It is easy, though, to get carried away by cliché. Talk of designer babies, slippery slopes and brave new worlds adds little to constructive debate about PGD (Pre-implantion Genetiuc Diagnosis), because its dystopian potential is firmly limited by science.
This is very true, as far as it goes. Human genetic engineering is actually far more difficult and problematic than popular science would lead one to believe and the prospects of a Huxleyesque Brave New World are remote. Human beings aren't as genetically variable as other species, they are very difficult to engineer, take a very long time to reproduce, and stakes of even a single failure are so high that anything like a true eugenics programme would require a dictatorship of phenomenal reach, dedication and longevity. As Mr. Henderson says, we are not heading for a Gattaca situation of genetic Übermensch lording it over the rest.Or are we? Even though it had Ethan Hawke starring in it and the painful presence of Gore Vidal in a supporting role, I found the scenario presented in Gattaca to be a compelling one; not because it depicted a world of godlike beings, but because it presented exactly the opposite. The "Valids" of Gattaca, as the genetically-engineered upper class were called, may have been carefully screened for things like heart disease or myopia, but the story made it clear that they were in no way supermen. They were merely treated as if they were. And in an oligarchy that is more than enough, as a brief glance at any Communist state will show.
In other words, it isn't a matter of true genetics, but of false aristocracy. The danger is that designer babies have the potential of being regarded as separate from the rest of humanity by way of their origins. They may not be Übermensch or Untermensch, but they could end up being seen as such regardless. From there, the slippery slope leads to caste, prejudice and a racial barrier more permanent than anything marked by skin colour. Whether the designed lord over us as Alphas to our Gammas or vice versa is immaterial. The damage will have been done.
Perhaps Brave New World isn't so far off after all.
5 comments:
"In other words, it isn't a matter of true genetics, but of false aristocracy"
Truer words seldom spoken.
I, for one, am all for design. If parents have worked hard enough to have enough wealth to screen embryos against defects- or even for positive traits they would like- this is a good thing, not a bad one. I just don't see it leading to any kind of a dystopia- there's too much freaking political correctness in our society for that to happen. Ironically, in a better world, society might be prone to design leading to some kind of elitism. In this world, where "self esteem" is more important than achievement...? Not likely.
And I'd be in favor of funding screening (and with it, embryo choice) against serious genetic problems for those who can't afford it, actually. I suspect it would be cheaper for me as a taxpayer than having to support those with special needs. Or does someone want to argue that society is better for having monogloids, hemophiliacs, and children with progeria who'll never make it to 20?
I’m loath to disagree Neel, as you are one of the more enlightened and eloquent commenters here. And I mean that with all due sincerity.
What truly bothers me about the design and selective embryos is the fact that it wholly overlooks entities like Dr. Stephen Hawking.
Here we have a man who, despite fully debilitating ALS, has managed to unlock more secrets about the universe in forty-some years than the human race has in millennia.
I'm all for personal choice, taxpayer breaks and working towards enhancing human life with all the technology at our disposal. But the toll on our wisdom had we been bereft of Dr. Hawking, is too great to even contemplate.
I like what Scott Adams said on this subject (and this is paraphrased slightly):
"To these perfect offspring our generation will seem like a race of mutants and hunchbacks. But, on the good side, we won't have to care about taking care of the planet, and we can go ahead and leave a burnt-out husk to those perfect barbie-doll people, because we all know they deserve it." :D
Hmmm. I'm inclined not to believe any one person is irreplaceable. I also *strongly* belive in nurture over nature. Therefore I think had we not been blessed with Haking, we'd have had someone else, or the baby that was born in his place might have turned out exactly the same. As I understand it, his disease manifested later in life- so it didn't really shape what he was- he was brilliant already.
Also, who is to say at some point we won't be able to retro-engineer our genetic code? That is to say, take individuals like Hawking and edit the gene code to remove the condition they must suffer through?
Yeah, I know it's scary stuff. Tons of potential for abuse, admitted. But fire presented the same problem to its first users.
I do understand the hesitancy to embrace design. *I* just have a hesitancy to watch people needlessly suffer, and I have a tendency to look at what *is*, not what *might have been*.
Eh, sorry if I flamed at first. It just seems to me that preventing everyone from having access to design just because you (not aimed at anyone, the general "you") don't approve of it is the kind of trampling on personal liberties that leads to a more, not less Orwellian world.
That is, as long as the good of the child selected is borne in mind! I could see crazy deaf parents selecting a deaf child! *There* I would more than start to have serious qualms!
Post a Comment