In this blog post, we will consider the validity and issues of choosing your child’s genes from a personal, social, and ethical perspective.
It is natural for anyone to want their loved ones to be healthy and free of illness. If the person is a child, it is natural to have some expectations for such wishes. The pace of technological development is very fast, and the situation in the movie “Gattaca,” which was considered science fiction only a decade ago, is no longer an impossible story. Therefore, we may soon face the choice of “whether to choose the genetic traits of our unborn child?”
When asked this question, numerous considerations come to mind, making it difficult to make an easy decision. One of the first concerns that comes to mind is, “Is it really right for humans to go against the laws of nature?” Of course, those who believe that it is right to follow the laws of nature will boldly reject this proposal. However, even those who believe that humans can sometimes go against the laws of nature do not all accept this option positively. Some people may think, “Humans can go against nature, but it is not right to choose the genetic traits of their unborn children in advance.” Therefore, when dealing with the issue of genetic selection, thinking about whether it is right for humans to go against nature can cause confusion due to differences in categories.
We should look at “human” rather than “nature” as a whole to decide whether to accept or reject the proposal of science and technology. We should make decisions by considering what is more beneficial to “human”. To put it simply, when considering the impact on humans, no one should choose the genetic traits of their unborn children. The reasons why we should reject the options presented by science and technology can be broadly divided into two categories: personal and social. The specific reasons for each dimension all support the position against genetic selection, while at the same time pointing out the flaws in the arguments put forward by those who support genetic selection.
First, genetic selection deprives individuals of the opportunity to search for themselves. A. H. Maslow described the need for self-actualization as the highest level of need in his theory of human needs. Even psychologists who do not agree with Maslow’s theory do not dispute that the need for self-actualization is an important part of human needs. Self-realization begins with self-exploration, and the process of finding one’s interests and aptitudes must precede it. Humans lay the foundation for self-realization through this difficult process. However, children born by genetic selection are not allowed to go through this process of exploration. This is because they already know their aptitudes. For them, the only choice they have is whether or not their innate aptitudes are interesting.
In response, those who support genetic selection argue, “After all, everyone’s strengths are already determined. Wouldn’t it be better for the child to be born with strengths that would be good to have?” However, determining the “strengths that would be good to have” is already taking away an important right from the child to be born. Every human being can decide what values they think are necessary for their life. They have the right to live their lives independently. However, the judgment of whether something is “good to have” is inevitably influenced by the values of the parents. This is a way of instilling the parents’ values in the child in advance, and the child is born with one choice taken away from them due to the abuse of their parents’ rights. It goes without saying that depriving them of the opportunity to explore themselves also reduces the possibility of self-realization.
Second, there is the problem that an individual’s sense of inferiority may intensify. Inferiority is a relative feeling. Depending on the individual, even if they are superior in many areas compared to others, they may feel inferior because of one thing that they lack. In a society where gene selection has become commonplace, there will be many more factors that promote an individual’s sense of inferiority. When choosing a child’s genes, no parent would probably choose an inferior trait. Therefore, most children can be expected to be superior to the current average. However, since each parent has different strengths of interest, some children may have to rely solely on natural selection for factors that are genetically determined in others. This child is likely to feel a greater sense of inferiority than among children of average ability. The bigger problem is that this situation can happen frequently.
Those who argue that genetic selection should be allowed to determine the genetic traits of children claim that “by preventing the possibility of disability or social maladjustment through genetic manipulation, the child will not only be better able to adapt to society, but will also be able to lead a happier life.” However, there is a problem with the practice of excluding recessive genes. The social perception of people with disabilities and social misfits may worsen further than it is now. Since the expression of traits is not 100% guaranteed, there is still a possibility that the traits that parents wanted to block will be expressed, including in people with disabilities and social misfits. However, in a society that has been “leveled up,” can a person born with dominant traits overcome their inferiority complex and live a happy life in a society that has become more prejudiced? It is important to consider whether it is right to marginalize a minority even more than it is now in order to improve the average quality of life.
Third, there is a risk that an unhealthy competitive system will become prevalent throughout society. Humans with superior traits, born through genetic selection, also live in relationships with other people. And competition in that process is inevitable. The issue of the nature of competition is a hot potato in today’s society. Not only is it impossible for all members of society to compete in the same environment, but it is also difficult to measure the degree of effort each person has made in their own situation, so the issue of the validity of the results always arises. When the level of the given environment is too different or when effort is excluded, the voice of dissatisfaction is especially loud. Once the strengths are predetermined through genetic selection, their competition will inevitably become a competition of innate abilities. This is likely to lead to problematic competition.
In this respect, the argument of the supporters of genetic selection that “pre-discriminating the recessive genes can have a positive impact on society” loses its power. If the elements that are considered to be “social evils” are eliminated in advance, this will certainly benefit our society. However, if genetic selection turns our society’s competition into a competition over “innate abilities,” this can be said to be the birth of a new “social evil.” The overall social benefits of genetic selection cannot be considered a benefit.
Finally, it can significantly undermine human dignity in our society. Choosing genes basically implies the assumption that humans can be quantified and evaluated. This is a dangerous idea that undermines human dignity. For example, if a child is born with a curved spine, can we really say that the child is recessive if the probability of the spine being curved is less than a certain percentage? Humans cannot easily judge superiority and inferiority like corn or rice. Also, it is not right to deny an individual the opportunity to be born and live just because they are considered inferior. The core of human dignity lies in the fact that every human being is guaranteed value simply by the fact that they exist. However, if we not only judge people by whether they are superior or inferior, but also deny them the opportunity to live if they are inferior, human dignity cannot be said to be respected.
Of course, supporters of genetic selection argue that “we only allow genetic selection, and its implementation is up to the individual. Also, if it is only used to prevent serious diseases in advance, there is no need to worry much about the issue of human dignity.” However, this is based on the misconception that human dignity is protected for each individual. Values such as safety awareness, community awareness, and human dignity are not about whether a few individuals cause problems or not, but about the seriousness of the decline in the status of values themselves. In other words, it is not a matter of how many people are breaking the rules, but the fact that the rules are not being followed. Gene selection is not allowed because it has the potential to undermine the value of human dignity at any time. There is no guarantee that the selection of genes that began with the aim of preventing disease will not take on the same form as today’s plastic surgery addiction.
Based on what has been discussed so far, the selection of children’s genetic traits will cause problems on the personal level of depriving opportunities for self-discovery and deepening feelings of inferiority, and on the social level of creating an unjustified competitive system and undermining human dignity. Therefore, gene selection should never be used. The idea of using gene selection to determine the genetic traits of one’s children is rooted in the desire to see one’s beloved children live healthy lives. But is gene selection really the only way to achieve this? I can assure you that it is not. Gene selection is a difficult technology to implement. In a situation where gene selection is possible, it is not convincing to predict that a cure for various diseases has not yet been developed.
John Stuart Mill once said, “Better a Socrates hungry than a pig full,” emphasizing the value of living like a human being. Proponents of genetic selection believe that genetic selection can create a “full Socrates.” They believe that it is possible to enjoy physical and material benefits while not violating human dignity at all. However, genetic selection is not a choice that will make you a “satisfied Socrates.” You may be able to be satisfied, but you will have to give up the things that you can enjoy as a human being. In the end, genetic selection deprives your child of the opportunity to live as a Socrates. Technology is a means to help humans live like humans. And children are not tools to realize the values of their parents. The fear of the expression of the genes of enthusiasm in children reminds us of the situation where people are afraid of maggots. Therefore, the choices that science and technology may throw at us in the future must be clearly rejected.
