Argument in Favor of Genetic Engineering of Human Beings

In this article I will argue that positive germline genetic engineering is morally permissible, doing so from a philosophical standpoint. The grounds on which this will be claimed is that natural evolution is not so great. To say so, positive germline genetic engineering must first be defined. After which, positive germline genetic engineering's argument in favor can be seen through the unnecessary traits created from natural evolution, how natural evolution itself may be rendered obsolete, and how evolution is no longer natural and has been set on a different course. A counter argument will then be claimed against the argument in favor.

I. What Positive Germline Genetic Engineering of Human Beings Is

To make an argument in favor of positive germline genetic engineering, one must first have an understanding on the subject. To clearly describe it we can break the subject up into its lesser parts. Firstly we must have an understanding of what genetic engineering exactly is. There are three main ways to alter the genetic information of an organism. They are 1) Environmental changes; accidental genetic effects such as humans over time becoming taller and smarter. 2) Selective breeding; intended genetic changes such as choosing embryos or selecting mates. 3) Genetic engineering, which is the altering of genetic material to change an organism's characteristics or traits. A subset of genetic engineering can be positive or negative genetic engineering. While negative genetic engineering will bring a subject up to par, say by eliminating a disease or healing an organ, positive genetic engineering will modify genetic material in a way that brings an organism beyond normal limitations. A further subset of genetic engineering is germline genetic engineering. In this case, the alteration of genes is done in a way that traits are passed on to future generations of the altered organism by altering the germ cells (sperm and egg) of an individual.

Thus, we can come to a complete definition of positive germline genetic engineering of human beings as; altering the genetic material of an individual's cells in a way that will endow their future generations with abilities or traits that exceed existing limitations.

II. Positive Germline Genetic Engineering of Human Beings is morally permissible because natural evolution isn't so great

Natural evolution, from a Darwinian point of view, relies upon survival of the fittest and the continuation of traits that best suit an organism to survive in the environment. To be successful is to have many offspring, and to do this certain base traits were needed during the days of human pre-history. Traits such as promiscuity, high fertility, good health, and strength give an individual an advantage. What one has to consider is if these traits are of any use or importance in our present day society. With the change in times, the previous traits are of lesser importance in civilized society. More important traits and factors that make for a successful individual are intelligence and ambition. While health is still important, medicine and modern technology, as will be discussed later, compensate for those of poorer health. Despite these newer more important traits, evolution does not alter itself or adapt with changing times at fast enough rate: evolution still selects the most base of traits for producing offspring. For example, suppose we have two individuals in today's society. One whom is highly fertile lacks goals for success and basic intelligence, and lives in poor economic conditions. Another individual is intelligent and successful by modern day standards but has low fertility due to a genetic defect. The successful person would raise children with better opportunities for their future and social betterment, while the first man's offspring would likely live in poverty with little hope for a quality education and would likely end up as a tax on society. If natural evolution were still a deciding factor it would create a higher burden for society simply because the more fertile man has more Darwinian 'fitness'. The character types produced from natural evolution would also not be suited for today's environment. Natural evolution would favor rough and competitive individuals. Such people would be selfish, overly competitive, and more inclined to violence. Today, more highly valued character types would be compassion, intelligence, empathy, humor, ambition, and other such traits.

One may not even have to argue that natural evolution isn't so great if it can be argued instead that natural evolution has already been rendered obsolete and no longer in effect. The base idea behind natural evolution is that the unfit can not reproduce and those who are fit have many children. Such ideals are no longer applicable today. The existence of medication and surgery prove that many flaws, which in older times would affect the ability to reproduce, are now treated, thus enabling people to continue to reproduce who otherwise may not have.

The current structure of our society is built so that natural evolution is not factored in. The existence of a welfare system, homeless shelters/soup kitchens, and laws such as the Disabilities Act of 1990, which protects disabled or handicapped individuals from job discrimination, prove that society cares for people who would be disadvantaged by natural evolution. A society where none of the above and other benefits for the less fortunate existed would result in a cold, uncaring, and distant community composed of those who do not care for fellow men.

Natural evolution is greatly a product of chance mutations that happen to benefit an individual's chance at survival and reproduction. Positive germline genetic engineering would allow humans to take natural evolution to the next new step: something higher and better than what naturally and randomly would occur. Instead of rolling proverbial dice to decide traits, scientists would be able to pick and chose combinations of genes to better suit an individual for modern day societies' environment. While natural evolution may produce generations who have the greatest odds of reproduction, genetic engineering will give generations the greatest opportunities for success and survival in this new era.

III. A Counter Argument

In an argument presented above it was stated that positive germline genetic engineering is morally permissible and superior to natural evolution due to the fact that it will allow people to select traits for their children that are better suited to a modern day society. It was also stated that traits selected purely by natural evolution are not useful in modern day society. It is incorrect to assume that natural evolution based traits are not applicable in today's society and that parents selecting traits for offspring would be better.

Certain traits favored by natural evolution are still important in today's society, although they may have a slightly different purpose than originally intended for primitive cultures. In earlier centuries individuals who were more ambitious and aggressive would win over mates and thus be more likely to produce many offspring. Today those same traits are important for an individual to succeed in today's society in a competitive work environment. Because today's standards of success are measured in education, employment, and satisfaction, and not number of children, the traits perpetuated by natural evolution have a different use because they're in a different context than before.

People selecting traits for their children has the potential to lead to a homogeneous society as parents strive to give their children all the same traits in an attempt to prevent their child from sticking out or falling behind. A lack of variance would not only create a monotonous world but would also increase the chances that a virus could wipe out a large portion of similar individuals. Humans as social beings by nature and often strive to be like the majority in order to be accepted. This would lead to a society without the variance that natural selection would provide. Natural selection, however, does not make value judgments and when it comes to selecting traits is a mostly unbiased system.

In Conclusion

Whether one wants to argue that natural evolution is unnecessary, obsolete, or outdated, it is a safe claim to say that natural evolution isn't so great. Even with the base traits evolution gave us, these trains can still be utilized and will exist in a genetically altered individual. Through positive germline genetic engineering society can gain a greater good through enhanced traits which natural evolution couldn't achieve for hundreds of generations.