Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
essay on genetic engineering designer babies
transhumanism essays
critics of transhumanism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: essay on genetic engineering designer babies
Muscles strong enough to flip over a tank. Eyes that see the night as clear as day. Perfect photographic memory. These sorts of human enhancements are found in video games like Halo 3 and other science fiction media. It seems that an average human of today will not be enough for the future.
The demand for human enhancement is widely present. Professional sports leagues allow certain drugs like caffeine to be used. Sports players are often caught abusing steroids to gain an edge over the other players and their stories become fodder for mass media. Women use plastic surgery to enhance their physical features. But what of the future?
But first, a short history lesson is in order. In November 1972, Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen began collaborating to insert foreign DNA into a bacterium so that it would produce human substances like insulin and HGH. They successfully did so. And in doing so, they invented genetic engineering ("Biotech pioneers").
Fast-forward to the present. Scientists have begun experimenting with genetically modified foods and animals in hopes of creating a more genetically flawless organism. As they continue adding knowledge to genetic engineering whether in pursuit of personal or public benefit, genetic engineering will soon allow for 'designer babies'. With advances in genetic engineering, parents will soon be able to design their babies like fashion designers design clothes.
The transhumanist movement of enhancing genetic makeup seems reasonable, with humanity's diseases like cancer and AIDS and disorders like mental retardation and social anxiety disorder. With genetic enhancements, diseases will become the material of history textbooks and But according to Francis Fukuyama, transhumanism might not b...
... middle of paper ...
... any rate, the majority of the debate remains presumptuous: people will never know until they try.
Works Cited
Bailey, Ronald. "Transhumanism: The Most Dangerous Idea?" Reason.com. Reason.com, 25 Aug. 2004. Web. 30 Nov. 2009.
"Biotech pioneers win Lemelson-MIT Prize." MIT. MIT, 24 Apr. 1996. Web. 02 Dec. 2009.
Fukuyama, Francis. "The World's Most Dangerous Ideas." Foreign Policy 2004: 42-43. Mywire. Mywire, 1 Sept. 2004. Web. 30 Nov. 2009.
Sandel, Michael J. The Case against Perfection Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. New York: Belknap, 2007. Print.
Savulescu, Julian. The Oxford Handbook of Bioethics (Oxford Handbooks). Ed. Bonnie Steinbock. New York: Oxford UP, USA, 2007. Practical Ethics Resources. Oxford Uehiro, 2006. 516-535. Web. 30 Nov. 2009.
Stock, Gregory. Redesigning Humans Our Inevitable Genetic Future. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2002. Print.
Smith, Wesley J. "The Trouble with Transhumanism." The Center for Bioethics and Culture RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.
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.
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.
In conclusion, his contention about genetic enhancement is shameless because it falsely forms individuals' lives, regularly guiding their fates in bearings that they would not uninhibitedly pick. In this manner, in spite of having an impediment in his case, it speaks to a major infringement of their rights as individuals. In my opinion, Sandel’s claim is plausible that the world with genetic engineering will contain imbalances and inequalities. Hence, it is immoral to accept genetic engineering.
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.
...pen manner that allows us to perceive the opportunities offered by human enhancement. I disagree with Sandel’s argument that genetic enhancement for its own sake is wrong but is permissible when used in medical context. I find it hypocritical of Sandel to argue against one form of genetic manipulation while favoring another. The subject of human enhancement is too pervasive and offers too many potential benefits to restrict its use. I believe that genetic manipulation and human enhancements are inevitable. I favor an open-minded and morally grounded approach to advances in genetic engineering, only then can we deal with the moral and social ramifications that stem from the conept of human enhancement.
In Fukuyama’s essay over Transhumanism, he describes this idea as the “most dangerous idea.” Transhumanism is the growth of humans through science and technology in every possible aspect of life. While this idea sounds beneficial, Fukuyama argues, “Our good characteristics are intimately connected to our bad ones.” The author emphasizes the how important our bad characteristics and complex minds to suggest these make humans complete. Without our faults, we would lose basic feelings of love, pain, exclusiveness, and even loyalty. The authors appeal to the readers looks as if, without the “bad” nothing would oppose, and compare to the “good.” In emphasizing the contrasts of human nature, the author creates a clear understanding of how these contrasts work with each other. For example, pain hurts but it is not bad to feel pain because it lets us know something is wrong with us. Fukuyama’s line of reasoning explains the importance of mortality in a way of putting life and humans into perspective on a much smaller scale.
There is always debate over human genetic engineering. Disputes over human genetic engineering concern the means for achieving assumed ends, rather than being a healthy discussion about the ends themselves. This book not only explores how decisions about the ethics of human genetic engineering are made, but also shows how the structure of the debate has led to the technological choices we now face.
Imagine that you are able to teleport to the not too distant future. In this world you discover that disease and poverty are no longer causes for human suffering, world hunger has become eliminated from society, and space travel is as easy as snapping your fingers. Cryonics, nanotechnology, cloning, genetic enhancement, artificial intelligence, and brain chips are all common technologies at a doctor’s office. You gasp as a friendly sounding electronic voice cries out, “Welcome to the future Natural!” You are unsure of whether being called a Natural is an insult or not, so you feign a half-hearted hello at the posthuman in front of you. Getting over the initial shock you ask the posthuman, “Who are you?” The posthuman gives an electronic sounding chuckle and shakes his head. He replies, “I am a Posthuman, and you Natural, are in Utopia. Welcome.”
Sandel, M. J. The case against perfection, ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Belknap Press, 2007. Print.
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,
Wilson, James. “Transhumanism and Moral Equality." Bioethics 21.8 (Oct. 2007): 419-425. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 31 Oct. 2008 .
Enhancing people would create a generally better society, right? If everyone was very intelligent, the human race as a whole would benefit with advancements in pretty much anything. Entertainment, transport and medicine among a vast amount of other things could all be improved drastically if there were more people able to do these things. A world full of generally more capable people would be capable of doing so much more.
Sherlock, Richard. "Bioethics." Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics. Ed. Carl Mitcham. Vol. 1. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005. 193-200. Student Resources in Context. Web. 24 Mar. 2014. source 23
When did being human become not good enough? Transhumanism theories strive toward the perfect human, a posthuman, which can be achieved through modern technology. In the opinion of transhumanists, humans are constantly subject to change and their calling is to transcend their body and brain in order to reach their full potential. While this may have positive effects for the people involved, such as immunity toward hereditary diseases, Down syndrome for example, the question arises what is considered ethical in these practices. Three ethical issues arise when considering transhumanism. Firstly, should we extend our mortality and take away the chance for another human to live life on this earth to the fullest? Secondly, once the human race is perfect, we will not know what makes us unique and gives us our personality. Thirdly, the ability to breed perfect humans brings with it the possibility of a subspecies, due to the affordability of the specific technology. Finally, the need for enhancement comes down to parents wanting the best for their children, but it soon ends up being about their child being perfect.