In this blog post, we consider whether it would be right for humanity to design children through genetic engineering if such a technology became available.
With the advancement of genetic engineering technology, in the near future, it may be possible to manipulate a child’s genes to make them taller or smarter. Genetic engineering of children refers to the manipulation of a child’s genes before birth to give them the traits that their parents desire (such as good health, strength, etc.). Michael Sandel argues that genetic engineering of children is not the same as accepting children as gifts, and that it is therefore wrong. However, some people defend genetic engineering of children, arguing that it is a way of developing children, just as parents educate them. Technological advances have brought many benefits to humanity, but they also raise ethical issues. I oppose genetic engineering of children because it reduces genetic diversity and thus reduces humanity’s ability to adapt to the environment.
Some people argue that genetic engineering does not reduce genetic diversity. They argue that everyone has different values and desires, so even if parents are allowed to design their children’s genes, they will all design their children differently. Parents who value art are likely to give their children genes that enhance their sensitivity. Parents who value their children’s humanity may give them genes that give them a good personality. On the surface, these arguments seem reasonable, but in reality, they raise many issues.
As they say, the values that people value differ from person to person. However, there are also values that are universally valued because we are all human beings. These include health, appearance, and wealth. No one wants to get sick or die. No one wants to be ugly. No one wants to be poor and unable to make a living. Because humans have these universal values, genetic engineering designs that genetically realize what humanity desires inevitably destroy genetic diversity. Furthermore, such designs could exacerbate social inequality, as only those who can afford genetic engineering would be able to enjoy its benefits.
Others argue that there are genes that universally help us adapt to the environment. They cite examples such as genes that confer disease resistance or improve intelligence. However, this argument overlooks the diversity and complexity of the environment.
There are no genes that are absolutely good or bad for the environment. For example, the large size of dinosaurs was advantageous in the Mesozoic climate, but it was disadvantageous during the Ice Age because it caused them to lose a lot of heat. Another example is sickle cell anemia. In an environment without malaria, people without the sickle cell gene have an advantage, but in an environment with malaria, people with the sickle cell gene have an advantage. Humans cannot live only in environments where malaria does not exist or only in environments where malaria exists (due to globalization). In other words, there is no guarantee that a particular gene will always be advantageous.
Some argue that genetic engineering can enable human genes to keep pace with environmental changes. In fact, human genes are currently adapted to the environment of the Paleolithic era, not the environment in which humans currently live. Humans today face various problems because genetic changes cannot keep pace with environmental changes. A representative example is obesity. The environment to which human genes adapted in the Paleolithic era was nutritionally deficient. It was naturally more advantageous to store excess energy rather than excrete it. In order to store more energy in a limited physical body, it would have been more advantageous in the Paleolithic era to store energy in the form of fat, which has the highest energy storage capacity per unit mass. Therefore, the trait of storing energy in the form of fat survived and remains in humans today. However, this ability to store energy in the form of fat is now becoming a poison to humanity in the form of obesity. As we know, obesity is a serious disease that causes many social problems and secondary complications such as hyperlipidemia, hypertension, arteriosclerosis, diabetes, fatty liver, and joint disorders. They claimed that genetic engineering could solve these problems. Such claims are tantamount to sacrificing the future to solve current problems.
However, environmental changes are happening too quickly for the above argument to hold true. The current generation is roughly 30 years old, but environmental changes are happening much faster than that. Let’s look at the example of obesity mentioned earlier. According to one scholar, humans hunted and gathered for 150,000 generations, farmed for 5,000 generations, and have lived on refined processed foods for only two generations since the Industrial Revolution. In other words, environmental change is accelerating. If this continues, it is highly likely that the environment will change significantly within a single generation. Considering that 70% of a population will have a particular gene after three generations if 70% of that population is genetically modified, it is clear that genetic engineering cannot keep pace with environmental change.
In addition, another problem with genetic engineering is that it can interfere with the natural evolution of humans. Through natural selection and mutation, humans have adapted to the environment over thousands of years. If this natural process is disrupted by artificial intervention, the long-term survival of humanity could be threatened.
So far, we have considered whether genetic engineering should be used to design children. I oppose genetic engineering for children because it reduces genetic diversity and diminishes humanity’s ability to adapt to the environment. Some argue that genetic engineering will not reduce genetic diversity because each person has different values, but this is not the case because there are things that are universally desired by humanity. I also considered genes that are universally beneficial to the environment, but I discussed earlier that no such genes exist. Environmental changes are happening too quickly for genetic engineering to keep up. Therefore, genetic engineering is not the right choice for the future of humanity.
