I try to see this issue from the potential child's point of view. If I was going to be born, would I want my parents to be able to genetically engineer me or not, and if so, to what extent?
On one hand, it would not be nice to be born with gills and webbed feet because my parents wanted me to be an olympic swimmer, but then decide that I don't like swimming. This is where I think most of the opposition to genetic engineering in humans comes from - people are afraid that children will be given freaky bodies through no choice of their own. I think that this objection is entirely justified - if we allow genetic engineering in humans, we should regulate it, and put limits on the modifications which can be made.
On the other hand, it would be equally unfortunate if I had a genetic disease, or even a propensity towards any particular disease, because my parents decided not to genetically engineer me. Even if I don't have a genetic disease, I would probably be upset by the fact that their decision to not engineer me means that I was not as intelligent, healthy, or attractive as I otherwise could have been.
The argument has been made (and I think it was mentioned somewhere in this thread, too) that if we allow genetic engineering in humans, this will elevate the disparity between the rich and the poor, both within nations and between them. If all of my peers were made exceptionally smart, attractive, and athletic, and I was 'normal', then I would be rather stupid, ugly, and weak in comparison. Thus, if genetic engineering is available, then I think it should be made equally available to everyone.
Another objection:
Quote:
Originally Posted by little_tippler
Little to no variety. No-one will want to do menial work. No one will excel at anything more than anyone else in that same field. If we have everything and want for nothing, will we strive to improve or change anything?
|
If everyone is equally good at everything, then this doesn't mean that there will be no variety. People will still learn different skills, study different things in university (if they choose to go to university), have different culture, play different games, have different interests, and have different hobbies. If anything, there will be more opportunity for variety in the world, because people will be able to develop whatever skills they want, and won't be constrained by variations in their innate abilities.
There are many ways that a human could be genetically engineered, and I don't think that we can tar all of them with the same brush. I don't think we have the right to give children fins or gills, for example. On the other hand, when it comes to eliminating diseases, once this technology is available and safe, I don't think we have the right to not use it. There are a lot of grey areas, though - for example, a modification which would make someone immune to many viruses but which will give them a very slightly higher risk of cancer.