In this blog post, we will examine whether it is the way to human survival or the end of diversity in an era of genetic engineering to design children.
Since Gregor Mendel of Austria discovered the law of heredity in the 19th century, genetics has developed at a rapid pace. In the 1950s, Watson and Crick discovered the double helix structure of DNA, the genetic material of humans, and in the 2000s, the Human Genome Project, which decodes all the genetic information that makes up humans, was completed. Since then, humans have even reached the stage of commercializing genetically identical cloned animals by replicating the genetic information of animals. Currently, research is actively being conducted to predict diseases that may occur in the future through genetic testing even before the fetus is born and to remove the genes that have a decisive influence on the occurrence of the disease.
In his book “The Ethics of Life,” Michael Sandel has an interesting discussion on the topic of “whether it is okay to genetically engineer children.” He insists that the desirable perspective is to accept life as a “gift,” and he maintains a position against the opposite view. The first reason he gives is that parents can live humbly accepting their children’s uncertain future when they have not genetically engineered them. In other words, parents learn to have an open mind, accept the uncertainties of the future, and refrain from trying to control everything through the fate of their children, which they cannot control. Second, he is concerned that genetic engineering will expand the scope of parental responsibility. For example, parents will be responsible for decisions regarding diseases that can be identified in advance through genetic testing, such as Down syndrome. Finally, Sandel points out that when an individual’s fate is determined by their own and their parents’ decisions rather than by luck, the sense of community among members of society can weaken. People who succeed through genetic design are less likely to feel a responsibility to share their success with those who are less fortunate and lack talent because they attribute their success to their own efforts rather than luck.
On the other hand, what is the argument of those who favor genetic engineering? One of the main arguments they put forward is that genetic engineering will improve the average lifespan and health of humans, and improve their intelligence and physical abilities, thereby raising the overall level of society. They predict that this will accelerate social development and eventually lead to the prosperity of all mankind. Some people also support genetic engineering because it can achieve equality of opportunity rather than equality of environment.
If someone were to ask me, “Should parents be able to genetically engineer their children?” what would I say? In conclusion, I would oppose the genetic engineering of children, just like Michael Sandel. This is because genetically engineering children could have a negative impact on the long-term survival of humanity.
Parents limit the phenotypic traits of their children through genetic manipulation. In other words, genetic manipulation reduces the diversity of phenotypic traits in the human gene pool, which has a negative impact on the survival of humanity. This argument is also suitable as a rebuttal to the criticism that diversity within the gene pool is being lost. Some argue that genetic diversity will be maintained because genetic engineering interventions reflect the different growth backgrounds and values of each individual. However, this argument is also unconvincing. Genetic diversity should be viewed from the perspective of the gene pool, not from the perspective of the individual. If genetic engineering is carried out according to the values of the group to which the individual belongs, the diversity of the gene pool will eventually be compromised.
Even if genetic manipulation is not carried out uniformly, the reduction of genetic diversity can still occur. This is because even if various members of society remove different genetic traits, the result is the same, which is a reduction in the gene pool.
There is also a criticism that it is important that the gene pool is composed of traits that are beneficial to human survival, rather than simply consisting of many genetic traits. In other words, it is argued that even if the “quantity” of genetic diversity decreases, the “quality” can be improved. This idea is raised in that it can prevent incurable diseases such as cancer and diabetes. However, can humans accurately determine whether a particular genetic trait is beneficial or detrimental to survival? I am negative about this. The way humans evaluate the qualitative value of genetic traits depends on empirical facts and scientific knowledge at the time. However, genetic engineering is an incomplete discipline. It is difficult to expect that a judgment made under such an incomplete knowledge system will produce positive results.
Take sickle-shaped red blood cells as an example. Sickle-shaped red blood cells are known to cause anemia and lower survival rates, but they are resistant to malaria. If the anemia were treated by removing the genetic trait associated with sickle-shaped red blood cells, the number of deaths from malaria would have increased. As such, the value of genetic traits is relative to the environment, and it is very difficult for humans to judge.
Therefore, even if each society selects genetic traits that are suitable for their environment, it is not certain whether those traits are beneficial for survival. Parents choose genes according to social norms at the time, and these may be socially preferred traits, but not necessarily traits that are beneficial for survival. For example, the “beautiful weight” preferred by women in modern society may be lower than the standard weight and may be harmful to health. As such, traits that are beneficial for social preferences and survival do not match.
In conclusion, the problem associated with the loss of genetic diversity is still serious. Genetic diversity must be maintained for humanity to survive in an uncertain future environment. Parents’ desire to genetically design their children can be seen as a foolish arrogance that threatens the survival of humanity.
