Futurist Response #2

In Genetics We Trust

“They used to say that a child conceived in love has a greater chance of happiness. They don't say that anymore.” If the things that both James Martin and David Freedman wrote about came true, then this quote could possibly become the norm. This quote, from the movie Gattaca, serves as a great example of what could possibly happen in the near future if the biological and genetic advances in science continue in the same direction. In the movie, genetic engineering of humans is common and DNA plays the primary role in determining social class. Though Martin said, “In reality, at least for the next few decades, the most effective forms of human modification will not be genetic” we must not put genetic alteration out of the realm of possibility (Martin 196).

Throughout both readings, all I could think about were the possible implications of what all of this new science/technological innovation could bring. If people today could, before having a child, choose the traits that they wanted their children to exhibit then the repercussions could be catastrophic. As Freedman said human beings would be like “show dogs and racehorses – [having someone else]…decide which” traits to pass on and which traits to eliminate, “in order to improve the breed” (Freedman 189).

This scientific innovation of “tailor-made…genes” could lead to a number of good things such as children being born with fewer and fewer genetic diseases (Freedman 192). If we could reduce the possibility of diseases such as Down syndrome, Turner’s, and such, many people’s lives could be better. However some might say that this could lead to a G-d complex. This could contribute to humans trying to play G-d thus fate would not play an important part in genetic makeup. The advancements in science/technology could also lead to a homogonous species. If people could choose the traits that they wanted their children to have, such as eye and hair color, height, weight, intelligence, athletic ability, then most people are going to choose what has been put in front of them in the media. Television dictates the physical traits that we desire and as such, people would be more inclined to choose those same traits for their own children. As a result of this, the next generation could become more and more similar, leading to an increasingly homogonous population. Taking this theory even further, it could be said that this could lead to less natural talent.

In all reality, it makes sense that most people would want their children to be the best that they can be. As this holds true it can be said then that most people, if given the choice, whether or not to make their child smarter or more athletic in general most people would do it. With everyone being the ‘same’ and nobody being unique, everyone would be on a level playing field. If more and more of the ‘newly created’ generation were smarter and more athletic, then those who are naturally smart or athletic no longer exist. We would have no Michael Phelps, Michael Jordan, or Albert Einstein. This would go against the survival of the fittest theory. The strongest would no longer be weeded out, just their genes would be. Which in effect could lead to overpopulation.

Overpopulation in India is a great example of the effects of the existing scientific/technological advance made in genetics. In India, though, social reform has swept the nation; women are still not regarded as equal to men. There are still many arranged marriages. In arranged marriages, the female’s family is expected to pay a dowry to the male’s family, making female children more expensive. Men are also thought to be superior, and for these two reasons girls are unwanted. So when even technology as arbitrary as ultrasounds was introduced in India a major problem was created. With the population growing faster and faster, and more and more of the population being made up of women and not men, the ultrasound was a way of changing this. What started to happen was when women would find out that they were pregnant with a girl and not a boy, and either they already had a girl or could not afford to have a girl (dowry) or just did not want a girl due to the social stigma, they would abort the baby. This has become a major political issue in India today. People are turning to abortion as a solution to the problem of having a daughter. This is a great example of how even the best intentions for the greatest advancements in technology can have negative effects.

All advancements in science/technology, in my opinion, started out with the best intentions. Even with the ultrasound example, though it is used in the wrong way in some cases, it is still used to help many people. There is a good and bad side to anything. One of the defining quotes used in Martin’s paper can be used to explain why, though many negative results may occur from innovations, we still keep on innovating. “We’re not defined by our limitations. We’re defined by the fact that we are the species that seeks to extend beyond our limits”(Martin 197). This quote is the epitome of scientific innovation. Without us wanting to take science further and further, nothing would ever be accomplished. It is human nature to want to be better and better and naturally stretching the boundaries or limits of science goes hand in hand with innovation. This quote from Gattaca shows again how extreme things can get “I'll never understand what possessed my mother to put her faith in God's hands, rather than her local geneticist.” After thinking about this movie, I think Martin does bring up the fundamental question, “Should we, or should we not, use technology to fundamentally modify the human creature” (Martin 197)?