This blog post examines whether genetic engineering is a technology that expands children’s potential or a dangerous intervention that may limit future choices, prompting reflection on human rights and the direction of societal change.
Genetic engineering is one of the most prominent fields of study in the 21st century. Though its history is relatively short, its application across diverse fields has brought remarkable advancements to society as a whole. It is particularly active in medicine and agriculture. While applying genetic engineering to plants or bacteria has faced little controversy, its application to humans has consistently sparked debate. Michael Sandel, a professor of political science at Harvard University, opposes designing children through genetic engineering in his book “The Ethics of Life.” Sandel argues that when parents raise their children, they must maintain a balanced love: the love that seeks to change their children and the love that accepts them as they are. While the intent to design children may appear to be a form of love, rooted in the desire for their success, Sandel criticizes this as an attitude overly skewed toward the love that seeks to change children, which itself can create problems. This biased approach focuses more on making children adapt to a competition-driven social atmosphere than on raising them to become whole members of society. Consequently, children are more likely to become accustomed to criticizing or complaining about their circumstances. Sandel points out that this is hardly a desirable parenting approach. Therefore, he argues that parenting should be based on love that respects and accepts the child, not on artificial alterations like genetic design.
Like Sandel, I also oppose the idea of designing children through genetic engineering. However, my primary reason for opposition differs slightly from the issue of love raised by Sandel. The most crucial factor I consider is that the child’s own will is completely excluded from the child design process. Even before birth, a child is a human being equal to their parents and possesses the right to make choices and decisions about their own life. Therefore, I believe that arbitrarily designing a child simply because they are unconscious is an act that disregards the child’s rights and should not be permitted.
A counterargument to this position might be that the child has no choice in the matter to begin with. Human traits are determined by genes, and the child cannot choose its own genes. Since the child inherits half its genes from each parent, forming its genetic characteristics, it naturally has no choice before birth. According to this perspective, since children inherently lack decision-making power, designing them poses no problem.
This counterargument appears plausible at first glance. The claim that children have no decision-making power at the fetal stage because they do not choose their genes is partially correct. However, the core issue is that designs made during a child’s lifetime can limit the scope of their freedom to choose and decide their own life after they grow up. Consider this example. Suppose a child showed exceptional talent in artistic gymnastics and dreamed of becoming a gymnast like Yang Hak-seon. However, this child was genetically designed before birth to grow very tall, and indeed experienced a rapid growth spurt during puberty. Artistic gymnastics becomes more challenging for taller individuals, making precise execution difficult and increasing the risk of mistakes, thus creating a competitive disadvantage. Ultimately, this child would have to abandon their dream of gymnastics and switch to another event, like pole vaulting, which favors taller individuals. If child design becomes a reality, such cases could occur quite frequently. Even if the child had no say during the fetal stage, their rights and choices after growth should be respected. However, I believe child design should not be implemented because it could narrow this range of choices.
Counterarguments exist here as well. While adjusting specific traits like height may narrow choices, designing to generally enhance fundamental physical abilities could not only avoid limiting a child’s options but potentially broaden them. Revisiting the earlier example: if the child were designed not for greater height but for improved fundamental physical abilities like stamina and agility, the likelihood of having to abandon gymnastics would be significantly lower. Instead, they would gain greater advantages in gymnastics training, achieve better competition results, and thus have a higher probability of pursuing a more stable career as a gymnast. According to this perspective, designing children can be seen as expanding their range of choices by providing an environment that makes it easier for them to realize their dreams.
However, this argument has a significant limitation: there is no objective, absolute standard for what constitutes an improvement in fundamental physical abilities. In other words, the criteria for judging what is an ‘improvement’ are not fixed and are greatly influenced by changes in the times. Consider, for example, shifts in societal perceptions of physique. In the past, a large physique was viewed positively, often associated with dignity and confidence. However, in modern society, a leaner, smaller physique tends to be preferred. The Venus of Willendorf, with its voluptuous form, reflects the idealized female figure of its time. Yet, Botticelli’s “The Birth of Venus” from the Renaissance era depicts an idealized figure with a slender build closer to modern sensibilities. Thus, the standards for basic physical abilities shift according to the values of the era. If children are designed to meet current standards, they risk becoming vulnerable to being left behind in a future where those standards change.
One might counter that the influence of the era is insignificant, arguing that standards are unlikely to change significantly over the human lifespan of about 100 years. This argument posits that since the current privileged class maintains consistent values while leading society, and the next generation is highly likely to inherit similar values, standards are unlikely to change easily. If this trend continues, concerns that children might become obsolete due to shifting social standards during their lifetime are seen as unfounded worries.
However, this argument can be viewed as a misunderstanding of the actual nature of social change. Today, social change is far more often triggered not by the privileged class, but by the non-privileged or individuals pioneering new technologies. This trend is particularly pronounced in the information age. A prime example is Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple. Jobs led innovation in the IT field by successively introducing groundbreaking products like the iPod, iPhone, and iPad, ushering in a new era defined by smartphones. Yet his final academic achievement was merely dropping out of college. This demonstrates that talent and ideas can drive societal change. Furthermore, social change does not occur periodically in predictable ways; it often erupts abruptly due to specific events or innovations. Just a decade ago, few could have predicted smartphones would become such essential items, nor that markets for MP3 players or electronic dictionaries would collapse so rapidly. Considering these two facts, the argument that social standards will remain fixed for the next 100 years lacks persuasiveness. Rather, social change is likely to occur more frequently and rapidly in the future.
In summary, my position is that child design should not be implemented because it infringes upon the inherent rights and autonomy of children. A counterargument might suggest that enhancing basic physical capabilities could actually broaden choices. However, this argument lacks persuasiveness because the criteria for enhancing basic physical capabilities are not absolute and change with the times. In fact, designed children risk being easily left behind in a rapidly changing society. For these reasons, the argument that child design should not be implemented is fully justified.
