Science fiction is replete with tales of genetic augmentation, making people who are more human than human. A famous example is that of Khan, who is introduced in Star Trek’s “Space Seed” episode. In the Star Trek timeline, scientists used genetic engineering and selective breeding to create augmented humans in the hope of creating a better world. As is so often the case in fiction, this turned out badly and led to the eugenics wars that pitted normal humans against the augmented humans. While ordinary humanity won that war, there are other stories in which humanity is replaced by its creations. While these tales are fiction, genetic modification is a real science that raises moral concerns.
While some science-fiction tales include super-human beings arising from genetic engineering, it is well worth considering the limits of what can be done. After all, there are obviously limits to organic beings and genes. As such, one should be careful when considering possible scenarios to avoid contaminating the discussion with hyperbole and impossible scenarios. That said, genetic augmentation could grant individuals considerable advantages even if the specific improves are relatively small. For example, having immunity to certain diseases would be advantageous as would even modest improvements in mental and physical abilities. For the near future, an augmented human will most likely just be somewhat better than they would have been naturally rather than being at the human maximum across the board (or superhuman). These modest improvements still raise some moral concerns.
As would be expected, some have raised the usual “playing God” and “unnatural” arguments. However, these arguments have little weight considering that almost all our modern medicine is “playing God” and “unnatural.” A better approach is to consider what we should be doing, without the drama of cries of “playing God” or “unnatural.”
Since the initial augmentations will be modest, the closest moral concern is with these. The usual focus is on the ethics of fairness: the rich will be able to afford to augment their children, thus giving them even more advantages over the less well-off. While this does raise some new concerns because of the modification aspect, the core moral problems are old ones—determining how opportunities should be distributed in society and determining the moral rules for competition.
As it stands, American society allows the wealthy to enjoy a multitude of advantages over the lower classes—as exposed in the college admission’s scandal. However, the scandal shows that there are moral limits to what is tolerated: it is accepted that the wealthy will make donations and use legacy admissions to get their kids into college, but outright bribes are condemned. Genetic augmentation should be looked at as just one more factor in the competition between the economic classes and the same basic ethical concerns apply (with the addition of special concerns about the ethics of genetic modification).
From the standpoint of what we collectively currently accept, the question is whether augmentation is more like the accepted advantages of the rich (such as buying tutoring and better education) or more like the advantages that are condemned (outright bribery).
On the face of it, genetic augmentation would seem to be analogous to methods already used to improve the children of the upper classes. They get better medical care, better nutrition, better housing, better education, better tutoring, better counseling and so on. In a sense, they are already augmented relative to the lower classes. While these advantages are not earned by the children, they do improve their abilities and thus enable them to succeed because of their enhanced abilities in competitions. Genetic augmentation would seem to be the same: while they do not earn the augmentation, it would make them objectively better than they would otherwise be and give them a relevant edge over other people. The best people would, in most cases, get the best opportunities. As such, if the current system is morally acceptable, then it would seem that genetic augmentation would be acceptable as well.
As would be expected, those who see the current system as immoral because of the unfairness would also think that genetic augmentation is analogous to the existing advantages of the upper classes. The difference would be that they think these advantages would be unfair. One approach would be to forbid the use of augmentation on the grounds of unfairness. A moral concern with this approach is that it would deny humanity the chance to improve—it would be analogous to banning parents from hiring tutors for their kids. Another approach would be to require that all children have the opportunity for enhancement. This would be analogous to ensuring that public resources are distributed equitably for K-12 education, so that everyone is better off.
If one takes the professed American values of fair competition and equality of opportunity seriously, then such augments should be treated like public education and available to all citizens. If one merely mouths the words while seeking to perpetuate the advantages of the upper classes, then one would insist that such augmentations should be available to those who can pay—that is, the upper classes.
The above discussion does, I hasten to note, set aside the specific concerns special to augmentation itself—my focus has been on the moral question of fairness and distribution of opportunities. These are critical moral concerns that I have addressed in the past—and will no doubt address in the future.
Yeah, I remember a day when it was so unfair that only the rich could afford that new, groundbreaking IUD called the “Dalkon Shield”.
I think you’re making the same mistake here that you make in your discussion about the “fairness” of opportunity hoarding in college admissions – that somehow, if only the rich can afford it it’s got to be some great thing and it’s not fair that it’s not available to everyone.
With the genetic augmentation, you are taking such huge, fantastic leaps that it almost bears no discussion at all. So maybe some scientists can come up with some great genetic modification that will make newborns more resistant to HIV or cancer or something like that. And maybe, as you seem wont to predict, this is a very expensive process and only the ultra-wealthy can afford it, and it becomes yet another weapon in the arsenal of the politics of envy.
And then, in 30 years, we discover that the side effect of this genetic alteration is a rapid acceleration of Alzheimer’s disease, and the wealthy infants who were resistant to HIV and cancer suddenly have their minds turn to mush by the time they’re 40.
Consider the son of a Harvard legacy, accepted to Harvard on the basis of his father’s money and connections. He’s not really qualified – and it’s totally not fair that he should get in – but he maintains a slightly better than a C average and manages to pass the bar, and gets a cozy six figure starting salary in a firm belonging to one of his father’s friends. No freakin’ fair.
Then by the time this guy is 40, he’s already an alcoholic on his third marriage, whose kids hate him and he finds his only refuge in working late, screwing his secretary, and nipping at the $200 bottle of scotch he keeps in his desk drawer.
Meanwhile, the guy who couldn’t get into school maybe joined the local police force instead. By the time he’s 40, he’s got a sweet defined-benefit pension funded by the taxpayers PLUS a 403b tax sheltered annuity courtesy of the IRS, and can quit the force, do something completely different that he’s always wanted to, knowing that his retirement is completely funded and secure. And this guy gets to go to his kid’s Little League games.
I went to a very fancy, very expensive, high-end boarding school for boys. My dad was a physician, we were among the wealthiest people in our hometown – but I was a hoser compared to the kids at that school. The limos would line up before Thanksgiving break, and dad’s driver would take these kids home for the holiday.
I am in touch with two of my classmates from those days. The rest of them went on to Harvard and Yale and Penn and Brown and went into law or politics or dad’s business – and I want to have nothing to do with them. Back then, they were a bunch of self-important entitled pricks, and they still are today. Some are dead, of course – stress induced heart attacks or killed in DUI events. Some of the real enterprising guys – the ones who always got the best drugs on their fat allowances – are or were doing time. Some are undoubtedly happy and successful – but for so many of them the alternate reality their wealth and entitled upbringing put them in was a HUGE disadvantage, and they could find no way out.
So you can be envious of the rich if you want. I pity the poor kids whose parents spend millions getting them into Stanford or Yale. What must they think? How could they have anything even resembling self-esteem? And they are far more likely to turn into some new version of Paris Hilton than a productive member of society, or finding any sort of path to real accomplishment or self-actualization.
Trust the system, Mike – if genetic alteration ever becomes a real thing, some futuristic Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton will find a way to make it “fair”, and they’ll all bleed to death out of their ears at 50.
I will find my own way, and like Wally Amos or Oprah Winfrey, I will continue to seek the opportunities that are inherently meaningful to me, not what some jealous SJW tells me I can’t have. And when I’m denied an opportunity that I want, that I really want, I will learn from the experience and double down on my efforts for the next one. And I’ll remember the words of wisdom spoken to me by an old friend Dave V.,
“…Every adversity bears with it the seed of an equal or greater opportunity.”.
There is no greater teacher than failure, than loss, than being faced with unfairness and learning how to deal with it. So for those whose money can buy their way out of those things so that they never have to experience them, THEY are the ones lacking in real opportunity. THEY are the ones who are missing out. THEY are the ones who, if they are very, very lucky will have a very rude awakening one day, will hit rock bottom and have to climb out of their pit of despair and start over as real human beings. THEY are the ones who really deserve our pity.
Of course, if they never have that “aha” moment, that rude awakening, they’ll just continue to be rich assholes whose families hate them.
Interestingly, there was a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago that showed a girl pushing a lawnmower and a caption: “How to leave a trust fund for your kids without turning them into trust-fund kids.”
Cute; but there is a big difference between doing chores as a moral lesson and having to work as a kid to help pay for necessities.
True, GE could turn out to be more horror than science fiction. I don’t argue that X must be great because only the rich can afford it; rather I focus on if something is great and made expensive so only the rich can afford it, then there might be an issue with fairness. I do not think that there is anything great about diamond studded iPhone cases or that it is unfair that everyone does not have something so stupidly wasteful. But, I do think that internet access is great and that it should be widely available-such as in the rural areas that often get left out.
They get better medical care, better nutrition, better housing, better education, better tutoring, better counseling and so on.
1) Healthy kids don’t need much medical care. A check up once in a while.
2) It doesn’t cost much to eat a healthy diet.
3) As long as the neighborhood is safe, the quality of the housing doesn’t much matter.
4) As long as the schools do their job, the kids will receive a quality education.
5) Tutoring? Counseling? These may do more harm than good.
The point is that rich kids have relatively few real advantages over middle class kids.
1) Even healthy kids do need care; I’m healthy, but still got the usual injuries and illnesses that kids get (stitches, sinus infections, etc.). Also, dental care-even healthy kids need checkups and cleanings.
2) Crap eating is still far cheaper; I know this from grad school.
3) How so? Cold, leaky houses would seem a problem.
4) True; but they need resources to do a good job.
5) May? I tutored students in grad school; they always did better. And, as WTP says, I am terrible.
I would agree that the rich (1%) do not have a huge advantage over the middle class (20%). Aside from being able to “donate”, the basic advantages are within the reach of the top 20%. But that leaves everyone else.
Mike, I’m not sure where you live, but this is the U.S. that I live in:
https://youtu.be/GvvuHREm5jg
Well, one cannot argue with Drew Carey.
I’m having trouble treating all possible effects of genetic augmentation in one category.
For the purpose of this discussion, I am not addressing the safety and ethical issues. I am also not addressing germ line therapies. I am also not addressing embryo extraction, treatment, and re-implantation.
So we are left with somatic cell therapies that are, for the purpose of this discussion, proven ethical and safe. (Hm. We’ve left a lot on the cutting-room floor there.)
We could separate these into two broad categories:
1. Immunities. This is easy to conceptualise. Some people are naturally immune or resistant to certain diseases. Examination of the genome could reveal alterations that could be made to apply this resistance to newborns at a genetic level. It would be similar in effect to existing vaccinations, but probably for different diseases; there is not much point in switching from the proven MMR vaccine to a genetic equivalent.
If such immunities are developed, there is a case for the State providing them for free to all its citizens, and even requiring them. Apart from the equality argument, it will make for a healthier society if its citizens are not burdened by diseases. Of ourse, in the early days, such treatments may be expensive, requiring tens or hundreds of man-days of work for each individual, but as the cost falls, they become practical to apply universally.
2. Enhancements. This is much more difficult. Which enhancements? To intelligence? Refexes? Strength? Mood? Focus? Senses? Aging?
Would such therapies need to be applied to newborns, or can they be delayed until an individual can choose? Let us assume they must be applied to newborns, so the parents or the State needs to make the decision.
The State provides free schooling, but it also dictates the content of that schooling. Which genetic alterations for the purpose of enhancement would we be comfortable allowing the State to dictate?
This, it seems to me, needs a separate treatment.
True; we can broadly divide the modifications in the same way we look at what we do to houses: are we repairing something broken or improving something that is already okay? As you note, the improvements can be broken down into categories as well. I’d say that granting people immunity to diseases would be fine-this is like getting a vaccine. Enhancements become a bit more problematic and, as you say, we’d need to look at what is being “improved” and how. There are also questions about what would be a defect and what would be an improvement. For example, would being more aggressive or less aggressive be a defect or improvement?