As I read the Sandel article “The Case Against Perfection” for the fifth time to find a good quote, I reached a state that if I were woken up at 4am from sleep and asked on what moral aspects would genetic engineering do harm to humans, I could answer: humility, responsibility, and solidarity without thinking. I guess it is probably true for most of our writing seminar class.
After the three words got so ingrained into my brain, I wondered if there’s any other major harm the whole “drive to mastery” attitude can bring. Finally I came up with one reasonable enough, and I’ll just throw it out here. (I’m sure there must be some sociology name for it, but due to my obliviousness I just don’t know until someone tells me.)
One objection Dan raised in class about Annie’s thought is that implanting chips into brains is expensive, and if anyone’s getting it, it would probably be the rich first until it’s so common one day it’s just one item in the supermarket. This is why many people argue that two human species would be created: one superior kind with perfect attributes and one inferior kind whose opportunities are limited to what the better kind overlooks.
The sub-species theory deserves serious concern because not only is it unequal, but also it suppresses the occurrence of human genius, especially those from the grassroots of a society. Nowadays the gap between the rich and the poor is probably bigger than ever, but people still believe in “Slumdog Millionaire” phenomena. It is possible that a person from an adverse, or unfavorable, environment can still reach great achievements with talent and efforts. In the genetic recombination game we humans don’t play god yet. However, imagine one day the rich get to make sure prenatally that their offspring are talented. It would create such high obstacle for the disadvantaged to catch up through endeavor that the motivation to work hard may decrease. The society as a whole suffers because potential of an ingenious idea is priceless, and there is no guarantee from whom valuable inventions will come from.
Thanks to,
Sandel, Michael J. “The Case Against Perfection.” The Atlantic Online. April 2004. Web. 2 Nov. 2009.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree with Peiwen in that the disparity between the class of humans with genetically enhanced traits and those without them would increase if genetic enhancement were made available. She brings up a legitimate point saying that these genetic enhancements would be expensive—just look at the cost people have to pay for in vitro fertilization, another form of “enhancement” that wouldn’t be possible without technology. Because it would be expensive, the class that receives such enhancement would indeed become the most desirable for work because they would be more likely to be more competent. Thus the disparity between those who were enhanced and those who were would resemble that between the existing socioeconomic classes, except with a different twist- some who have worked their way up to a higher economic status may choose not to have genetic enhancement.
For various reasons, some people would likely decide not to undergo genetic enhancement because, as we can see in class discussions and scholarly essays, many people are skeptical about the ethicality of genetic enhancement. So, people may be pressured into compromising their ethical standards for the mere fact that they need to provide for their families, or perhaps pay their mortgage, for example. Of course, in the same way, one could argue that students are coerced to use calculators because it increases the test scores of their peers. And yet calculators are useful tools that promote innovation and further learning at a faster rate. Would this genetic enhancement be helpful to society by being a “tool” of sorts or would the greater disparity between the enhanced and those that are not enhanced be too great a price for the benefits of genetic enhancement? I think fostering this polarity would be unethical, but if there was perhaps some way to make it readily available to all, then it would be more acceptable. However, the question still remains—what about those who choose against enhancement? Is it unfair to pursue genetic enhancement because some will choose not to undergo such treatment for their own moral beliefs? And if this is deemed fair, are we unfairly coercing people to compromise their beliefs?
Post a Comment