Some would argue that “signs of low intelligence” could be regarded as a genetic disease. If you could change that, then you could probably change anything. You would have parents begging left and right to have their child’s hair colour changed to neon blue.
Lastly, there is a great chance of severe consequences when defying the laws of nature and the mechanical groundwork that is evolution. Having a good biodiversity means having a wide range of different, thriving, species and for there to be a great genetic diversity within the species. In the case of a natural disaster, rapid climate change or any other thing that would change a species living conditions in a significant way, it is important that a few individuals can adapt to these new conditions. Of course, if there is a wider spectrum of individuals - a larger gene pool - there is a higher chance of some having the traits that make them more suitable for the situation. These individuals would in turn get the opportunity to reproduce and to pass on their genetic traits to their offspring. It goes without saying that those who are ill-prepared have a lesser chance of survival. This is called natural selection and it is the very driveforce of evolution. What if we in the future start plucking away specific genes that seem unimportant at the time. We can’t know if these traits might become handy later on. They could even be the difference between survival and extinction. However, you could say that we would be better off for the time being, as we would have replaced our “bad traits” with better ones. Nevertheless, wouldn’t there be a set of “the best traits”, and wouldn’t everyone want them? This begs the question of what would happen if we would all have the same genetic build - if we would all be the same. A drastic change of our living conditions could either be in everyone’s favor or in no one’s favor - possibly meaning our extinction.
In conclusion, it all comes down to one rudimentary question - do we need this? Is it worth possibly throwing spanners in the work of evolution, just to feed the population with this idea of future-fiction-fantasy, that we have been able to live without for millenniums? There is no guarantee that it would not just bring on an era of economic segregation, or make it even worse for today’s economically segregated cities and countries. Quite the opposite, I think that the positive effects would be minimal in comparison to the ethical -and economic controversy that it could cause. Given that there are about as many different opinions as there are people on earth, I think it is safe to say that conflict is inevitable. Nonetheless, people tend to say that everyone is perfect in their own right - and so do I.