Dinesh D'souza's "Staying Human" deals with the idea that Genetic Modification is not necessarily a good thing. His essay deals with creating arguments to combat the techno-utopians agenda. This groups goal he claims is to fix humanity so they become something more than human. His arguments are based largely upon the ethical, moral, and emotional points of designing and changing humanity. D'souza makes the argument that the techno-utopians idea of cloning and genetic engineering will lead to a future where children have their traits selected for them creating a new form of eugenics where you are discriminated not against skin color, but instead against your genotype. He raises the concern however, that while the techno-utopians make the claim that it genetic modifications wouldn't be used until they were safe, that doesn't assure that there won't be any problems. …show more content…
He postulates that because in today's society the rich are able to get higher quality goods and services compared to the poor that this will continue on to the new eugenics. Although popular items become cheaper over time so that the poor are more easily able to obtain them, D'souza makes the argument that it'll deal those less fortunate a blow that will spread inequality. he points out that this may be similar to piano lessons, another way in which parents can improve their child's lot in life. D'souza states the techno-utopians argument that the human life is sacred, that it's based solely on religion, not on logic. That the debate on altering humanity should be based on facts, not morals and ethical concerns. Silver, a biologist, makes the argument that genetics don't make us special, if anything gives us what could be called a specialness compared to other beings, it's our consciousness. D'souza however does not agree with this pointing out that consciousness is fleeting in humans, and provides the example of a person in a coma lacking
...e the quality of life of children. A big consequence to the use of genetic modification, shown in the movie Gattaca, is the prejudice that can be against those without genetic modifications. To create an idea of what the consequences of genetic modification will look like, a real world example would be racism and the use of eugenics to justify the prejudice against those who were not light-skinned or of caucasian descent. Neo eugenics is a very controversial topic that has a lot of possible benefits and consequences and will affect many generations to come.
The author furnishes strong points and his essay is convincing of positive outcomes provided with biotechnology. The author has effectively proven this claim because, “got me thinking-is there anything wrong with using medicine and biological engineering to modify our brains and bodies to improve or enhance them” (p.693). Firstly, the anti-meliorists (people who believe that the world cannot improve) view those who seek bioethics as being egotistical. This argues that we should accept ourselves as we were created and not alter who we were subjective to be.
A problem that could arise is a repeat of history. Inequality. Our society would be divided into two groups, the “valids” or “perfect humans” and the “in-valids” or “non perfect humans.” This is just another form of discrimination, whereby people are judged because of the circumstances of they were born, something that they have no control over. "I belong to a new underclass, no longer determined by social status or the colour of your skin. We now have discrimination down to a science." -Vincent. In the film “in-valids were granted less rights than the “valids.” Sounds familiar? In the 1960’s many protests occurred because of the inequality and brutality against African-Americans, who had their rights taken away from them based on the colour of their skin. Introducing the practice of genetically modifying humans to live up to the ideology of perfection could cause protests, violence, chaos and possibly a repeat of the Civil Rights Movement. For many years our society has been attempting to eliminate inequality, but this practice could just as easily re-create
Although this movie was a work of fiction, it brought several ideas and issues to mind. Will it be possible for genetic discrimination in the future? Will people be divided into groups that are based on their genetic background? A short trip to the library computer lab to check on sources for this paper led me to believe that fiction could in part become real, especially when dealing with health insurance coverage and heritable diseases.
To choose for their children, the world’s wealthy class will soon have options such as tall, pretty, athletic, intelligent, blue eyes, and blonde hair. Occasionally referred to as similar to “the eugenics of Hitler’s Third Reich” (“Designer Babies” n.p.), the new genetics technology is causing differences in people’s opinions, despite altering DNA before implantation is “just around the corner.” (Thadani n.p.). A recent advance in genetically altering embryos coined “designer babies” produces controversy about the morality of this process.
The ethics behind genetic engineering have been discussed and argued for years now. Some arguing points often include competitive advantages, playing God, and the polarization of society, but Sandel takes a different approach in explaining society’s “unease” with the morality of genetic engineering. Broadcasted through several examples throughout the book, Sandel explains that genetic engineering is immoral because it takes away what makes us human and makes us something else. He states that by taking control of our genetic makeup, or the makeup of our progeny, we lose our human dignity and humility. Our hunger for control will lead to the loss of appreciation for natural gifts, whether they are certain talents, inherited from the genetic lottery, or the gift of life itself.
World Transhumanist Association. "Genetic Enhancement Can Improve Humanity."Genetic Engineering. Ed. James D. Torr. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "The Transhumanism FAQ." 2003. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 10 Apr. 2012.
Matt Bird explains “Genetic engineering can eliminate age barriers,” but he also states, “Genetic engineering’s ability to expand life has a drawback in that it can cause overpopulation.” This shows that the genetic engineering that Jonas’s community can have good things, but it may also have bad aspects to it. Matt Bird says that genetically modified babies can be made stronger, faster, tougher, and smarter, but his article also claims that doing so would have a larger chance for a mutant. In Jonas’s community they genetically modify the babies so they can’t see colors, but there is a chance that they could create a
Imagine a parent walking into what looks like a conference room. A sheet of paper waits on a table with numerous questions many people wish they had control over. Options such as hair color, skin color, personality traits and other physical appearances are mapped out across the page. When the questions are filled out, a baby appears as he or she was described moments before. The baby is the picture of health, and looks perfect in every way. This scenario seems only to exist in a dream, however, the option to design a child has already become a reality in the near future. Parents may approach a similar scenario every day in the future as if choosing a child’s characteristics were a normal way of life. The use of genetic engineering should not give parents the choice to design their child because of the act of humans belittling and “playing” God, the ethics involved in interfering with human lives, and the dangers of manipulating human genes.
In her article she points out how social class has become the main gateway to opportunity in America. The widening academic divide means that kids who grow up poor will most likely stay poor and the kids who grow up rich will most likely stay rich. About fifty years ago the main concern about getting a good education relied on your race but now it's about your social class. Researchers are starting to believe that children who come from higher income families tend to do better in school and get higher test scores.
"Eugenics, Genetic Engineering Lite." The Future of Human Evolution. Humans Future, 2010. Web. 14 Feb 2012.
Coker, Jeffrey Scott. "Genetic Engineering Is Natural and Should Be Pursued." Genetic Engineering, edited by Noël Merino, Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,
In their research article, “Genetic modification and genetic determinism”, David B. Resnik and Daniel B. Vorhaus argue that all the nonconsequentialist arguments against genetic modification are faulty because of the assumption that all the traits are strongly genetically determined, which is not the case. Resnik and Vorhaus dispel four arguments against genetic modification one-by-one. The freedom argument represents three claims: genetic modification prevents the person who has been modified from making free choices related to the modified trait, limits the range of behaviors and life plans, and interferes with the person 's ability to make free choices by increasing parental expectations and demands (Resnik & Vorhaus 5). The authors find this argument not convincing, as genes are simply not “powerful” enough to deprive a person of free choice, career and life options. In addition to that, they argue that parental control depends not on genetic procedure itself, but rather on parents’ basic knowledge of what the results of the modification should be. In a similar fashion, the giftedness arguments, which states that “Children are no longer viewed as gifts, but as
Savulescu, Julian. “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Human Beings.” Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. Ed. David Kaplan. 2nd ed. Lanham: Roman & Littlefield, 2009. 417-430.
In spite of the privileged getting anything money can buy, an underprivileged person gets the important things money cant buy. Many people have heard the expression “if you give a man a fish you can feed them a day, if you teach a man to fish you can feed them a lifetime.” Well I believe privileged people are given fish and the underprivileged taught to fish.