The advancement of genetic modification technology has sparked controversies such as human cloning. We must carefully weigh the positive effects and negative impacts this technology will bring to humanity, considering the moral and social issues involved.
As human lifespan continues to increase, the field of biotechnology is advancing significantly, and biotechnologists are working tirelessly to perfect genetic modification technology. Like other technologies, genetic modification has both advantages and disadvantages. Hilary Putnam begins his essay by presenting a scenario at the point where genetic modification technology has advanced to the point where human cloning becomes possible.
The cloned sheep ‘Dolly’ became the starting point for the hope that human cloning might be achievable. Hilary Putnam argues that the desire of parents to have children who resemble them will lead to the birth of identical offspring, drastically reducing genetic diversity and having a profoundly negative impact on humanity. It is as if this were an act contrary to everyone’s morality. Of course, we cannot ignore the problems arising from technological advancement. Nuclear weapons emerged within this same context, and we cannot definitively assert that such problems will not occur. However, the greatest beneficiaries of technological progress have been humans themselves. This technology also possesses clear advantages, and we will examine whether Hilary Putnam’s claim that it is ‘bad technology’ is valid.
Genetic modification has various advantages and disadvantages. First, let’s examine the advantages. The primary purpose of developing this technology is likely therapeutic. The majority of research institutes and companies currently developing genetic modification technology aim for medical applications. Technologies like gene scissors (CRISPR) are already becoming a reality. If this technology is used medically, it could open pathways to cure many diseases and genetic disorders previously considered incurable or untreatable. Furthermore, development for dairy farming is underway, and practical applications have already begun through the development of GMO foods. If food crops grow better and reproduction and breeding are enhanced, this would be a highly desirable situation for humanity, which suffers from resource shortages due to population growth. Now let’s examine the drawbacks. The primary issue addressed in this book concerns human cloning. This connects to genetic diversity. Like all living things, a species’ primary goal is genetic diversity. Individuals possessing genes advantageous for survival thrive, and those with successful mutations increase their survival rate—this is the normal evolutionary process of a species. If human cloning occurs, the meaning of reproduction—securing genetic diversity through sexual reproduction and passing on one’s genes—could be distorted and degraded. Furthermore, there are arguments that this technology violates the moral standards humans should uphold.
What do those who oppose the author think? The author dismisses this technology as solely for human cloning. Human cloning is a stage that should only be reached when fulfilling its original purpose, yet Hilary Putnam seems to confuse this. Some readers might feel disgust at the idea of a clone—an identical being—walking the world. But is this technology truly meant only for human cloning? Hilary Putnam depicts a society using this technology as akin to one rife with Nazi racial discrimination policies or eugenic sterilization laws. Yet, unlike situations where such circumstances directly conflict with moral standards, the impact of technology on us does not necessarily align with moral standards. A society where human cloning occurs so naturally is morally at odds with the majority of people today, and I do not believe the endpoint of genetic modification technology is likely to unfold as the author suggests. How likely is it that something morally unacceptable to most people will occur? Of course, nuclear weapons also do not align with the moral standards of most people today. However, they were created in a time when the aftermath of war was still fresh, and the moral standards of that era must be considered. Nowadays, however, extreme and radical actions are generally considered morally unacceptable. Furthermore, the hypothetical scenario Hilary Putnam posits—that parents would desire children identical to themselves—seems rationally implausible. Parents desire offspring with superior genes. Therefore, wanting an identical child would be rare unless the parent possesses a strong sense of self-confidence, believing themselves to be superior and worthy of emulation. Of course, there may be cases where parents desire offspring similar to themselves, hoping their children will resemble them, and thus have children. However, such instances are likely few. Furthermore, would parents treat children who do not resemble them as tools, discriminating against them compared to other children? This is generally a difficult situation to accept, even for cloned children.
Some may agree with the author’s argument. We have been exposed to far too many cultural products depicting tragic outcomes stemming from technology. Films like The Terminator and The Island portray scenarios where humanity’s pace of development cannot keep up with the excessive advancement of technology, ultimately leading to human subjugation. The Island, in particular, is a film set in a society where cloned humans are commercialized, effectively bringing to life the society Hilary Putnam feared. One might dismiss this as unnecessary worry, asking, “It’s just a movie, why worry?” However, similar cases to these films already exist in reality, making it impossible to ignore. For instance, inventions like 3D movies resembling the holographic Jaws from Back to the Future, or payment methods similar to fingerprint authentication, have been developed. Advanced technologies are influencing reality, not just in media. Weapons of mass destruction, like the chemical and biological weapons first used by German forces in World War I or nuclear weapons, are the pinnacle of technology. Einstein actually opposed the creation of nuclear weapons, and the development of chemical and biological weapons was also opposed. While we cannot definitively state this situation will occur, conversely, we cannot be certain it won’t. If such phenomena were to happen, they could lead to horrific consequences for humanity.
However, even considering this possibility, Hilary Putnam’s unconditional opposition to human cloning is too extreme. An argument presented under the assumption of an unrealistic hypothetical world is inevitably biased. A cloned child does not necessarily live a life that conflicts with the moral standard that one should decide their own life, nor does the idea that parents would treat a cloned child as a tool align with general moral standards. While the situation Hilary Putnam posits is not impossible, I do not believe the society he imagines is realistic enough to justify ignoring and abandoning the infinite potential of genetic modification technology. The advancements this technology enables for humanity hold limitless possibilities, and there are people for whom this technology is literally a lifeline. Indeed, chemical weapons like the pathogens used in World War I were ultimately banned by those who used them and have been well-controlled, except in acts like terrorism. While genetic modification technology may not have been used enough for its negative impacts to be fully realized, it can be controlled within reasonable limits. This demonstrates that genetic modification technology is worth developing and using.
