Re: Comment Catcher: The Dangerous Dualism of Gattacaheron61December 8 2015, 07:15:58 UTC
I very much agree that Gattaca is indeed worth seeing, despite the suggestions it makes that unengineered people are in some way morally or spiritually superior to engineered ones. However, discussions based in it leave out one important aspect of the technologies involved. In addition to genetic engineering of humans, there’s also genetic surgery of the sort that has almost certainly be used by various Olympic athletes for the last several Olympics.
It’s almost certain that genetic surgery won’t be able to duplicate the variety or the degree of alteration that genetic engineering of embryos can, but given that it allows “after-market” modifications in a way that genetic engineering does not, and also the fact that drugs derived from genetic research also exist and are fairly powerful, I don’t think these methods of modifying adults should be discounted.
As a result, I see such technologies leading to a world with three groups rather than just two - engineered people, who may or may not also use genetic surgery, unengineered people who use genetic surgery, and unmodified humans.
If all forms of enhancement are provided by government funded healthcare programs that also ensure that all citizens have access to high quality healthcare (which I consider to be an excellent marker of whether a nation is civilized and humane), then I see absolutely nothing wrong with a society that wholeheartedly embraces genetic engineering and genetic surgery, since the only people who won’t use either are those who do so for purely personal reasons. I have no trouble with purely voluntary inequality, and firmly believe that arguments to the effect that both genetic engineering and genetic surgery are “unnatural” and thus are bad or even morally wrong to belong in the same ideological dustbin as claims that using vaccinations or painkillers during childbirth were “unnatural” and morally wrong (as a generally rule, I tend to be a huge fan of “unnatural” things.
However, I very strongly oppose the idea that access to either form of enhancement is determined by parental or personal wealth. From my PoV, that would create a horrific class system that could manage a truly impressive job of oppressing the unenhanced. However, I very much see the remedy to this sort of society as providing equal access to enhancement of embryos and adults rather than banning or restricting enhancement.
It’s almost certain that genetic surgery won’t be able to duplicate the variety or the degree of alteration that genetic engineering of embryos can, but given that it allows “after-market” modifications in a way that genetic engineering does not, and also the fact that drugs derived from genetic research also exist and are fairly powerful, I don’t think these methods of modifying adults should be discounted.
As a result, I see such technologies leading to a world with three groups rather than just two - engineered people, who may or may not also use genetic surgery, unengineered people who use genetic surgery, and unmodified humans.
If all forms of enhancement are provided by government funded healthcare programs that also ensure that all citizens have access to high quality healthcare (which I consider to be an excellent marker of whether a nation is civilized and humane), then I see absolutely nothing wrong with a society that wholeheartedly embraces genetic engineering and genetic surgery, since the only people who won’t use either are those who do so for purely personal reasons. I have no trouble with purely voluntary inequality, and firmly believe that arguments to the effect that both genetic engineering and genetic surgery are “unnatural” and thus are bad or even morally wrong to belong in the same ideological dustbin as claims that using vaccinations or painkillers during childbirth were “unnatural” and morally wrong (as a generally rule, I tend to be a huge fan of “unnatural” things.
However, I very strongly oppose the idea that access to either form of enhancement is determined by parental or personal wealth. From my PoV, that would create a horrific class system that could manage a truly impressive job of oppressing the unenhanced. However, I very much see the remedy to this sort of society as providing equal access to enhancement of embryos and adults rather than banning or restricting enhancement.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment