Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Genetic engineering in brave new world
Genetic engineering in brave new world
Genetic engineering in future
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Genetic engineering in brave new world
Technological advancement drives human society to change as it itself expands through research into the unknown. Often, new ideas exhibit a threat to the ancient fundamentals of society, leading to a protest of many remarkable innovations. In the study of biology, theorists have begun to propose change at a microscopic level, which will have a profound effect on society: genetically modifying the human species. Gregory Stock addresses the future of this concept in his book, Redesigning Humans. Using metaphor to enhance the journey into the future, substance to present the immense possibilities biological modification will introduce, and appeal to pathos to create fear and excitement, Stock argues that the rebirth of humanity is certain and the world should accept the change.
Stock uses metaphor to emphasize the inevitability of the genetic future and to show how crucial genome modification is for the future of society. He addresses worries that once humans begin altering their natures, the modifications made will progress negatively, harming society. Metaphor reinforces the rebuttal of this claim when Stock says, “advanced reproductive technologies are more like a slippery sidewalk than a slippery slope. Rather than sliding uncontrollably into some deep abyss, we more likely will take a spill or two, get up, brush ourselves off, and continue cautiously on our way” (Stock 151). The comparison to a sidewalk clarifies that every movement will be by choice because of the implication of walking opposed to falling down a “slippery slope”. This refutes the claim that the technology will harm society, but does not remove the idea of inevitability due to the inclusion of “slippery”. On account of limited metaphorical language us...
... middle of paper ...
...ience excited for the future of society. By appealing to pathos to create excitement for the progression of society and fear of genetic diseases that are eliminable, Stock encourages the reader to embrace genetic modification.
Metaphor, appeal to substance, and appeal to pathos assist in Stock’s portrayal of germline engineering as a certain and constructive technology in Redesigning Humans. Metaphor accentuates the inevitability and makes the audience understand the point the author makes. Substance reinforces this idea through hypothetical examples, which enable the reader to comprehend the importance of genetic modification, and appeal to pathos, which helps create a desire for this future. Individuals will continue to strive for the intangible on a quest to perfect the human condition, and germline engineering serves as a vital leap forward in this crusade.
...cs and New Genetics” the ways that Factor X and human dignity spreads throughout society in the future show that it is the moral responsibility of society to continue to show others respect and dignity. Through the use of the pieces, “Human Dignity and Human Reproductive Cloning” by Steven Malby, “Genetic Testing and Its Implications: Human Genetics Researchers Grapple with Ethical Issues” by Isaac Rabino, and “Gender Differences in the Perception of Genetic Engineering Applied to Human Reproduction”,by Carol L. Napolitano and Oladele A. Ogunseitan, the decline on the amount of human dignity found in today's society as well as the regression in Factor X that can be found today compared to times past and how the increase in genetic engineering has greater caused for even more hurdles, for the spread of human dignity and Factor X to all members of society, to overcome.
...he reader, which creates many questions about the particular subject of genetic engineering. It also conveys the authors idea, that we really need to be careful about what we do with this new scientific marvel, effectively to the reader, thus raising the reader's awareness about genetic engineering.
However, with genetic engineering this miracle of like is taken and reduced to petty “character creation” picking and choosing what someone else thinks should “make them special”. An unborn child that undergoes genetic treatments in this fashion is known as a designer baby (“Should Parents Be Permitted to Select the Gender of Their Children?”). By picking and choosing the traits of a child these designer babies bear similarities to abortion, choosing to get rid of the original child in favor of a “better” one. It is also unfair to deprive a child of their own life. By removing the element of chance and imputing their own preferences, children become treated more as an extension of their parents than as living beings with their own unique life. Parents could redirect a child’s entire life by imposing their wishes before they are even born, choosing a cookie cutter tall, athletic boy over a girl with her own individual traits, or any other choice that would redirect a child’s
When James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA in 1959, they could not have known that their discovery would one day lead to the possibility of a human factory that is equipped with the capabilities to mass produce perfectly designed, immortal human beings on a laboratory assembly line. Of course, this human factory is not yet possible; genetic technology is still in its infancy, and scientists are forced to spend their days unlocking the secret of human genetics in hopes of uncovering cures for diseases, alleviating suffering, and prolonging life. In the midst of their noble work, scientists still dream of a world—a utopia—inhabited by flawless individuals who have forgotten death and never known suffering. What would become of society if such a utopia existed? How will human life be altered? Leon Kass, in Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics, acknowledges genetics technology’s greatness, and applauds it for its invaluable, benevolent contributions to mankind. However, Kass argues that if left to their devises and ambitions, geneticists—with the power of their technology—will steal away society’s most precious asset; genetic technology will rob society of its humanity. Genetic technology can, and will, achieve great things, but unless it is regulated and controlled, the losses will be catastrophic and the costs will far exceed the benefits.
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.
The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of the earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have increased the average human lifespan and improved the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to alter humans through the use of advanced genetic alteration. This technology gives rise to the question of how this new technology ought to be used, if at all. The idea of human enhancement is a very general topic, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools.
Picture a young couple in a waiting room looking through a catalogue together. This catalogue is a little different from what you might expect. In this catalogue, specific traits for babies are being sold to couples to help them create the "perfect baby." This may seem like a bizarre scenario, but it may not be too far off in the future. Designing babies using genetic enhancement is an issue that is gaining more and more attention in the news. This controversial issue, once thought to be only possible in the realm of science-fiction, is causing people to discuss the moral issues surrounding genetic enhancement and germ line engineering. Though genetic research can prove beneficial to learning how to prevent hereditary diseases, the genetic enhancement of human embryos is unethical when used to create "designer babies" with enhanced appearance, athletic ability, and intelligence.
Science and technology are rapidly advancing everyday; in some ways for the better, and in some, for worse. One extremely controversial advance is genetic engineering. As this technology has high potential to do great things, I believe the power genetic engineering is growing out of control. Although society wants to see this concept used to fight disease and illness, enhance people 's lives, and make agriculture more sustainable, there needs to be a point where a line is drawn.
Good morning, listeners. Welcome to Future Forum. I am Millie Shan. An exciting topic for us to discuss today is the challenges for the future. What concerns could our future generations confront? It is undeniable that rapid technological and scientific progress not only improves convenience and efficiency of our daily life, but also causes ethical concerns to humanity where science and technology intersect with society from different disciplinary aspects. In particular, preimplantation genetic technology could have alter society into a genetic hierarchy establishing a dystopian society accompanied by genetic discrimination. GATTACA made in 1997, an intriguing science fiction film directed by Andrew Niccol, delivers an insight into how the
[7] Stock, G., and Campbell, J.. "Engineering the Human Germline: an Exploration of the Science and Ethics of Altering the Genes We Pass to Our Children, New York; Oxford University Press, 2000. back
The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have tremendously improved the average human lifespan and the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to make humans superior by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This ability raises the question of how ought this new technology be used, if at all? The idea of human enhancement is a very general, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am specifically referring to the use of genetic intervention prior to birth. Julian Savulescu in his, “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings” argues that it is not only permissible to intervene genetically, but is morally obligatory. In this paper I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to genetically intervene, but may be permissible under the criterion established by Savulescu. I plan to argue that the argument used by Savulescu for the obligation to genetically intervene is not the same obligation as the prevention and treatment of disease. The ability for humans to genetically intervene is not sufficient to provide a moral obligation.
"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,
Human genetic engineering can provide humanity with the capability to construct “designer babies” as well as cure multiple hereditary diseases. This can be accomplished by changing a human’s genotype to produce a desired phenotype. The outcome could cure both birth defects and hereditary diseases such as cancer and AIDS. Human genetic engineering can also allow mankind to permanently remove a mutated gene through embryo screening as well as allow parents to choose the desired traits for their children. Negative outcomes of this technology may include the transmission of harmful diseases and the production of genetic mutations. The benefits of human genetic engineering outweigh the risks by providing mankind with cures to multiple deadly diseases.
The main ethical dilemma presented in the film is the use of genetic modification technology in humans. The scientists initially approach this dilemma by thinking like classic teleologians. “By incorporating human DNA into the hybrid template, we can begin to address any number of genetically influenced diseases…Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, even some forms of cancer”. (Splice, 2009) They are producing a greater good by choosing this ethical path. This is the core motive for the current use of GMOs. According to the Human Genome Project (U.S. Department of Energy Genome Programs, 2008), GMOs have a variety of applications; To increase the yield of crops and animal products, to make plants and animals more resistant to certain disease, and more efficiently processed are but a few. The end product of these applications is, in theory, to benefit humanity. If we are already genetically modifying plants and animals, is a...