This review of The Case Against Perfection explores the ethical issues surrounding advances in genetic engineering and the design of children, and whether parents’ decision to genetically enhance their children is simply an expression of desire or a necessary choice for their children’s health and education. The positive possibilities of genetic engineering are discussed alongside Michael Sandel’s criticisms, and how the technology can be used appropriately.
The steady progress of genetic engineering has led to the mapping of the human genome and the ability to clone animals. Along with computer science, genetic engineering is one of the fastest-growing fields of engineering, raising questions about the bioethics of genetic manipulation, treatment, and cloning. This book, Bioethics, is a book about bioethics, and I would like to discuss the question of “Should I design my children?” in it.
Michael Sandel, the author of the book, argues that parents designing their children is parental hubris, a parental urge to conquer the mystery of birth, and he uses the example of child health and education. In terms of child health, he argues that health is not a tool to be maximized and can be pursued without genetic enhancement, and in terms of education, he argues that genetic enhancement and modern high-pressure parenting are similar, but that the high-pressure parenting itself is problematic. But I disagree. I think there’s plenty of room for parents to embrace designing their children.
First of all, in terms of health, design isn’t just about “I’m going to make my child an iron man, so he won’t get sick, and he’ll have tons of stamina. Even though medicine has come a long way since the old days, illness is still a huge problem. And one of the biggest concerns for parents when having a child is deformities and genetic diseases. The first goal of health design is to fix these deformities, genetic diseases, and even terminal and incurable diseases that medicine alone cannot solve. The author would be in favor of this, as he believes that curing these diseases is equivalent to restoring health, restoring and maintaining natural human functions. However, I think it should be allowed not only to cure these diseases, but also to make them genetically healthy, which is what the author calls enhancement.
The author acknowledges that the definition of natural human functioning is ambiguous, as he defines treatment as restoring or maintaining natural human functioning, but I think some of the enhancements he considers could be part of natural human functioning. Although the author says that it is possible to pursue health without genetic enhancement, health through genetic enhancement is not just about being able to eat and live, but about more than just well-being, such as enhancing physical strength and resilience so that you can sleep less and have more leisure time, so that you can feel good after a hard day’s work instead of feeling irritable due to fatigue, and so that people who don’t like exercising because they can’t do it can find it fun, so that you can maintain your health naturally without having to intentionally take care of it. In this way, modern human life can be enriched both mentally and physically. This is well within the scope of good health, which the author considers to be a component of human flourishing, and is not unnecessarily maximized.
Next is the design of education. The author criticizes both the high-pressure parenting system of modern society and genetic manipulation, while acknowledging that there are similarities. I think he’s conflating the idea of designing children with parents designing their children to their own intentions (a matter of how they do it). But I think it’s more correct to think of them separately. Just as we don’t ban nuclear engineering because it can make nuclear weapons, or ban pharmaceuticals because they can be used as drugs, we need to first discuss the fact that parents are designing their children. First of all, it is unlikely to do any harm to design a child to have a slightly better trait. Let’s say a child is very interested in mechanics, but they’re not very good at math or science, so they choose a different path. If that child’s parents had genetically engineered their child to fill in the gaps before they were born, wouldn’t that child have been able to succeed in the field they were interested in? In this way, some people’s interests and talents may not match. However, if genetic manipulation could be used to fill in the gaps, the child would have more freedom of choice. The author argues that designing intellectual aptitudes and athletic abilities turns children into products of their will or instruments of their ambition, which is a matter of how they are designed, i.e., the parents. Therefore, I don’t think we should ban genetic manipulation per se, but rather limit how it is used. Furthermore, it’s ridiculous to say that simply because you want to turn your child into a sports star through some kind of genetic manipulation, that manipulation alone will make them a sports star. Genes are a factor in becoming a sports star, not a sufficient condition. Genetic manipulation to create a sports star would simply create a healthy high school student who is a little good at soccer and likes to play soccer with his friends. It’s hardly a tool for ambition.
I don’t want parents to design their children recklessly, either. I certainly don’t want parents to design their children indiscriminately, as the author suggests, or to simply make them the tools of their own desires. But if we use genetic modification as it was originally researched and work to ensure that it is used as intended, our children and their children’s children will be better off mentally and physically. As with any technology, I am not against the technology itself, but I think it is important to apply it in a way that addresses its challenges.
Furthermore, the development of genetic engineering can contribute to improving the overall quality of human life beyond just health and education. For example, the potential of genetic engineering can be harnessed to enhance environmental adaptability, prevent aging, improve mental health, and much more. The positive changes that these advances could bring could be more than we can imagine. It is possible to imagine new forms of human interaction and social structure through genetic engineering. This is not just about improving the quality of life of individuals, but could be an important factor in the development and progress of humanity as a whole. In this context, genetic engineering has the potential to become a key technology for future societies.
Finally, advances in genetic engineering will play an important role in helping us overcome our own limitations and explore new possibilities. This is not just a technological advancement, but a new understanding of the nature and possibilities of human existence. Genetic engineering gives humans the power to determine their own destiny, and this could be the most revolutionary and important turning point in human history. Rather than fearing these technologies, we should embrace the myriad possibilities they offer and seek ways to use them appropriately.
As such, the discussion of genetic modification and bioethics is not just a technical issue, but requires deep reflection on our human future and quality of life. Through such reflection, we will be able to design a better future and create a society where human beings can realize their full potential.
