On Genetically Engineering a Better Human Race

[Jade Margery]

So, in the thread about animal hybrids, someone mentioned that we may soon have the technology to create better human beings--to bypass millions of years of evolution with a few decades of research. This has led my brain to some purely hypothetical questions and I thought I'd throw them out here for discussion. Answer as many as you like.


IF we could pick out the genes of new human beings and make them 'better', what do you think would be considered an improvement on our current design? There are the obvious ones--no genetic disabilities or diseases, better health and longevity, but how about the more subtle traits. Would it be desirable to engineer humans who are more patient and thoughtful? How about people predisposed to optimism?

Suppose gene tailoring were available to you and your real/imaginary partner now, and worked perfectly (for the sake of this hypothetical). How far might you be willing to engineer your child? Would you have them remove any recessive markers for dangerous diseases like hemophilia? Would you want to make them smarter, or stronger, or better coordinated? How about personality traits, like confidence, compassion, honesty and ambition? Would you want to know if your child was likely to become gay, and would you change it if you could? Would you be interested in cosmetic tailoring, to make sure your child doesn't inherit his father's beer belly or his mother's beaky nose?


Assuming that gene tailoring to remove genetic disease markers were widely available and affordable--should it be considered child abuse to -not- have this taken care of? After all, it is considered child abuse not to give a child treatment for a disease in lieu of prayer or other religious rituals. Making a small genetic change could be considered a preventative treatment, and not getting it could be child abuse.

How would you feel if your parents revealed to you that you were part of a secret early experiment in genetically engineered babies? Would it change the way you think of yourself? Would you be angry with them for messing with your genes, or would you feel glad that their doing so made you the person you are today?



As a last note, there is a quote I'd like to share from an article I read a long time ago on this subject. Through to the end I was thinking that besides avoiding genetic disorders, I would never want to engineer my child, but one researcher said this: "I believe it would be immoral not to adjust the genetics if we can. A new human being is too precious and important to leave up to chance." (Paraphrased, of course, since I've long lost the article.) It's an interesting perspective, and has given me much cause for thought.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Sure, we could program for xenophobia and absolutely loyalty to authority. We could have a new breed of supersoldiers...

But that would be a nightmare.

I don't think that I would want to limit the human species to only one set of traits of natural temperament. However, it might not be a bad idea to go in the opposite direction to the supersoldier in some ways -- more independence, less tribalism, more openness to experience, a happier average mood.

Still, I would worry that there could be unforseen political consequences to this that aren't so good. This could be opening up a Pandora's box. "We" might create independent people optimized for life in a free society. Someone else might create docile women who are little more than breeding machines and sex slaves. I'm not sure we want to go there.

But improved looks, physical health, intelligence, and such, yes. I think that would be fine.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

We need genetic engineering AND time travel.

 

[Jade Margery]

"We" might create independent people optimized for life in a free society. Someone else might create docile women who are little more than breeding machines and sex slaves. I'm not sure we want to go there.
eudaimonia,

Mark

Tertiary question: Given that some people -enjoy- being 'bottoms' in bondage, up to the point of giving themselves over to others as slaves, and you genetically engineer someone to enjoy such treatment, is it wrong to do it to them? After all, some people enjoy it naturally--you wouldn't be creating anything that didn't already exist, just making more of them--and the person you created would really want it to happen.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Tertiary question: Given that some people -enjoy- being 'bottoms' in bondage, up to the point of giving themselves over to others as slaves, and you genetically engineer someone to enjoy such treatment, is it wrong to do it to them?

I think so. "Enjoyment" isn't everything. People can enjoy what isn't healthy for them.

Note: A little submissiveness in the bedroom isn't necessarily a bad thing. But if someone would desire actual slavery, there would be something wrong there.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ar Cosc]

It's definitely an interesting question. And I think a lot of it hinges on how available these things are going to be. I completely disagree with the concept that the rich will be able to engineer super-intelligent children with better looks, strength, stamina and disease resistance than the poor, further stratifying our society, but obviously think that curing diseases that cause so much suffering is a good thing. If this sort of thing was offered as an opt-in programme funded by the state, I would, however, approve of it.

One further note, we already have a population crisis. Perhaps letting people live longer, and slowing the natural "thinning out" of the human race mightn't be the most prudent idea until we've gone some way towards solving that. There's no way you can genetically engineer someone to survive indefinitely without food or water (in the short term at least)

 

[Eudaimonist]

One further note, we already have a population crisis.

We do, but in the West the crisis is fewer people being born than the population replacement rate (not counting immigration). Many populations are shrinking. Sweden, without immigration, would be shrinking rapidly. America's population would be at a near standstill.

It's only in the world overall that you find net increases. In the future, the rest of the world may catch up to the West as education and living standards improve. Figuring out how to delay old age might not be such a bad idea. Once the world population starts to shrink overall, longer lifespans won't hurt.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Amber the Duskbringer]

Honestly I would love to live longer and be free of diseases. As for my child I wouldn't because I would let them decide. More of a choice because 1 I don't think being gay is some kinda disease needing to be weeded out, 2 living a long time is a burden many dont want. My child would possibly outlive their friends who opted out of it and that is depressing. Hypothetically yes. Then again I would say yes to fox ears and a fox tail So that's just me

 

[jayem]

We should consider is the economic consequences of extended life spans. If people can live healthy lives of say, 200 years, how long will they be working? Will there be jobs for young people if older workers stay in the labor force for 175 years? Certainly if people are living longer, they're consuming more, so there will be an expanded demand for products and services. I'd assume that the usual supply and demand forces that affect employment and consumption will eventually adjust to enhanced longevity. But the transition period before the economy resets itself could be very ugly.

 

[solarwave]

I wouldn't have a problem with much of the genetic engineering mentioned in your post. The removal of disease would be the most important, should be enforced in the end and failure to do so would be child abuse. Even now if religious parents refuse medical treatment, only having their child prayed for and then their child dies then that is wrong.

I also don't have too much of a problem with changing physical appearance to a reasonable extent. I don't think people should be allowed to make blue fury elves, but making big ears smaller seems ok.

I think it is harder to change personality because it is much more complex. Your personality is a combination of genes, conditions in the womb, upbringing and environment. Perhaps a reduction in anger if they have a parent with anger problems might be good, but I would say that this area has more ethical and practical problems.

An increase in skills such as intelligence, strength or co-ordination doesn't seem immoral to me.

Would I decrease the likelihood of my child being gay? Honestly, maybe. I'm not against being homosexual, think it is a sin or want the percentage of homosexuals to decrease, it is just my personal feelings.

Now this is making very simple a complex issue of course. I am only talking of the intrinsic morality of the act, but how it affects society as a whole also matters and is something I know nothing about.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

They tried it before, it's called Social Darwinism.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Better not to mess with it. One possible exception would be modifying known disease related genes.

 

[Verv]

IF we could pick out the genes of new human beings and make them 'better', what do you think would be considered an improvement on our current design?

The simple answer would be 'smarter, stronger.'

Another answer would be to split us into 'smarter, stronger' and 'smaller, stronger' as beign small and consuming minimal amounts of resources has its own set of advantages...

But at the end of the day the topic disgusts me.

LEt life flourish naturally.

 

[Eudaimonist]

They tried it before, it's called Social Darwinism.

Let's say that you are right. So what? No one is suggesting that anyone be killed or prevented from receiving charitable aid. The ethics of genetic engineering are vastly different than any form of Social Darwinism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Let's say that you are right. So what? No one is suggesting that anyone be killed or prevented from receiving charitable aid. The ethics of genetic engineering are vastly different than any form of Social Darwinism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Many Social Darwinists prefered sterillizing people rather than killing them. Most of the time they didn't want to let them die simply because they had 'bad' genes - they just didn't want these genes to be passed on. We object to Social Darwinism not because of the number of people killed, but because the idea that we can breed (or engineer) "better" people using genetics has been tried before, with pretty horrible results.

On a side-note, I'm slightly surprised that we're more interested in making ourselves smarter rather than kinder. Wouldn't we prefer engineering genes which promote altruism rather than intelligence?

 

[MountainCappuccino]

Take out whatever it is that makes human beings take pleasure from inflicting harm, emotionally and physically.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Many Social Darwinists prefered sterillizing people rather than killing them. Most of the time they didn't want to let them die simply because they had 'bad' genes - they just didn't want these genes to be passed on. We object to Social Darwinism not because of the number of people killed, but because the idea that we can breed (or engineer) "better" people using genetics has been tried before, with pretty horrible results.

What was tried? On what scale? What were those results?

On a side-note, I'm slightly surprised that we're more interested in making ourselves smarter rather than kinder. Wouldn't we prefer engineering genes which promote altruism rather than intelligence?

Not that I have anything against kindness, but that would not be my preference. But do note that I did say that I considered reducing tribalism, which I think would have the result of improving kindness towards people not in one's "tribe".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Jade Margery]

Many Social Darwinists prefered sterillizing people rather than killing them. Most of the time they didn't want to let them die simply because they had 'bad' genes - they just didn't want these genes to be passed on. We object to Social Darwinism not because of the number of people killed, but because the idea that we can breed (or engineer) "better" people using genetics has been tried before, with pretty horrible results.

Er, I object to social darwinism because of the number of people killed AND the number of people sterilized against their will, some of whom are still alive today. It was a tragedy for human rights on both sides of the Atlantic, perpetrated by people who made laws based on something they didn't understand.

On the other hand, we're not talking about killing or sterilizing anyone here. We're not talking about forcing people to do this (besides the hypothetical 'if you can prevent a genetic disease, is it child abuse not to?) For the sake of argument, we're talking about voluntary involvement with predictably safe and successful results.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Before we get to any serious genetic engineering, we are likely to create many epigenetics-based drugs that turn existing genes "on" and "off". There is real promise here, and we don't need to change the human genome to do it.

Epigenetics, DNA: How You Can Change Your Genes, Destiny - TIME


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Jade Margery]

Before we get to any serious genetic engineering, we are likely to create many epigenetics-based drugs that turn existing genes "on" and "off". There is real promise here, and we don't need to change the human genome to do it.

Epigenetics, DNA: How You Can Change Your Genes, Destiny - TIME


eudaimonia,

Mark

Ah, I hadn't even thought of the potential for epigenetics in this regard. It's such a fascinating discovery, it almost makes me regret not going into biology with the cutting-edge research they are doing. It would be interesting if you could actually affect your own epigenetics with a drug--much better to turn off a gene that makes you an anxious eater than spend tons of money on diet pills, eh?

But, since this is a discussion about the morality and ethics of changing/engineering genes of future children, we can assume that epigenetics is part of the science used to do that.

Someone earlier said it would be wrong to make people who like being slaves, and I think it would be interesting to return to that. It puts me in mind of the animal at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe in the second (or third?) book of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In case you haven't read the books (for shame, as they are hilarious and weirdly philosophical at the same time), the diners at the Restaurant are greeted by a large cow-like animal who explains that he will be for dinner that night and suggests that they might enjoy various parts of his body, such as his [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], which is very tender from all the corn he has been forcing himself to eat.

The Earthling main character Arthur Dent is horrified by this, but the animal points out that it used to be people only ate creatures that didn't want to be eaten, which was cruel, so creatures like him were created who wanted to be eaten, which was much better. None of the other characters have a problem with this and later enjoy some lovely steaks while Dent sticks to the salad.

So it's a thorny, if purely hypothetical, ethical question--if you create someone who wants to be/enjoys being taken advantage of, is it wrong to take advantage of them? Is it more or less wrong than taking advantage of (eating, enslaving) someone who wasn't engineered to desire it?