Genetic design technology is presented as a new means of evolution to enhance human capabilities and reduce inequality. However, it is a double-edged sword with both advantages and disadvantages, raising ethical issues and debates about freedom of choice.
Recent advances in genetic engineering have raised the issue of ‘genetic design’. Genetic design is not just biological modification, but a technology that can manipulate human nature or give us new traits, and its possibilities and impact are beyond our imagination. As we enter an era where science and technology dominate our lives, the emergence of genetic design is a critical moment that will redefine our future. Genetic design refers to the manipulation of human genes using genetic engineering methods to design them for specific purposes. It is considered a revolutionary technology that could open up new opportunities in all aspects of human life, not only for treating diseases, but also for customizing our appearance, personality, intelligence, physical abilities, and more.
Let’s assume for a moment that genetic design is so inexpensive that anyone can use it, without thinking about the side effects, and that the technology is so affordable that it can be used by everyone, which in reality is highly controversial. There will be many economic and social barriers before genetic design can become widespread, and the number of people who can benefit from it may be limited. But let’s put those practicalities aside and assume that the technology is freely available to everyone. Sandel raised the issue of this technology being used in athletics. What if an athlete was genetically engineered to have superior athletic performance and won a certain competition? Would an athlete who relied on genetic design to win win dishonorably? I don’t think so. I think the enhancement of the body through genetic design is a form of human evolution.
Humans have been evolving and growing since prehistoric times. Our physical capabilities are much better than they were in those early days, and our brains are more developed and capable of deeper thinking than ever before. However, there are still many more mysteries than we have discovered, and our desire to discover the truth drives us to continue researching and discovering new technologies and facts. In this process, human will and effort have been an important factor, but science and technology can now take over. While natural evolution has been the main way that humans have developed, the tool of genetic design offers a new way of evolution that helps humans push themselves beyond their limits. In this sense, genetic design can be thought of as a new form of evolution for modern humans. Moreover, the ability to artificially control biological evolution opens up new possibilities for the future of humanity. Through genetic design, humans could become even better than we are now in many ways, becoming more advanced creatures.
Opponents of genetic design will counter this argument by saying that it will increase inequality. However, genetic design would actually reduce the inequality that currently exists. Those who are socially advantaged already have the opportunity for physical and mental development through better education and environment. However, genetic design has the potential to equalize these opportunities, even if artificially. For example, suppose that the current distribution of students’ ability to run a 100-meter dash is 5 to 10, which means that the ability of the worst runner and the best runner is twice as different. If all students were to increase their running ability by 5 through genetic design, the distribution of running ability would go from 10 to 15, and the difference in ability between the worst and best runners would be reduced to 1.5 times. This can serve as an example of how genetic design can promote equality. This is an example of how genetic design can promote equality.
Of course, the benefits of genetic design are not limited to improving general ability. As Sandel illustrates, there are cases where a child is designed by a parent and the child is not happy about it. Especially in a modern society that values autonomy and personal choice, children who are given traits they didn’t choose are likely to be unhappy about it. For example, if a child is born with a disability due to a parent’s genetic design. The child would be unhappy with the parent’s genetic design, even if the parent had no malicious intent. However, on a common sense level, you would think that a parent’s genetic design for their child wouldn’t necessarily work against them. Rather, parents want their children to be happy and successful, so they will strive to make the best choices for them. Parents basically want their children to do well, so it would be extremely unlikely that they would intentionally cause their child to have a disability, as Sandel did in his example. This is also a realistic argument. If there was a “figure craze” in figure skating, and it became popular to inject genes that made people good at figure skating, but some parents chose to inject genes that made them smart instead of figure skating genes, to the displeasure of their child, would this really be an ethical issue? The child might not be good at figure skating, but they might be good at school and succeed in other ways. In other words, genetic design cannot be considered the cause of all problems. There will always be the issue of selection.
Despite the many advantages of genetic design, we can’t ignore the problems and disadvantages that come with it. Furthermore, despite the many arguments against it, the ethical issues surrounding genetic design have not been clearly resolved. This is because some of the arguments against genetic design are only wrong in the “normal” case, but not always. In this sense, the debate about genetic design needs to be expanded beyond a discussion of scientific and technological advances to include philosophical and ethical discussions about the nature of human beings, the meaning of life, and the future. As with any new technological development, it is a double-edged sword with both advantages and disadvantages, and we need to weigh the value of both. We need to weigh the ethical issues of genetic design and the evolution of humanity through it.
