I recently volunteered to have my DNA studied for the Personal Genome Project. I did this because I see human genetic engineering to be an important part of our future, and we have much to learn in order to take advantage of it. I may or may not be selected to participate, but either way, it has caused me to pause and think about where studying the human genome may lead. The first benefit that you may hear cited for this kind of research is the ability to prevent the expression of hereditary diseases. This is certainly a wonderful first step, but what fascinates me most are the prospects of continuing human evolution in a guided way, and in the more near term, the advancement of personalized medicine.
The beautifully effective process of evolution has resulted in a species that breaks that process. Not only have we side stepped the requirement of adaptation to survive, we've introduced our bodies to a life they were not meant to sustain. Our teeth rot, our whole bodies lose vigor before we're done using them, and even our minds fade before we're quite ready. We're driven by biological tendencies whose imperatives have long lost importance. For the sake of adapting ourselves to meet the challenges of our changing lifestyles and also as an alternative method to meet extreme habitat challenges in the future, we should take the reins of this driver-less coach as soon as possible.
Setting aside the questions of the mountain of research that must occur before we can safely make desirable changes, there are other questions that must be considered. How comfortable are we with making genetic decisions about the unborn generations that follow us? How do we bring the opportunities to the greatest number of people to prevent a gulf from widening between the rich and the poor? How do we become comfortable with the concept of being our own creators? These are only a few of the trials we face.
Parents make many decisions that impact their children, but whether they believe it or not, defining who they are is not one of those impacts. Predetermining the traits of an unborn child seems to go against our value of individual freedom, and touches borders with a similar concern about a general degradation of individuality. For if we gain the ability to pre-instil exceptional intelligence, beauty, and prowess to the unborn, will our society transform into a mass of homogeneous ultra-humans, or will it simply cause us to find diversity at another level? Or even through the very same technology via cosmetic genetic changes.
There is the problem some may have with genetic engineering, that is the "playing god" accusation. This argument makes a presumption of a completely different nature that I'll not delve into much here. The closest thing I can ascribe to being that god that we would be playing is the very non-sentient DNA I propose we change. So I suppose you might consider that playing god's god. Well, that recursive paradox is the very problem with the argument in the first place isn't it.
I wonder what people would think about altering the DNA of a possum to produce a cute, friendly, colorful pet that hangs upside down from your curtain rod on occasion. We've created radical variation of dogs through selective breeding from wolves that are only loosely considered the same species. Is the faster process of direct gene modification worse than selective breeding for some reason? You're just doing the same thing in a few generations rather than a hundred. Dogs are not people, but it's an interesting example. In my mind, these trials and questions seem to be dissolving and breaking apart.
The beautifully effective process of evolution has resulted in a species that breaks that process. Not only have we side stepped the requirement of adaptation to survive, we've introduced our bodies to a life they were not meant to sustain. Our teeth rot, our whole bodies lose vigor before we're done using them, and even our minds fade before we're quite ready. We're driven by biological tendencies whose imperatives have long lost importance. For the sake of adapting ourselves to meet the challenges of our changing lifestyles and also as an alternative method to meet extreme habitat challenges in the future, we should take the reins of this driver-less coach as soon as possible.
Setting aside the questions of the mountain of research that must occur before we can safely make desirable changes, there are other questions that must be considered. How comfortable are we with making genetic decisions about the unborn generations that follow us? How do we bring the opportunities to the greatest number of people to prevent a gulf from widening between the rich and the poor? How do we become comfortable with the concept of being our own creators? These are only a few of the trials we face.
Parents make many decisions that impact their children, but whether they believe it or not, defining who they are is not one of those impacts. Predetermining the traits of an unborn child seems to go against our value of individual freedom, and touches borders with a similar concern about a general degradation of individuality. For if we gain the ability to pre-instil exceptional intelligence, beauty, and prowess to the unborn, will our society transform into a mass of homogeneous ultra-humans, or will it simply cause us to find diversity at another level? Or even through the very same technology via cosmetic genetic changes.
There is the problem some may have with genetic engineering, that is the "playing god" accusation. This argument makes a presumption of a completely different nature that I'll not delve into much here. The closest thing I can ascribe to being that god that we would be playing is the very non-sentient DNA I propose we change. So I suppose you might consider that playing god's god. Well, that recursive paradox is the very problem with the argument in the first place isn't it.
I wonder what people would think about altering the DNA of a possum to produce a cute, friendly, colorful pet that hangs upside down from your curtain rod on occasion. We've created radical variation of dogs through selective breeding from wolves that are only loosely considered the same species. Is the faster process of direct gene modification worse than selective breeding for some reason? You're just doing the same thing in a few generations rather than a hundred. Dogs are not people, but it's an interesting example. In my mind, these trials and questions seem to be dissolving and breaking apart.
0 comments:
Post a Comment