Wiwolandia
02-05-2007, 21:53
With recent and expected advances in embryology, genetic engineering, and other related fields, many feel that the question of the extent to which we are willing (or ought to be permitted) to modify our offspring in the womb is an issue of ever-growing significance.
For simplicity's sake, let's divide the issue, at least initially, into three degrees of alteration and screening.
1) Identification and correction of defects, selection for simple characteristics such sex. We are already able to select for sex and a few other characteristics, and we are on the cusp of the ability to identify and deal with all manner of developmental ills, such as Down's Syndrome.
2) Slightly further off, but perhaps not so far as one might suppose, is the ability to improve upon the genetic lottery rather than just seeking a negation of negatives. Ability to ensure that the child will be healthy/intelligent/attractive/. Larger issues, both ethically and societally, begin to be raised at this level of intervention.
3) Finally, what about the ability to radically alter our offspring? What about changing their bone structure so that zero-g environments don't cause calcium loss, modifying their myoglobin to retain oxygen and changing their lung structure so that they can dive like cetaceans, or altering their digestive tracts so that they can digest cellulose or -- more outlandishly yet -- minerals?
Among the issues raised, just to get people started, are:
Are we permitted to "play god"? If not, by what authority are we denied this?
Must a just government socialize or subsidize this process in order to make this opportunity available to all new humans (and transhumans) and avoid a Gattaca-like society of haves and have-nots?
Is our humanity valuable in and of itself? Do we [i]lose something by drifting from our genetic roots?
Is it truly a parent's right to make a decision like this on their child's behalf? If not, which modifications can we assume that our children would choose for themselves? WWRawlsDo folks, I know you'll love this one.
I recognize that this may be a touch ambitious, but I have faith in you, NS General. Have at thee!
For simplicity's sake, let's divide the issue, at least initially, into three degrees of alteration and screening.
1) Identification and correction of defects, selection for simple characteristics such sex. We are already able to select for sex and a few other characteristics, and we are on the cusp of the ability to identify and deal with all manner of developmental ills, such as Down's Syndrome.
2) Slightly further off, but perhaps not so far as one might suppose, is the ability to improve upon the genetic lottery rather than just seeking a negation of negatives. Ability to ensure that the child will be healthy/intelligent/attractive/. Larger issues, both ethically and societally, begin to be raised at this level of intervention.
3) Finally, what about the ability to radically alter our offspring? What about changing their bone structure so that zero-g environments don't cause calcium loss, modifying their myoglobin to retain oxygen and changing their lung structure so that they can dive like cetaceans, or altering their digestive tracts so that they can digest cellulose or -- more outlandishly yet -- minerals?
Among the issues raised, just to get people started, are:
Are we permitted to "play god"? If not, by what authority are we denied this?
Must a just government socialize or subsidize this process in order to make this opportunity available to all new humans (and transhumans) and avoid a Gattaca-like society of haves and have-nots?
Is our humanity valuable in and of itself? Do we [i]lose something by drifting from our genetic roots?
Is it truly a parent's right to make a decision like this on their child's behalf? If not, which modifications can we assume that our children would choose for themselves? WWRawlsDo folks, I know you'll love this one.
I recognize that this may be a touch ambitious, but I have faith in you, NS General. Have at thee!