Welcome to Good Baby, home of the Good Baby, may I take your order? Welcome to Baby King, where you can have it your way. Ba-da da da baby--I'm loving it. Envision the savory, juicy, flame-grilled...Wait! Babies are far from Big Macs or Whoppers. Right? Think again. Genetic design presents the capability to produce fast-food style, assembly line, babies. This efficient system allows one to create a custom-made baby. While genetically designing babies appears to be an innovative proposal, for the purpose of conception or eliminating hereditary diseases, the rights to the parents should be limited with restrictions.
Supporters of Darwinism may agree with the argument of only the strong survive, following the concept of natural selection. However, to directly connect Darwin to genetic engineering is not an adequate proposition. Evolution has morphed animals into the beings that inhabit the earth today. Following a primate beginning, evolution brought "homo" or "human" life about. According to Hooper Museum of California, mankind went through the trials of natural selection, from homo habilis (the ape-like, stone-tool creator) to Neanderthals (limping weapon makers, discovered to bury their dead), to homo homo sapiens (the name given to humans today). This inexorable change in the development of man is a result of adaptation. Mankind sought ways to survive and thus evolved. It should be noted that this was a natural process. No test tubes or laboratories were involved in the creation of the homo homo sapien. Genetically designing human beings should be monitored and controlled. The efforts should not be aimed at producing a superior race free of hereditary diseases and imperfections. Natural selection occurs over an extended period of time without facing rubber gloves. Technology has significantly prospered since the time of the Neanderthals, however, there is still concern over how it should be used. Darwin did not wish to create a superior race. He attested that the ones who could not survive would thus vanish. Using genetic engineering, primarily, in order to aid conception, presents the safest route. While religious people may be disheartened by unused embryos, this form of genetic design is most logical. A married couple who innocently desires to share a genetic child, but is unable to conceive through traditional means, can find this opportunity very appealing. Invitro fertilisation offers the chance for such individuals to conceive. If the number of embryos created is limited, this process does not pose a great threat. Eliminating harmful diseases is a reasonable initiative because it can present severe limitations for the child. Using genetic engineering for the purpose of picking the right eyes, hair color, intelligence, etcetera, etcetera, is where the line in the sand becomes thick. This idea of assembling babies (in less than 20 seconds! No, sorry. That is a Double Cheeseburger.) for the satisfaction of superficial desires is frightening.
The literary scholar is likely to draw comparisons to copious dystopian novels. One novel that comes to mind is Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley. Published in the early thirties, and set in the year 2540 AD, Huxley foresaw a future not far from the reality of today. Although this date is over 500 years away, the similarities are profound. It presents a world in which babies are produced according to set standards. All beings come to exist as a result of the manipulation of hatcheries. There are different classes, castes, that determine the tasks of each individual upon creation. Psychological conditioning convinces each infant, teen, and young adult that he/she is happy in his/her designated position. It is dangerous to use the word individual. In OneState, everyone grasps tightly to the motto: "COMMUNITY, IDENTITY, STABILITY" (Huxley 1). Marriage does not exist. No serious emotional connections are allowed. Each person belongs to the other. With the use of genetically engineering every aspect of a soon-to-be-baby, individualism is lost. People become equal, in the sense that there is nothing different. However, achieving equality in this manner is not plausible. The creation of different social classes, upon the birth of a test tube, limits the opportunities of others. Is this the direction that today's society is headed? Is the United States of America, home to diversity and prospect, on a downward slope to the land of limitations? The cost, alone, presents a concern for those who hold a tight budget. According to one clinic, Nova INF, the cost can vary (depending on the number of cycles needed) from 9,000 to 32,000! This seems outrageous to have to pay such an astronomical amount. Imagine the cost if a person is choosing sex, hair and eye color, or other hereditary traits! The acceptance of this practice would create a serious social divide between those able to afford the treatment and those incapable. This could lead to a threatening creation of super humans. Madison Grant, graduate of Yale and author of an eugenic book, speaks about a "rigid system of selection through the elimination of those who are weak or unfit" (Grant, The Competition of Races). To believe in the the elimination of those who are less than perfect defies the foundation in which the Constitution upholds. Where is the equality here?
Nancy Gibbs, writer for Time Magazine, expresses the necessity of making "sure that we weigh the risks before we embrace the promise." This statement should be valued by doctors, potential parents, the government, and citizens. The idea of artificially inducing embryos with hormones and genes seems futuristic. It is time for everyone to realize that this idea is no longer just a dream. It is real. It is here. It is now. What is being done to protect the future?
Across the Universe
Picture yourself in a boat on the river. With tangerine trees and marmalade skies.
where do your roots extend?
2 comments:
As I read, "Envision the savory, juicy, flame-grilled...Wait! Babies are far from Big Macs or Whoppers. Right? Think again," I think of Johnathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. If you have not read, try to find it.
When you write, "the rights to the parents should be limited with restrictions," you cause me to think about our constitution and "inalienable rights." You write, "the rights *to* parents." Are rights something to be given? Who determines a "right;" who defines it?
You mention the Hooper Museum. I am not familiar with this museum. Does it specialize in recording evolution? Interesting that you should cite a museum in your blog as a source. Did you visit it?
If you used a website from the Museum, perhaps provide the citation to your readers.
Are you sure that "Darwin did not wish to create a superior race."
You ask, "What is being done to protect the future?" What do you think you should do to protect the future? Have any recommendations for people of your generation?
I thought that the best part of your paper was the audience it addressed. It seemed to talk to a younger audience, the audience that would in fact be utilizing this technology in the future. I also think that you have made an effective point in showing that the cost of these procedures could possibly lead to a even more off balance society in the far future. Those who can afford it versus those who cannot. I think that was a great point that you left the audience to ponder due to its sci fi nature. It really brought a strange and distant future into perspective for me. So overall good job. I think your thesis statement was the weakest point of the paper, it was very generic and not strong enough to go with the rest of your paper.
Post a Comment