Advances in biotechnology raise the possibility that it could change the nature and social structure of Homo sapiens. There is growing concern about whether this will be beneficial to humanity or whether it will lead to the extinction of Homo sapiens.
Manhattan, New York City, 2012, is being invaded by aliens from outer space. The Avengers – Iron Man, Captain America, the Hulk, and other heroes – travel to New York City to stop the attack. They defeat the aliens, reseal the portal to outer space, and Earth is at peace again. This is a scene from the movie Avengers (2012). Among the Avengers heroes, one in particular stands out. He’s the Hulk, a man with green steel skin and a muscular physique that even bullets can’t pierce. He faces not just one army, but many, and he doesn’t go down without a fight, but rather shows off his power. We watch the movies in anticipation of seeing the Hulk in even greater power as he defends our planet. But is it okay for us to enjoy this Hulk as just a spectacle? We’ve always taken the heroic story of the do-gooder for granted. But can we guarantee that a powerful being like the Hulk won’t side with villains or terrorists and harm the well-being of humanity? If you think this is a very distant story, I would say that you are underestimating our rapidly advancing scientific civilization. At the current rate of development, no biotechnology can be dismissed as far-fetched. If we’re already getting close to success in bringing back mammoths, which have been extinct for the past 5,000 years, by fertilizing elephants, what can we expect from other research?
In this way, biotechnology will not only affect Homo sapiens in a beneficial way. So, under what circumstances could Homo sapiens become extinct? According to the book Sapiens (Yuval Harari), there are a number of scenarios that could lead to the extinction of Homo sapiens from the perspective of genetic engineering.
First, the collapse of social structures due to genetic engineering could lead to the extinction of Homo sapiens. One might wonder whether scientific influences can directly affect socio-cultural factors, rather than just having a ripple effect. But let’s look at the story of field mice as an example of how science has directly influenced socio-cultural factors. Before we get into this, it’s important to note that genes in all organisms have specific sites of expression for each type of gene. For example, if gene A is the gene that determines the presence or absence of eyelids, it only affects the presence or absence of eyelids without affecting other parts of the body, such as eyebrows or fingernails. Geneticists have used this feature of genes to achieve certain results in studies of field mice. While most species of field mice are promiscuous, one species of field mouse is monogamous. Geneticists claim to have isolated the gene responsible for monogamy in these voles. If it were possible to transfer this gene into the genes of other voles, it could change the lifestyle and personality of most voles. The findings could also apply to Homo sapiens. If these genes were applied to Homo sapiens, personality changes could occur, and social changes would be inevitable. But will the changes in personality and social structure be beneficial? Yuval Harari believes that in the near future, humans will be able to design their own desires. This raises concerns, foreshadowing a change in the personality of Homo sapiens and its eerie consequences.
Another aspect is the problem that may arise as advances in genetic engineering allow Homo sapiens to borrow the best features of different life forms. This is a little different from the social extinction mentioned above, and refers to extinction due to the breakdown of the criteria that define Homo sapiens.
In August 2014, genomics researchers at Arizona State University in the United States analyzed the lizard in detail using gene search technology and found 326 genes involved in the regeneration of different body parts, including the tail. While this discovery does not directly apply to humans because lizards do not have the same DNA makeup as humans, the similarities to human genes suggest that the regenerative abilities of lizards may be applicable to humans. In addition to this example, efforts to borrow from other organisms are ongoing. But can we still call humans Homo sapiens if we’re infused with these genetic technologies? Take the automobile for example. A car with wheels is designed to move quickly on land. But if we add wings to a car to take it into the air to compensate for its land limitations, we’ve improved its functionality, but is it still a car? Or should we call it an airplane? If Homo sapiens borrows features from other organisms, a new species with a new name will be born, and Homo sapiens will eventually come to an end.
Biotechnology is often analogized to a knife. When used in the right way, it can be a great tool to streamline tasks, but when used incorrectly, it becomes a weapon that can harm people. However, the reality is that knives can’t always be used for good. Similarly, biotechnology inevitably has its drawbacks, but when used to its advantage, it can be a great tool for improving human well-being. However, the technology cannot always be used for good, and it has the potential to be abused, so just as we should always be careful with a knife, so should we be careful with the development and application of biotechnology.
