This blog post examines the ethics and feasibility of designing children through biotechnology, presenting a critical perspective.
Biotechnology is advancing rapidly, and humanity will eventually reach the point of designing children. ‘The Case Against Perfection’ argues that the problem lies in “parents’ arrogant attempt to conquer the mystery of birth.” It opposes designing children, asserting that “children should be regarded as gifts” and that “healing and enhancement must be distinguished, and enhancement is inherently bad.” It also warns against the intense education already practiced by ambitious parents today, suggesting that high-pressure parenting itself should be viewed with suspicion. It states, “In a competitive society, whether through genetic engineering or medical methods, perfecting one’s nature to improve abilities is an effort to conform to what that competitive society demands, and this demand makes one resentful of what was originally given.” ‘The Case Against Perfection’ thus addresses the moral difficulties of enhancement. I disagree with these arguments and believe designing children is acceptable.
The benefits of child-designing technology would be immense. The greatest advantage is that if parents carry a fatal genetic disease, their child could be born free of it, and even predispositions to certain illnesses could be prevented and addressed in advance. Biotechnology is fundamentally the science of realizing humanity’s desire for health and longevity. Considering how much material and social cost humanity invests in health, the immense benefit of being designed at birth to live nearly disease-free until death becomes clear.
Some may counter that the social losses outweigh the benefits, citing increased social stratification. Social leadership is often determined not by superior genetic traits at birth, but by family lineage, background, and parental wealth. Therefore, if any added value is created, the social elite inevitably claim the largest share of that value. This deepening of social stratification applies to all technological advancements that generate added value. Consequently, designing children will not particularly exacerbate social stratification. Furthermore, if designing children were to deepen stratification, it would be because not everyone could benefit equally—yet no technology ever distributes benefits equally to all. Thus, the problem of deepening social stratification is a side effect inherent to all technological progress, not one unique to designing children.
The argument that designing children causes significant social loss by harming species diversity and seriously threatening humanity’s survival is also not very convincing. Humans are the only species on Earth, since life first existed, to exceed 6 billion individuals among large organisms over 1 meter in size. Furthermore, humans are the only species inhabiting every part of the planet. It is nearly impossible for a species with 6 billion individuals, capable of sexual reproduction, to homogenize its genes. Even if parents design their children, they will do so based on their own genetic makeup. It is difficult to imagine parents deliberately giving birth to and raising children who bear no resemblance to them whatsoever. Even if parents design their children to possess aptitudes aligned with their desired direction, the aptitudes parents seek in their offspring will vary across complex societies. Therefore, it is difficult to argue that this alone undermines diversity. Furthermore, biologically superior genes do not exist. If the genes commonly perceived as superior—those conferring greater strength, speed, or intelligence—were truly biologically dominant, all organisms possessing smaller, weaker genes would have gone extinct. It is not the fittest that survive, but the survivors who are the fittest, and evolution does not always proceed in the most efficient direction. The eyes of most vertebrates are, figuratively speaking, like cameras with the film inserted backwards, requiring a hole called the blind spot to be punched in the retina to allow the optic nerve to exit. This is less efficient than the eyes of cephalopods like octopuses, often considered lower forms.
Religious arguments urging us to view children as gifts are used to argue against enhancing unborn babies. However, treatment and enhancement are fundamentally indistinguishable. The line between treatment and enhancement is extremely blurred in cases like orthodontic correction for malocclusion, jaw surgery, or administering growth hormone to children with short stature due to congenital hormone deficiency. Moreover, many practices that were once considered enhancement now fall under treatment. For example, until the 1990s, children with ADHD were often seen merely as ‘distracted kids,’ and prescribing medication to them was viewed as enhancement to improve focus. However, ADHD is now recognized as a medical condition or disorder, so prescribing medication for ADHD is considered treatment, not enhancement. Furthermore, acquired reinforcement, such as cosmetic surgery for aesthetic purposes, remains widely practiced today.
Alongside the argument that children should be regarded as gifts, there might also be a claim that children should be born naturally to possess the aptitudes they desire. However, no human being selects their own genes before birth. For the autonomy of aptitude to be maximally guaranteed, one would need to be able to select their own parents. Yet humans grow up without even choosing their name, arguably the most significant part of their identity. From this perspective, it’s hard to see how designing children would further infringe upon their autonomy. Even identical twins develop differing interests, suggesting that determining genes doesn’t necessarily compromise a child’s autonomy regarding aptitude. In fact, even now, we don’t determine our favorite activities or aptitudes solely through our own 100% autonomy. As illustrated in ‘The Case Against Perfection,’ aptitude is often heavily influenced by parental influence—like receiving golf clubs as gifts at a very young age—and career paths are frequently determined by social recognition or environment. Even now, parents intensively push their children toward desired aptitudes through aggressive education. If genetic enhancement could align children from the start with such expectations, reducing stress, that would be wise.
Ethics concerning life have always evolved over time, embracing new ideas, theories, or technologies. In modern times, the acceptance of ideas about freedom and equality led to the abolition of slavery and a reduction in racial discrimination. In the early to mid-20th century in the United States, selling contraceptives or condoms was illegal, and people were arrested for it, but today, many are more tolerant of premarital sex. Furthermore, there was a time when the saying “Every part of the body is a gift from one’s parents” meant even hair couldn’t be cut, but today, anyone who wishes can undergo cosmetic surgery for aesthetic purposes and proudly share that fact. Biotechnology does not advance to the level of designing children in one fell swoop. It progresses gradually, and bioethics will shift in the direction of permitting it. When we finally reach the level where we can design children, there will be some initial growing pains in its adoption. However, the benefits gained from designing children will be so significant that it will be difficult to prevent its gradual spread. Once it becomes commercialized to the point where anyone can do it, it will be considered perfectly normal for everyone. In this way, as time passes, the ethical consciousness surrounding designing children will also shift towards everyone thinking it is naturally permissible.
