Genetic engineering is a controversial topic that often incites discussions that rival abortion debates. It is a field that has made tremendous leaps and bounds in the past century with new advances in technology, making seemingly impossible things, such cures for terrible diseases and disorders, a possibility. However, parents should not be able to genetically design their children because more social and moral problems than solutions will arise from this capability.
Many people support the idea of genetically designed babies for legitimate social reasons. Yet, each of these positives can be contrasted by a negative.
For one positive, these babies would be immune to diseases such as AIDS, HIV, and other sicknesses that are rampant in many parts of the world. Eventually, these diseases would disappear altogether when the only people living on our planet are genetically engineered. Also, DNA could be modified so that the lifespan of a human could increase. The flip-side to these positives is overpopulation. Genetic engineering would make the population so healthy that no one would die. Overpopulation would put a severe strain on world economics, potentially placing millions of people in terrible living conditions.
For those who are fairly sensitive and overly self-conscious, genetic engineering would eliminate “ugliness” from the world. Never again would a parent have to worry about their child waking up and screaming when they look in the mirror. Makeup, eye liner, and other beauty products would be a thing of the past, simply because they would be completely unnecessary. The economy would be drastically effected by the disappearance of “ugliness.” The beauty industry was worth $160 billion in 2003 (economist.com), and the decline of this industry would upset the balance of the world economy, potentially creating inhumane living conditions for many people.
Additionally, some believe that child abuse would diminish substantially if parents were able to genetically engineer their children. If parents put in all that time to design and pay for their child, then they wouldn’t want to hurt it. However, this argument fails to recognize other mitigating factors that contribute to child abuse. For example, an alcoholic who has been drinking would be so intoxicated that they would not be thinking about all the time, money, and energy that was spent when they designed their child; they would continue to abuse their children.
Obviously, there are many other reasons for the support genetic engineering from a societal perspective, but the pattern remains the same: for every positive, there is a negative that could create an even worse society.
There are many other societal negatives to genetic engineering. Genetic engineering would create more Einsteins, Schwarzeneggers, and Michael Jordans, which is bound to cause serious competition. Everyone would be competing for power and influence. Some simply won’t like democracy, or others will think they are too “smart” for democracy, tearing our country apart into different sects, only increasing crime rates and wars.
Genetic engineering will also change the face of warfare forever. If we make millions of superbabies and continue to perfect them, politics won’t be a question of how many nukes we have, but how many babies we produce. We’ll be able to make babies that are immune to radioactivity, and whoever can use their superbabies most efficiently will have world power. Balance of power will be a thing of the past. The country with the most superbabies will be the country with all the power. From a historical perspective, this is incredibly dangerous, further showing the immense harm resulting from genetic engineering.
However, the moral problems that are inherent in the capability to genetically engineer are even scarier. Obviously, science is a field that relies extensively upon trial and error, which means that we could go through a million embryos to create a superbaby. We will triumph in our successes, but what about all of the failures? Technically, we may destroy millions of embryos (which are clearly people – they are living and grow to become human people) to create a single, perfect superbaby. Is this not murder? Will we kill millions of human beings to achieve perfection? My friends, this is terribly wrong and unethical.
Think of it this way: If all of those embryos are so disposable, aren’t we, who may support genetic engineering, just as disposable? Yes, the embryo is one of the earliest stages of human life, but it deserves just as many rights as a 25 year old receives. When you were an embryo, wouldn’t you want to be treated with the same respect that you receive now as a fully developed human being? If we kill millions of embryos, we might as well be the next Hitler.
Genetic engineering is grossly inhumane. It might as well be considered genocide at a molecular scale. There will be “parents” who will buy a genetically engineered baby, only to have the baby act as a submissive butler, with no personality or ability to choose. This is a modern form of slavery, with genetic engineering as its fuel. Discrimination will arise among different “castes” of engineered babies; those who are incredibly smart will look down upon those who are not. In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, genetic engineering was “the principle of mass production at last applied to biology” (Huxley 7). Humans are put on the same level as machinery when genetically engineered. Warfare will utilize genetically designed super soldiers whose sole purpose is to pull a trigger – not to be an individual. Society will be marked by millions of identical twins marked by standardization. But aren’t you more than a production from an assembly line? Isn’t there something that’s special about you, and only you? Genetic engineering destroys this variety, this voice, this individuality that we often take for granted. This inhumanity is something that should be avoided at all costs.
