Habermas reluctantly concedes that the use of new reproductive technologies for therapeutic goals can be morally justified--for example, to select against embryos on the basis of disease predictions. But he believes that the manipulation of the human genome in preimplantation genetic diagnosis, and the technologies that it foreshadows, would change morally fundamental distinctions between the grown and the made, between chance and choice... This would also undermine what, in the "species ethic" favored by Habermas, underpins the ethical self-understanding of the human species: the necessity for human beings to regard all other such beings as morally equivalent members of a single community in which each deserves equal respect.
Habermas, my champion, I couldn't agree more! (I looked up "species ethic" and actually came across a great review of Habermas's The Future of Human Nature, and decided to borrow some of the terms, which you will find in italics.)
The pioneering of genetic intervention is exciting, hopeful, and extremely dangerous. It is hopeful in its capacity for therapeutic genetic interventions; we may one day be able to prevent crippling, degenerative diseases such as Huntington's, and a myriad of other potential physical or mental disabilities, from being a threat at all. It is dangerous because of the temptation of its use for genetic enhancements; the future foreseeably holds a day when we can determine the height, intelligence, eyesight, etc. of our children.
Doesn't that sound dangerous? If it doesn't yet, it will - let's think of the implications. Bear with me, I'm going to take a jump here, a leap into a hypothetical state of affairs arisen from the legislation of a technology not yet realized.
Assuming that genetic enhancements wouldn't be something covered by insurance premiums, and that these enhancements would be astronomically expensive, those who had the option to use this technology would be quite wealthy. Eventually any one who could afford the procedures would have children with an ideal physique, perfect teeth, great wit, and a "high forehead."
Lewontin described in Not In Our Genes a biological determinist's view, explaining the current barriers between classes as being biological in nature (pg. 69). I think that there are elements being excluded from this theory - such as the way stereotypes or poor school districts may damper a person's "equal" opportunity to upward mobility - but find some basic merit in the statement nonetheless. People who are intelligent and dedicated will go on to college and earn more than, say, the unsavory kid with no high school diploma and whose best classes were Auto I & II.
If genetic enhancements were allowed, rich people would give birth to future rich people, would give birth to future powerful people, and so on. At the risk of sounding like a toddler in mid-tantrum - it's just not fair! Not only would this be a segregation of the enhanced from a natural order of life, but these people would be running the show! There could possibly be jumps in IQ's, and no one in the aristocracy would be under 6'5". They would be genetically superior, perhaps ever-increasingly-so, and inevitably would view their naturally-selected counterparts as subhuman (when really they would be superhuman.) Again: dangerous.
I know this may sound more like a Sci-Fi book than a real possible outcome of society, but who's to say? Genetic enhancement would give an advantage to those who could afford it, and that is not natural, and not right. While I do think that the prospects of therapeutic genetic interventions are promising, parameters need to be set, and need to be set before the day we need them arises. Else wise we may find ourselves dealing with some "tall" obstacles to happiness and equality.
-If you haven't yet checked out the review on Habermas's The Future of Human Nature, I recommend it!
No comments:
Post a Comment