Parents aren't given the choice on how their kids end up
being like. I mean, yes, their choice of mate affects the other set of DNA that influences their baby’s health and personality. But other than that, parents don’t
really have a ‘choice’. But, if
given a choice, parents would choose so much. First off, they would definitely choose
their kids out of Autism or ADHD. Although we do call them ‘specially abled’, If given a choice parents would rather
their kids not have these ‘special abilities’ since it makes life difficult for
their child. I might sound politically incorrect, but that’s just how it is. If given a choice, they’d want their kid to
be healthier and less prone to diseases. In the same way, if given a choice,
they’d want their kids to be born intelligent, with good memory, with artistic
traits, be good at math and linguistics … I mean, nurture can only take them a
certain distance, right?
Well, what if parents can actually make that choice? What if
parents can choose the traits that their child is born with? Not only deleting
the bad traits, but also choosing the good ones that boosts excellence in their
professional and personal life?
This is what genetic engineering promises for the future.
And in a more macro level, this was what eugenics
promised in the past.
Eugenics is the ‘controlled selective breeding of humans
to improve their genetic composition’. This idea of ‘improving human life by
developing superior traits’ seems like a very reasonable statement to rally in
favour for. It speeds the process of evolution, that usually takes millions of
years. But the problem is found in the ‘how’. And oh my, the ‘how’ of it
all is pretty nasty. The problem, also arises in the ‘who gets to decide
what is superior and what is inferior?’.
Earlier, criminals and the mentally ill were forcefully
sterilized or jailed to ensure they do not breed their traits down. The Nazi’s
sterilized anyone with blindness, deafness or alcoholism, or people with mixed race. In the early 20th century, Jews were imprisoned and/or
forcefully sterilized. And we all
know what happened to Jews after that. Black
communities have been victims of eugenics because they were all seen as
inferior.
Well, that’s all in the past though. Eugenics is a
tainted word that nobody likes to be associated with anymore. We’d like to
think that we’ve dusted those ideologies off.
But not so soon.
Designer babies is a new buzz word. CRISPR technology is
breaking moulds, and genome alteration has become easier and cheaper. And although this technology isn’t
at its prime yet, this is the direction the world is moving towards. We’re
moving towards a world of dEsIgNer bAbiEs.
Although
similar in many ways, eugenics and genetic engineering are different enough for us to have biases. Genetic engineering is seen rather positively than eugenics is.
Because eugenics confines the person along with the trait that we find undesirable,
while genetic engineering is able to differentiate the person and their trait,
because there is no ‘person’ yet, which is also the reason we give for
abortions. But, why is it thoughtful of parents to terminate their pregnancies
if they get to know that the child is growing with deformities while the idea
of parents genetically modifying their child seem rather ethically confusing?
Where have
we drawn the lie, and why? Where does the ‘trait’ end, and the ‘being’ begin? Are
we commodifying human traits, and at the same time identifying with that
commodity?
Who are you?
We humans
believe that we are our highest self when we are able to use our talents and
our creativity to create something. But with the misidentification of self, we
are just products creating products, and finding value in that creation.
Genetic modification then, will be the doom of the self.
There is one important distinction that must be made before
we proceed with these technological changes. The distinction of the trait
and the being; that traits are something that help us navigate through
the world that we have created, but that they do not define us.
Neurology and psychiatry especially are two sciences that
have had to tackle this question a lot. I’ve taken specifically these two as
examples, as a reminder that our ‘thought’ (brain stuff) cannot define who we
are either, since that too is very much affected by physiology. That too
is a trait. Any psychiatrist or neurologist can give first-hand account of how
they have had to reconcile their idea of the self, because their patients force
them to separate the person and the trait (the illness) that they possess. And many of
them have found their reconciliation in theology. Theology can be only one of
many other ways though. A lot of people have tried to find meaning in a rather
secular world. Nietzsche is famous for his work on ‘the death of the God’ that
tackles similar questions. But to protect the self in the world of designer
babies, we need to stop identifying with our traits. We need to de-identify
with the material.
De-identification with the material, according to me, either
means identification with that what is beyond, or denying an identity to the
self (which is pretty nihilistic). I do not say this with an intention to
create dichotomy. And there might be other ways to for us to reconcile with
these differences; other ways to find an answer that allows us to accept
technological changes without losing out on essence; which we can’t deny that
we are already in the process of.
