There are 22,000 genes in a single human cell. Do you think we can manipulate such a complex network of genes? Do you think we will be able to go against nature and redesign ourselves through the process of genetic engineering? The definite answer to that question is no. The human body is too complex for genetic engineering to be carried out successfully. Genetic Engineering will also create an unjust social hierarchy where the rich would be a perfectly crafted species and the middle class/poor would seem like the imperfect “outcastes” of the society. Moreover, genetic engineering will not give people the ability to choose what they want to pursue in their life. This is because, in such a world, parents would choose traits for their children before they are even born. So, humans would live how someone else wants them to live but not by their own choice. Therefore, genetic engineering to enhance human skills or abilities should be banned.
The human body is simply too complex for us to be able to successfully redesign it through genetic engineering. Therefore, genetic engineering should be banned. Our understanding of the complicated human body is insufficient for us to be able to engineer it. Even after so many years of research,
…show more content…
we still do not completely understand how our bodies function. So, if we try to genetically modify it, the consequences can be unexpected and harmful for a person’s life. Humans have recently tried this technology on other organisms like bacteria and plants. However, the consequences in most of the cases were lethal for the organism’s life. For example, recently in an experiment, scientists genetically modified a yeast, so that its fermenting ability is increased. But instead, the yeast started secreting extremely toxic substances which caused its death. In regards to genetically modified animals, State of Science said, “ Genetically modified organisms have been linked to thousands of toxic or allergic-type reactions…….and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in Lab animals”. If we are not even able to successfully carry out genetic engineering on the rather simple bodies of yeasts and animals, how can we allow somebody to use that technology on us? All of the examples above make us realize how malignant genetic engineering could be if used on a human. However, there will always be people who say that science learns from its mistakes. But we cannot expose innocent lives to danger in the name of science. Therefore, the human body is too complex to carry out successful genetic engineering on it. In addition to that, genetic engineering will create an unjust system of social hierarchy. If genetic engineering could be possible, it would be a very expensive process. According to the Los Angeles fertility clinic, it will cost about $25,700 to enhance a single person’s genome. But according to a census in New Zealand, the average yearly income of a family is $31,800. Considering these figures, we can clearly see how unaffordable genetic engineering would be for the middle class or the poor. Therefore, only the rich will be able to genetically engineer and perfect themselves, leaving the financially unstable people disadvantaged. “Genetic engineering would disrupt social order to the point where it would be disastrous” stated Homa Azargoon in a study investigating the potential consequences of genetic engineering. This statement is very likely to be true in future if genetic engineering is possible. For example, in schools, the “superior”, genetically modified children would be better at every aspect of school life leaving the poor and biologically “inferior” children deprived of any opportunities to succeed. In the workplace, the rich and genetically advanced people would be employed in all the “white collar” and skilled jobs. However, the normal, genetically “inferior” people would be left to do the unskilled, low paying jobs, burying them deeper into poverty. So in this way, it would be nearly impossible for the poor to escape from their “class” without being genetically assisted. This situation would have parallels with the medieval ages where the “superior” stayed “superior” and the “poor” stayed “poor”. In this way, humans will be demoting themselves instead of advancing. Everyone should make their lives better by their actions, not by the figure in their bank accounts. So, genetic engineering would be cruel for the poor and provides too many advantages for the rich. Therefore, it should be banned. Another reason why prohibition of genetic engineering is needed us because it will not give people the ability to choose what they want to pursue in their life. In a world of genetic engineering, parents would want to genetically advance their children before they are even born. This means that a person’s appearance, abilities and skills would be predesigned for them, according to the choice of their parents. Such children would be called “Designer Babies”. But, “One might not want to pursue their modified trait to the fullest” stated Dr. Kass. This means if a child is given music talents, for example, he/she may not want to pursue music as their career. However, that child will have no other choice other than to do so as the trait for music embedded in his/ her genes. Such a life, where you do not have the choice to do what you want to do, would be insipid and undesirable. Even if one would try to choose another career which that person was not genetically modified for, it would not be possible to do so. This is because that person would be no match against the people who are already genetically enhanced in that field. So, through genetic engineering in “Designer Babies”, humans would just become monotonous programmed robots, whose lives are just about doing things that others want them to do. But we are conscious human beings who have feelings. We do not let others decide what we eat or wear, so how can we let others decide important things like our career? According to the universal declaration of human rights, a person has free choice of employment. Pre Designing a person’s abilities to match requirements for a certain career without their choice is certainly a severe violation of this human right. However, there will always be people who say that parents only want to advantage their child by genetic engineering. But how is forcing your expectations on your child through genetic engineering advantaging them in any way? Therefore, genetic engineering in designer babies is wrong in every way. It does not allow a person to make decisions about their own career and is also a severe violation of a human right. Genetic engineering is wrong and should be banned.
Genetic engineering will pose a threat to the life of humans. This is because the human body is very complicated and any tampering with the complex network of 22,000 genes can have unexpected and harmful consequences. Genetic engineering will also increase the unjust social class division and would only advantage the elite and the rich people in the society. Genetic engineering in “Designer Babies” will not give people the ability to choose what they want to pursue in their life. Therefore, genetic engineering should be banned so that its potential ruinous effects can be prevented. It is wrong in every aspect and should be declared illegal for the betterment of humanity in the near
future.
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.
In The Case Against Perfection, Sandel warns us of the dangers that genetic engineering, steroids, and hormones poses to society and the natural order. According to Sandel, this type of control, especially in non-medical settings, violates a respect for life that should be ingrained in all of us. Life is something difficult to predict, something that shouldn’t bend to our every single will and desire. Genetic engineering, and the like, presents an egregious violation of this respect. According to Sandel, this violation serves only to reverse the human march of progress. Sandel weaves a well-balanced argument in his book. The issue of eugenic technology is most definitely not black or white. According to him, the aspects of modification can be applied selectively, so long as it doesn’t violate the respect for life society should hold closely.
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.
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 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 by 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. In referring to human enhancement, I am referring specifically 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 a morally obligatory. In this paper, I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to intervene genetically even if such intervention may be permissible under certain criteria. I will show, in contrast to Savulescu’s view, that the moral obligation to intervene is not the same as the moral obligation to prevent and treat disease. In short, I will show that the ability of humans to intervene genetically is not sufficient to establish a moral obligation.
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.
Genetic engineering is a powerful and potentially very dangerous tool. I feel like this subject applies to two aspects of our culture which are spiritual and scientific.
Technology has a significant influence across the world, as it has become a fast growing field. Modern biotechnology has been in the major forefront of this influence. From the discovery of DNA to the cloning of various animals, the study of genetic engineering has changed the way society views life. However, does genetic engineering have the capacity to influence the world to its best abilities? Products, which are genetically engineered, may cause severe negative effects on our society. This industry, carrying the potential of leading us toward the unnatural selection of humans to possibly environmental disasters will put humankind in peril. Society, along with humankind, will be in jeopardy since to genetic engineering has the potential of being disastrous.
Genetic engineering gives the power to change many aspects of nature and could result in a lot of life-saving and preventative treatments. Today, scientists have a greater understanding of genetics and its role in living organisms. However, if this power is misused, the damage could be very great. Therefore, although genetic engineering is a field that should be explored, it needs to be strictly regulated and tested before being put into widespread use. Genetic engineering has also, opened the door way to biological solutions for world problems, as well as aid for body malfunctions. I think that scientists should indeed stop making genetic engineering for humans, because it will soon prove to be devastating to the human race. It would cause rivalries and tension among different kinds of genetically engineered humans for dominance and power.
Human Genetic Engineering: Designing the Future As the rate of advancements in technology and science continue to grow, ideas that were once viewed as science fiction are now becoming reality. As we collectively advance as a society, ethical dilemmas arise pertaining to scientific advancement, specifically concerning the controversial topic of genetic engineering in humans.
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 changes it could bring are amazing, there is really no reason to stop learning more about helping to heal the human body. Works Cited Work Citations The "Genetic Engineering" 123HelpMe.com. 08 May 2017 http://www.123HelpMe.com/view.asp?id=67046>. King James Version. Arizona:
In conclusion and my personal opinion, genetic engineering could lead to a technically better and more advanced world despite the fact that it suffers from deep moral downfalls. The main issue that causes debate seems to be if artificial superiority is a viable alternative to nature. It could work in society if people only used it for things such as evading cancer, but if a new social class is formed or people start creating super humans, it’s unquestionably a problem.
Although genetic engineering does have its upsides, parents should not be able to design their own children. The first people on Earth were born naturally and that trend has been followed for all of time, creating irreplaceable people. Society has become more and more complex, and genetic engineering will only make it more complicated, adding onto the social divisions and ideas of superiority between people. In today’s world, the attractive people with incredible wealth or political power are thought of as supreme to others, we do not need another class of people whose DNA now defines them. All in all, society needs to fix their original problems with judging others before any kind of genetic engineering is used on humans.
The moral question of genetic engineering is answered by looking at the advances in medicine. Today the advancements in medicine are evolving at an extremely high rate. If the science of genetic engineering is wrong, then so are the rest of the advances in medicine. The reason is because genetic engineering is just another form of medical advancement. Gene manipulation is not going to be used for any other purpose except for the treatment and elimination of disease. The one thing that people need to realize is the potential of genetic engineering. Try to visualize what parents of a child is dying from a disease like multiple sclerosis think about the benefits of genetic engineering.
Although genetic engineering seems to be more harmful than helpful, when used correctly, it will help the society prosper. Considering the technology our society has currently developed, genetic engineering is a difficult topic to discuss and confirm. If the researchers confirm this process, it may become easier for the scientists and will help cure the diseases easily. The debate, however, will still be on the rise because of the issue in human morals and ethics.