Genetic selection can deprive children of self-exploration, reinforce feelings of inferiority, create unhealthy competition in society, and undermine human dignity. It should not be allowed.
It is everyone’s desire to see their loved ones stay healthy and free of illness. It is also natural to add some expectations to this wish, especially if they are children. The pace of technological advancement is so rapid that the situation in the movie Gattaca, which was considered science fiction only a few decades ago, is no longer impossible, and we may soon be faced with the choice: “Should we choose the genetic traits of our unborn children?
This question raises a number of considerations that make it difficult to make an easy decision. One of the first questions that comes to mind is, “Is it right for humans to defy the laws of nature? Of course, those who believe in following the laws of nature will reject this suggestion outright. However, even those who believe that humans can sometimes defy the laws of nature are not all in favor of this option. Some people might say, “Even though we can defy nature, it is not right to pre-select the genetic traits of our children. Thus, when dealing with the issue of genetic selection, asking the question, “Is it right for humans to defy nature?” can lead to confusion due to the difference in categories.
We shouldn’t look at “nature” as a whole to decide whether to accept or reject science’s proposals, but rather “humans”. In other words, we should consider what is more beneficial to humans. The bottom line is that no one should be able to choose the genetic traits of their unborn children when it comes to human impact. There are two main categories of reasons why we should reject the options presented by science and technology: personal and societal. The specific reasons for each of these dimensions all support the anti-genetic selection position, while at the same time pointing out the problems with the rationale used by proponents of genetic selection.
First, genetic selection deprives individuals of the opportunity for self-exploration. In his hierarchy of needs theory, A. H. Maslow described the need for self-actualization as the highest need. Even psychologists who disagree with Maslow’s theory agree that self-actualization is an important part of the human hierarchy of needs. Self-actualization begins with self-exploration, which involves discovering one’s interests and aptitudes. Humans go through this difficult process of self-actualization, but children born through genetic selection are not allowed to do this. They already know their aptitudes. They are only left with the choice of whether they find it interesting or not.
In response, proponents of genetic selection argue, “We all have predetermined strengths anyway. Isn’t it better for the child to be born with the strengths that are best for him or her? However, the very act of deciding what strengths are good for a child to have is taking away an important right from the child. Every human being is capable of determining the values that he or she deems necessary for his or her life. They have the right to live their own lives. However, the parents’ values are inevitably involved in the decision of what is good to have. This means that the child’s values are pre-implanted in the child, and the child is born deprived of a choice due to the abuse of parental rights. Not to mention that depriving a child of the opportunity for self-exploration reduces the possibility of self-actualization.
Secondly, there is the problem that it can lead to an individual’s inferiority complex. Inferiority is a relative emotion. Some people can be good at many things compared to others and still feel inferior because they lack one thing. In a society where genetic selection is commonplace, there will be even more things to foster feelings of inferiority. When selecting genes for their children, parents would probably not select for inferior traits, so we can expect most children to be superior to the current average. However, because the strengths that each parent cares about are different, some children may have to rely on natural selection alone for factors that are genetically dominant for everyone else. This child is likely to feel a greater sense of inferiority than among children of average ability. What’s worse is that this situation can happen frequently.
Those in favor of using genetic selection to determine a child’s genetic traits argue that “if we can eliminate the possibility of disability or social maladjustment through genetic manipulation, the child born will not only be better adapted to society, but may even lead a happier life. However, there is a problem with this kind of strict exclusion of recessive factors. Social perceptions of people with disabilities and misfits could become even worse than they already are. Since no trait is guaranteed to be expressed 100% of the time, there is still a chance that people with disabilities and social misfits will express the traits their parents wanted to block. However, in an “upwardly mobile” society, can a human born with a dominant trait overcome the inferiority complex and live a happy life in the face of a worse social gaze? Whether it is right to further marginalize minorities in order to improve the average quality of life is a question that must be asked.
Third, there is a risk that an unhealthy system of competition will prevail in society as a whole. Humans with superior traits born through genetic selection live in relationships with others. Competition is inevitable in this process. Even in our current society, the question of how competition should be organized is a hot topic. Not only is it impossible for all members of society to compete in the same environment, but it is also difficult to measure the degree of effort in each individual’s situation, which always raises the question of the validity of the results. This is especially true when the quality of a given environment varies too much or when effort is excluded. When strengths are predetermined through genetic selection, their competition is inevitably going to be a mirror image of what they were born with. The potential for problematic competition is high.
This is where the argument of proponents of genetic selection that it can have a positive impact on society by identifying recessive individuals in advance loses its power. If so-called “social evils” are eliminated in advance, this can certainly be beneficial to society. However, if genetic selection changes the competition in our society to compete for what we are born with, we can say that a new “social evil” is born. The expected social benefits of genetic selection can never be considered beneficial in the aggregate.
Finally, the dignity of human beings in our society could be greatly compromised. Genetic selection inherently implies the assumption that human beings can be quantified and evaluated. This is a dangerous idea that undermines human dignity. For example, if a child is born with a curved spine, what percentage of the time is the probability of a curved spine below a certain level, can we call the child recessive? Human beings are not as easily judged for their superiority or inferiority as corn or rice. Nor is it right to identify a recessive individual and not give it a chance to live. The core of human dignity is that every human being has value just by existing, and if we impose a standard of superiority or inferiority and deny them the opportunity to live if they are inferior, we cannot say that human dignity is being respected.
Of course, proponents of genetic selection say, ‘We allow genetic selection, but it is up to the individual to implement it. And if it’s only used to prevent serious illnesses, then there’s nothing to worry about in terms of human dignity. However, this is based on the misconception that human dignity is something that is protected on an individual basis. Values such as a sense of safety, community, and human dignity are not only important because a few individuals are causing problems, but because of the degradation of the value itself. In other words, it’s not about how many people are violating them, it’s about the fact that they’re not being upheld. Genetic selection should not be allowed at any time because it has the potential to undermine the value of human dignity. There is no guarantee that genetic selection, even when it is intended to prevent disease, will not lead to something like the current form of plastic surgery addiction.
Based on the above discussion, selecting a child’s genetic traits will lead to deprivation of self-exploration and increased feelings of inferiority at the individual level, and to the creation of an unjustified system of competition and undermining of human dignity at the societal level. Therefore, genetic selection should never be practiced. Deep down, the idea of using genetic selection to determine a child’s genetic traits is probably driven by the desire to have a healthy child. But is genetic selection really the only way to fulfill that wish? The answer is no. Genetic selection is actually a difficult technology to realize. It’s hard to believe that we wouldn’t have cures for many diseases if we could.
John Stuart Mill once said, “Better a hungry Socrates than a full pig” to emphasize the value of being human. Proponents of genetic selection believe that it can create a “full Socrates”. We can enjoy physical and material benefits without compromising our human dignity. However, genetic selection is not an option to create a ‘full Socrates’. You can have a full stomach, but you’ll have to give up some of the things you enjoy as a human being. In the end, genetic selection deprives your child of the opportunity to be a Socrates. Technology is only a tool to help us be human. Children are not tools to realize the values of their parents. Fearing the expression of recessive genes in our children is reminiscent of the “don’t dip your bowels because you’re afraid of maggots” scenario. Therefore, the options that science and technology may present to us in the future should be clearly rejected.
