Technologies for human enhancement aim to improve or overcome limitations of our biology. It's a brave new world, but how will we make room for flaws in a society obsessed with perfection?
- What is a good genetic trait and bad trait? (Parkinson’s, Dyslexia, Schizophrenia, deafness, tall or short, IQ, cosmetic asymmetry, etc.. this nearly amounts to eugenics)
- What does ‘fitness’ mean in the modern world? (not necessarily the same thing it would mean to a human in the wild; for example, deafness is surely a disability in the natural world, but it is debatable in a civilized human.
- Some changes go beyond the biological definition of fitness: cosmetic enhancements may improve fecundity (mating success) or raise self-esteem and lower stress levels, improving health.
- Is it harmful to foist a notion of the ideal or optimal modern human that we should be striving for? (letting perfection be the enemy of the good)
- How can we be content with ourselves and our lives if society tells us that we’re not good enough?
- Who gets to say what’s a good trait and bad trait? If we don’t delegate that power responsibly, the media or worse may decide for us.
- Should there be governmental regulation over these ‘improvement’ technologies? Should they be blocked?
- Is this just going to be a toy for the rich?
- How will our children’s generation be affected? (physiologically and psychologically)
- How will they think of us in the future looking back at the decisions we are going to make?
Emergent technologies like prenatal screening, genome editing, and cosmetic enhancement seem to be aimed at ‘fixing’ traits that are ‘broken’ - righting nature's wrongs. It is understandable that individuals want to be (and want their children to be) smarter, healthier, happier, live longer, and look better to each other in the modern competitive world we live in; and if the demand is there, our industrious free markets will bring technology meet it.
A recent article at GenomeWeb.com raises some poignant questions about one of the most widely accepted translational applications of genomic sciences: prenatal genetic testing. It notes that there are currently no rules to guide what can be tested for, but most women who get a positive test result for trisomy of chromosome 21 (Down's syndrome) opt to have an abortion. It is likely that we will soon have tests for markers of less serious illnesses; what happens when women start aborting fetuses for evidence of Parkinson’s, Dyslexia, Schizophrenia, deafness, height, IQ, cosmetic asymmetry, and gender? Cheap, non-invasive screening tests for hundreds or thousands of 'positive' and 'negative' traits may become available in the near future. Mankind is king on this planet, and he has finally mastered his own nature.
A recent article at GenomeWeb.com raises some poignant questions about one of the most widely accepted translational applications of genomic sciences: prenatal genetic testing. It notes that there are currently no rules to guide what can be tested for, but most women who get a positive test result for trisomy of chromosome 21 (Down's syndrome) opt to have an abortion. It is likely that we will soon have tests for markers of less serious illnesses; what happens when women start aborting fetuses for evidence of Parkinson’s, Dyslexia, Schizophrenia, deafness, height, IQ, cosmetic asymmetry, and gender? Cheap, non-invasive screening tests for hundreds or thousands of 'positive' and 'negative' traits may become available in the near future. Mankind is king on this planet, and he has finally mastered his own nature.
But is a disease-free, homogenous human population sustainable and do we really to live in a world like that? And what value would we potentially lose by culling lives and eliminating suffering?
Responsibility and justice are paramount in setting policy to regulate the application of technologies that will act to normalize us or bring us up to some arbitrary standard.
Some important topics for debate follow:
