This blog post explores the creation of a new humanity through genetic manipulation and its future, and offers deep reflections on where we are headed.
A prospective parent had a routine test at the gynecologist’s office for her baby, who was due in a few months. As they wait for the results, the doctor tells them with a grave expression that there is a serious problem. “If you leave the child as it is, he or she will be born deaf, but if we change the genes now, he or she can be born healthy.” What parent would say no to this offer? Some might say that it is undesirable to artificially eliminate a disorder that has arisen through the natural process of fertilization. Taken to the extreme, this raises the question of whether a child born without a disability due to genetic modification is “different” from a child born with a disability as it is.
Let’s change the situation a bit. A doctor says, “We’ve developed a new technology, and with genetic manipulation, your child’s intelligence can be three times higher than the average child. Would you like to have the procedure?” How does this proposal differ from the previous one? There’s a big difference. Altering genes is a technology that should be used with caution, as it can be psychologically repulsive and raise ethical issues if used indiscriminately. However, when it comes to treating and preventing diseases or disorders, there is a relatively broad consensus on the necessity of doing so, as it can reduce the suffering of babies. However, when it comes to enhancing intelligence, there seems to be a lack of justification and consensus on the need to modify genes to gain additional abilities.
We could go a step further and have a situation where most newborns receive procedures to increase intelligence, strengthen the heart, etc. It would be like sending your child to school because everyone else is doing it, and you’re giving them a procedure to make them smarter. Professor Yuval Harari argues that this could lead to the end of the human race (Homo sapiens).
In fact, genetic modification has already been used to create mice that have “significantly improved memory and learning,” and when applied to humans, this technology could allow us to strengthen muscles, improve memory, choose our own appearance, and more. Biotechnology is already showing a lot of promise in the experimental stage, and it has the potential to revolutionize the future of humanity. However, embracing these changes is more than just a technical issue; it involves ethical, social, and philosophical issues.
Based on the examples above, it’s hard to buy into Prof. Yuval Harari’s argument that biotechnology will lead to the end of humanity. On the contrary, it seems to make humans happier. It is that happiness and desire, Harari says, that will lead us to the end. The end of the world through biotechnology is not the unfortunate end we often imagine, such as a meteorite impact, alien invasion, or nuclear war. It will be the end of Homo sapiens as we know it, as we voluntarily become a new species with the handy tool of genetic manipulation.
While genetic modification in humans is still strictly restricted due to institutional and ethical concerns, it may one day be possible to do so as less risky methods are developed and become more reliable. This is especially true for the prevention and treatment of diseases. Once started, genetic modification may give rise to other desires, and beyond curing diseases, it may be used to create better physical and mental abilities. If that happens, humans will come to regard the bodies they have been given through natural selection as “junk,” and will gradually desire more comfortable bodies. Then, when everyone has a new body, the current human race will cease to exist.
The technology is already in place, but there are still institutional issues that need to be addressed, and there are still hurdles that need to be crossed, as people have yet to share their concerns and build consensus. The first of many questions we need to answer is: what is a human being? What connects a child and a parent is genetic similarity. If my child didn’t have any of my shortcomings, I’d be happy, but I’d wonder if I could really call him or her mine. Similarly, the less similarity we have with future generations of humans, the more ambiguous it becomes about what it means to be human.
If we accept Professor Yuval Harari’s argument, we may be approaching a time when we will have to “agree” on our own future. It’s time to answer the question that biotechnology poses: Who are you, human? Is a human being simply a combination of genes that cannot be defined? Or do we have the potential to evolve into something better by modifying our genes? In the process of finding answers to these questions, we will be deeply concerned about the nature and future of humanity.
