Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Social class and its effects
What are the positive and negative effects of genetic engineering
Why genetic engineering is bad
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Social class and its effects
Life is full of haves and have-nots, that is, people who are wealthy and the people who are very poor, described in the Collins English Dictionary (Haves). In society, it is not difficult to recognize the contrast between them. The middle class group blends in between, and as long as there has been humanity, there have been different levels of social classes. With the potential to choose different options for a child’s genes, those that have the financial means would be able to guarantee that their progeny would be bigger, better, smarter, and better-looking to get ahead faster and have the ultimate success. The gap between the very rich and very poor would become even greater as natural genetics would remain in the lower middle and poor
For example, if society will be altered in a negative way, will there be a way to repair it? Once the genetics are modified, will they continue through future generations? In Sarah Knapton’s Telegraph article, opponents to genetic manipulation argue that changes will continue in future generations because the transformations are happening in embryos, as opposed to genetic testing that is completed in the womb (Knapton). If that is true, then the unfair advantages of designer babies would continue to perpetuate through time, and societal gaps would continue to increase. With the manipulation of genes, there could be results that may be not seen for years. Imagine the science fiction movies with time travel, where one event that is changed affects another, which then affects another, and another, and so on, until the past is no longer the same past. In gene manipulation, it could result in the opposite effect, where future people or events don’t happen because of the genetic change that happens now. It may sound ridiculous and far-fetched but the technology could eventually happen at that level. To reconsider the original question, will genetically engineered children have an unfair advantage in society, requires a bigger picture outlook. It is possible that they could have an unfair slant over future children, who may not get the chance to
Preventing poverty and improving the school system can help prevent class reproduction, but Macleod argues that, "what is required is the creation of a truly open society--a society where the life chances of those at the bottom are not radically different from those at the top and where wealth is distributed more equitably" (260). Until structural inequality is eliminated, wealth is more evenly distributed, and discrimination between classes ends, social reproduction will be to well known by society.
A person's individuality begins at conception and develops throughout life. These natural developments can now be changed through genetically engineering a human embryo. Through this process, gender, eye and hair color, height, medical disorders, and many more qualities can be changed. I believe genetically engineering a human embryo is corrupt because it is morally unacceptable, violates the child's rights, and creates an even more divided society.
Certainly, being born into a privileged family have their advantages. Unfortunately, for those who are born into poverty may struggle for their success, but it is not impossible. The podcast “Three Miles” is a great example of that. Comparatively, on the surface Melanie and Raquel are two individuals coming from the same unfortunate circumstances. Although, both girls were introduced to the same pen pal program their outcomes would travel different courses. Initially, the purpose of this program is to give students from poor neighborhoods a glimpse inside their wealthier counterpart’s lives, from another school. Raquel and Melanie’s backgrounds were similar, because they were afforded the same opportunities, but they turned out differently. Raquel was driven while Melanie is unambitious.
Putnam refers to this segregation as “residential sorting”, and states that, “residential sorting by income [.] has shunted high-income and low-income students into separate schools,” (163). Rich parents want their kids in the best schools, with the best teachers and the best peers, and are able to afford living in the right areas to send their kids to the right schools. Overall, Robert Putnam’s Our Kids presents an interesting argument about the class inequality in America and the resulting opportunity gap between the upper and lower class. He points out the differences between upper class and lower class family life: upper class have more successful marriages and are better prepared for the bear children, and so their children are better off than the lower class children (61-79).
... that they affect one another. A person who lives by a lower income will not have that mines and chances of become wealthy. A person in the other spectrum, which is born into a higher class, will most likely stay wealth. This leads to an endless cycle of generations staying within the working class realm. The likely hood of a person moving up a class is rare but it does exist. People need to be pushed and have a drive to keep going and to keep trying. That is why we are told we have an equal chance in life so we can all strive for better even though in reality we do not all have an equal chance. But nonetheless people should try to become successful even if they never make it in life because a life without purpose, goals, or ambitions is a meaningless life. As humans we need a reason to live, another day for people to take advantage and make the best of it.
...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.
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.
In recent years, great advancement has been made in medicine and technology. Advanced technologies in reproduction have allowed doctors and parents the ability to screen for genetic disorders (Suter, 2007). Through preimplantation genetic diagnosis, prospective parents undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) can now have their embryo tested for genetic defects and reduce the chance of the child being born with a genetic disorder (Suter, 2007). This type of technology can open the door and possibility to enhance desirable traits and characteristics in their child. Parents can possibly choose the sex, hair color and eyes or stature. This possibility of selecting desirable traits opens a new world of possible designer babies (Mahoney,
However , a gap in society could corrupt. Creating classes that distinguish designer babies from those that are not. Creating a kid versus a natural born kid could
What do one think of when they hear the words “Designer Babies”? A couple designing their own baby of course, and it’s become just that. Technology has made it possible for there to be a way for doctors to modify a babies characteristics and its health. Genetically altering human embryos is morally wrong, and can cause a disservice to the parents and the child its effecting.
Miller argues that families of upper class prepare their child to be more likely to success and maintain their higher social class status. I totally agree with what Miller said about upper class parents; they enrolled their child with tight schedule that’s full of activities and after-school programs. They see their children as projects in need of huge investment and cultivation, which I feel is an advantage and disadvantage. These children develop the skills to
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.
It will make diversity and uniqueness weak, everyone will be "perfect" and no one will focus on the uniqueness of human beings. The great things we may achieve will be of less value since more people will be similar and have those same abilities. Children will be less appreciated because they will be more of a product (robot) than a unique gift. Through this practice we will face the dangers of races being eliminated and our world becoming a male dominated place. Genetic modification takes away our right to create and live our own story. If we are all genetically modified our lives will all be similar and less exciting. If creating designer babies will weaken diversity and uniqueness, why should we allow it? The world will be dull and full of clones, is it worth
If a limit is not set between using genetic engineering for treatment and using genetic engineering for enhancement, then many parents could use it purely for eugenic purposes. This could cause ethical concerns but social concerns as well. If this was allowed to occur, it would also give the rich even more advantages than they already have to begin with and drive the social classes even farther apart. The use of genetic engineering may also lead to genetic discrimination. As in the movie Gattaca, a person could easily get a print-out of his or her genotype, this information could then be used by schools, employers, companies, and others; giving rise to a new form of discrimination based on a person’s genetic profile. As the world is already full of discrimination, genetic engineering would even increase the numbers of discrimination against people.
The concept of designer babies is a highly disputed topic. Some say that it is mainly beneficial because it can enhance and cure, but some would say otherwise because they see it as unethical and ultimately causing problems within society. Most parents would want the best for their child, so ‘improving’ them or ‘making them better’ makes sense. Which school a child goes to and which hobbies they take part in can be choices that a parent makes, which in turn hopefully makes the child’s life better. Genetic engineering could become a common practice and be another choice for parents to make, but is it just going too far?