As one of my grad school professors, James Q. Wilson, titled one of his books, the question is this: “Who Decides?”. Who decides what will provide “the most good to the most people”? And is there a principle that trumps the utilitarian philosophy of delivering the most good to the most people? How does a society determine what “good” is?

Brads last blog post..John McCain Anounces Running Mate

I do agree with Ricky Barnes that humans however, have been “engineered by nature” to look for the best genetic combinations possible for their children by looking for life partners that fulfill the quality criteria. Generally and ideally we would go for good looks, health, intelligence and family lineage (pedigree).

In Ashley’s case, her parents made the decision to stunt her growth and sterilize her by hysterectomy after careful consideration of adapting her parents’ ability to look after her with her conditions. It’s easy to simply have a major uproar based on the fact that she did not have an independent voice speaking out for her. However, one must always look at the fact that, even with the advancement of today’s medical technology, there is still no cure for her conditions whereby her parents took the step to be her lifelong caretakers. About the illegal sterilization, I am sure the law was made with normal children in mind i.e children who will someday have enough reasoning and responsibility understanding to speak out about their wants and needs. For a child like Ashley, will that day ever come? Besides, one must remember that a female’s womb and her menstruation cycle are there for reproduction purpose. For Ashley, would reproduction ability be of any benefit to her?

We must note that detecting defects in unborn foetus is not the same as genetically engineering potential unborn babies. The later is an effort of ensuring the potential babies would be born minus the pre-determined defects whereas the former is choosing whether to terminate or let the already existing babies be born at all. Morally, I do not define Ashley’s parents’ action as meddling with Nature but more like careful intervention with it. I do feel that Ashley’s case is a good example for the moral issue of where to draw the line between what’s in the best interest of the child and the parents.

The definition of the “perfect society” is still debatable to me. The perfect society to our parents may not be the same one we perceive as perfect. What’s perfect in one culture may be the opposite in another. Besides, if our genetic makeup had been pre-determined by scientists in the Lab, wouldn’t that produce a predictable and monotonous society? We have become the way we are today as humans because of our differences, unpredictability and richness in variations. What is the “perfectly-gened” human being anyway? Someone who looks like Jessica Alba but with the brain of Albert Einstein?

Take overfishing. If everyone were selfless and too only what he/she needed, there would be more than enough fish. However, if most people become just a little greedy (even if the booty is shared by the local community), everyone runs out of fish and everyone has to starve for years or even decades until the fish stocks replenish….if they ever do.
The same happens with defects. Some diseases, like sickle cell anemia are actually advantageous in malaria zones. I would not be at all surprised if some gene, like the gene for senility would be advantageous in a future pandemic. From an another angle, it’s well known that autism is most common in families with high IQs. Now, people with IQs often intermarry with people with low IQs, so autism is kept in check. People with high IQs tend also not to have as many children. But just imagine that everyone has high IQs. There would be few children, and without the low IQs to provide balance, the few children we do have will be autistic and unable to live in the world we created. Humanity would then be on the road to extinction.

More grimly, you feel comfortable with *our* generation making genetic decisions for the next generation, but that shows your bias. Our next generation might not be so comfortable with *your* biases. If you want proof, look at history. If you look at the Eugenics projects *in the US* during the 1930s, they were actually not that different than the German’s. The only real difference was that the Germans extended the definition of “defective” to race. But the US had readily defined homosexuality as defective, and the McCarthyists would have defined leftists, even moderate democrats as defective, and if both knew enough about how to test for those “defects” our generation would be free from those “defects” and we’d be all far right bible banging Republicans. Do you feel comfortable with your ancestors deciding what *your* genetic makeup will be?

If you want a vision of what such a “perfected society that is free from suffering and has all the best qualities” looks like, please take a look at the Twilight Zone episode “Number 12 Looks_Just Like You” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_12_Looks_Just_Like_You ).

You can brush all these facts off as scare tactics, or say “we’ll fix that problem when we get to it”. But anyone who understands differential equations or self-modifying code in AI realizes the folly of that idealism.

I frankly, don’t want “an efficient life” that is “free from problems” or “free from pain and suffering”.

It’s the pains and sorrows that actually make us human and is the source of most art and music and desire to help those who are in need. There’s an old story about a villiage where there was an epidemic of a minor rash. It was extremely irritating, but it would disappear within a month, so the only doctor in the town just told his patients to grin and bear it. Then the doctor got the rash….a cure was found the next day.

Much of the to-do against such genetic testing is not for pratical reasons, but for moral reasons. And it is important to note that morality is not legally defined, nor should it be. It is the Religious Right that seeks to influence policy, laws and people’s choices based on THEIR definition of morality, which for many of us, is quite a bit different.

Practically speaking, the reasons Ashley’s parents chose to do what they did make sense. Again, practically speaking. Separate and apart from how disturbing the idea may be, how far out of our comfort zone it may be, etc.

The real dispute here is moral. And religious zealots – and their sizable influence – can ill afford to recognize genetic advances as it conflicts with their baseless ‘intelligent design’ theory. Ergo, genetic science is bad, including any that seeks to improve someone’s quality of life.

Genetic testing is currently available to detect a wide range of potential defects within the first trimester of fetal development. If so desired, parents can make an informed choice to abort if the results suggest a lifetime of genetic abnormalities for their fetus. For those that roll that way, why wouldn’t you want access to that information? Why would we allow some bible banger to prevent us from science that can help reduce a child’s suffering?

Michael M.s last blog post..Memorialize Your Day

however.. your opening remarks pretty much distrub me the most…

what happened to evolution?
at what point do we as a society forgo allowing the human body to adapt to the world around it…
??

would we then become DEADLY succeptible to common everyday illnesses that we have built up a tolerence for?

i’ll rent the film and come back to comment more to see your angle better.

-paisley

Say, genetic treatments for unborn infants become safe – and are shown to have unambiguous benefits later in life from having genetic deficiencies, no matter how minute, corrected – and qualities added. If one group starts using this option their kids will have a clear benefit over all others. Imagine of China starts using it on all citizens, obligatory. In one generation the genetic advantage will reflect in massive compatability advantages in the global markets. The US, Europe, every country will be forced to catch up as fast as possible, incrementally. Genetic markers for deafness? removed. Genetic markers for diabetes? removed. ADHD? gone. color blindness? exit.

In fact a kid with parents who opt, for some reason, to have unmodified children, for whatever reason, could (and should) be regarded as abusive rather than merely negligent in such a scenario. They withold care that’s just as vital for their child to succeed as food or clothing. In this case if they object to the treatments they shouldn’t have children, or adopt modified children so they don’t make the choice.

And this process will accelerate fast, even without gradual technological advance. In one generation the population will on average be a good bit smarter and be able to generate better therapies to improve on the human genetic state pretty fast.

This is no doubt the last generation to procreate “naturally” if there is such a thing. Only third world nations, where such treatments are unaffordable for a while, will stay mired in an ocean of natural deficiency, and will be more and more unable to catch up the genetic divide.

I personally believe with the advent of genenetic modification, we as a society will lose our thermo dynamic miracles that inspire our very nature. Asians (Taiwanese/Chinese, not all but a good portion) have been giving their children growth hormones for years to obtain taller children which will be able to compete with their white counterparts and excel past their normal sized friends. Before growth hormones, they actually tried to stretch the legs on their children (my Taiwanese friend has personally gone through this, he grew to over 6ft) . My point it this, parents have always tried to give their children the best, it is not considered cheating or unfair; the introduction of genetic modification will only serve to produce faster results.
USA has already passed anti-genetic discrimination laws against insurance and employers, but like Vincent said “…no one takes the law seriously anymore”
Our gattaca future is at hand; ask yourself this “is there money to be made from it?”
That answer unfortunately determines the course of our humanity; where we become our own “gods” and create our own thermo dynamic miracles, determining who we are and will ever be long before we are given a chance to breathe.

niccols other films are quite groundbreaking in that they more or less caputre the fears that stem from technology. (truman show-voyuerism/realitytv, simone- techology vs. humans, lordofwar was a drastic chance from his previous films as it deals with the present)

If we were to take the gattaca argument in present in across the world, it would be the same, parents will vouch for their perfect child, call it an inalienable right, scientists will argue for the progression of mankind, and the religious will always argue against it unless they can make money off of it as well. It is already here, there are laws created to “stop” it but the almighty dollar will prevail.

It is up to us to prevent gattaca (genoism not genetic modification) from happening; I may have painted an impossible image originating in human greed but I choose to believe in hope for our own souls. If we can one day pay for our children to be the next Kobe or Bill Gates, we will also lose the opportunity for the next Lincoln, Einstein, or Van Gogh.

Then there is also all the complicated possibilities that can result from complete control of the genetic structure… Parents with children that have been altered just enough to not technically be clones etc.

Why do you care? Why would anyone care? Can you make her walk? Can you give her family a hand with raising her? Can all those stupid doctors, and the community do anything except bullshit about ethics and morality to ease that family’s pain?

The problem is monkeys, that no one knows anything. So, chill out with all this ethical bullshit, and let people do what helps them get through life. It’s not like you can do any better.

Of course, if you believe in a some form of soul, it doesn’t matter what religion or spiritual belief you hold (even Stoicism or Shinto or aboriginal spirit worship), there’s an opportunity to have a conversation because each acknowledges that there is something sacred in life so care must be made to ensure that we don’t pervert it. You’ll get disagreements on where exactly to draw the line, but all will agree that a line must be drawn, and anyone with more than a passing knowledge of multiple faiths will trust that the lines will not be that far apart.