Genetically Engineered Society

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
21

O.Cynic,

I think how humans presently live is sterile and stagnant. Most do not think very deeply about life, Most seem content on a life with the animal rewards of career and marriage. Basically, I’m not content with how boring most people are in conversation, how their interests hinge on crude forms of animal excitement. It all seems so conventional and mundane.

Human beings are a tragedy in the sense that we are born irrational, with all the baggage of thousands of years of evolution. We are emotional and violent.

To me, I think it would be arrogant if we did not embrace the desire to transcend our our imperfections and become something greater than our current pitiful lot.

22

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=169625&p=2101117

23

Xunzian,

what is your main argument against transcending imperfection in the human makeup? Because your post was long, and I had a difficult time isolating your main points because your language seems overly complicated to me.

My position is that if we have sound values, then any improvements we make to people will be just and fair. For instance: genetic engineering will probably first be used to eliminate certain types of physical diseases, and eventually move into the psychological sphere by eliminating things like down syndrome, and so on.

Eventually we will discover what type of brain structure and body chemistry is necessary for greatness as a scientist, philosopher and so on. Intellectuals are born in my opinion, but the necessary stimulus is needed from the environment.

It is like genetically engineering strong crops. The strength is in the seed, but the environment needs to be right as well. That is how I view this issue.

When confronted with the choice to have a society of geniuses, savants and creative thinkers, or mundane drones who are content with monday night football, and intentionally starting arguments with their girlfriends to feel the emotional reward of irrationality, I would hope humanity will chose the former and not the latter.

good day.

24

It is actually Sandel’s point. And his point is that it is the unpredictability of genetics, the notion of “there but for the grace of God go I” that leads to much of the altruism seen in society not directed towards those of close genetic relation. As I confessed to Omar, I have certain problems with the idea but I do think it is evocative. The essay is worth a read.

25

Technology will push forward regardless of people’s negative view towards it. Look at George Bush - He banned stem cell research, and Obama, who is more intelligent, made it legal again. Ignorance cannot win everywhere.

Genetic engineering is often demonized because there are possibilities that people will suffer atrocities due to the technology, but how is that any difference to any other technology out there that has the possibility for evil? Should we ban knives because someone can kill another person with it? no.

If there are strict ethical guidelines in place, then most people will not suffer, but the question remains do we have a moral obligation to improve upon nature’s design as we have always done? and the answer is yes. The first cave man who built a club to bash the heads of wild animals was improving nature’s design, and we should never stop doing it. That is what makes us creative. The creative impulse is based on making our situation better.

The fact remains: Humans are imperfect, both physically and mentally. The rate of genius is something like 2% of the population, why not engineer 50% of the population to be geniuses? What do you think is a more worthwhile life: A Buddha or A George Bush? And do you think that George Bush actually has a say whether he is unintelligent or not. He does not. Stupidity is deterministic. Life is cruel and unfair, so we need to consciously create our future, regardless of nature’s hellish design.

26

shrugs

Again, read the essay.

27

Xunzian,

I read over much of the essay, and it is actually well written, but many of the positions agaisn’t genetic engineering I don’t agree with.

First of all, one of his arguments is that we do not want to take away a child’s freedom of what they will become by allowing their parents to modify their characteristics and traits. However, my response to that is children are not free to chose what they will become now anyway. To suggest that children are free-agents of their destiny is baseless, A children’s potential is ultimately determined by genetic and environmental factors that they have no control over. So what will happen is that the intelligence of the parent determine the intelligence of the child because if the eugenics movement is within the free market then parents will design their offspring based on their values, so if they are passionate about music, their child will be engineered to be musically inclined. If parents value science, their child will be scientifically inclined, if the parents value sexual beauty, the child will be engineered to be a barbie doll.

And then you may get entire nations that will put unique regulations on engineering, by restricting the creation of barbie doll humans and so on. They will still be diversity, but it will be complicated. Some nations will abuse the technology, some will not. It will only be as good as the intelligence of the government and population.

However, I agree with the author that the service will be elitist in the sense that only the rich will be able to afford it at first, but we cannot change the inevitable consequences of the capitalist system. Engineering will eventually become cheaper and more accessible to all parents just as all technology reduces in price over time. Many if the authors counterarguments that we mentioned in the article are not strong enough to prevent the emergence of genetic engineering. It is coming, probably not in our life time, but it will come. maybe in 250 years.

The author makes another decent point: Genetic engineering will only be as good as societies values. In the US, where people are encouraged to be individualistic, values vary greatly, so traits and characteristics engineered will vary greatly too, but in societies with a collective mindset such as Japan who value technology above many other things, you might have a disproportionate amount of scientists engineered to others to reflect the collective mindset of the nation-state. The outcomes will be very complicated, and the technology will be used for good and evil, but overall, our species should become collectively healthier and rational. That is what I believe will happen based on the literature I’ve read.

You may also eventually get zones in cities more extreme than present where certain types of engineered people gather. Sexually beautiful hedonists and musicians would probably live in a totally different zone of a city than a dedicated scientists or cold philosopher who spends years in study for purposes of intellectual expansion, creativity and debate.

Some zones will be very warm, others will be very cold to reflect differences in personalities engineered.

28

Right, which goes against the openness to the unbidden, which is the central aspect of his thesis. It is the end-point of the commodification of human beings.

I’d say it is a good deal closer than that. Though the unintended consequences will be troubling for some time. Though do keep in mind with the price of the technology, this will operate on a generational scale. HG Wells, anyone?

I’d argue that the narrative of individuality actually leads more towards homogeneity. A jack of all trades is a master of none. On the other hand, specialization fosters diversity.

HG Wells, anyone?