This blog post delves deeply into whether genetic engineering technology surrounding designer babies represents an ethical choice or human progress.
Regarding the question of what it would mean to genetically engineer children, Michael Sandel, author of ‘The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering,’ fundamentally dissects the moral and ethical issues. Assuming genetic engineering is safe, he opposes it by drawing parallels to human desires. Specifically, he argues that if parents gain the right to design their children, the conquest-driven impulses already visible in our society would be amplified to uncontrollable levels. Michael Sandel argues that human desires alone make it impossible to treat genetic engineering neutrally. If we view designer babies through the lens of new genetic engineering technologies, his perspective seems overly pessimistic.
Before viewing genetic engineering through the prism of human desire, we must examine its medical benefits. If a couple planning for the future carries a serious genetic disease, their child will likely bear that disease burden for life. However, if technology exists to free their child from such genetic disease, it would represent an innovative breakthrough in prevention. In this way, advances in genetic engineering could liberate humanity from countless diseases beyond just genetic disorders. For example, well-known incurable genetic diseases like leukemia, hemophilia, and Huntington’s disease could potentially be prevented by manipulating the genetic combinations found in embryos, ensuring children are born healthy.
Considering these benefits of genetic engineering, I believe we need to reexamine the perspective of human desire that Sandel advocates. While Sandel expresses concern that such desires could lead to the misuse of technology, I believe that considering the potential of genetic engineering, we need to view the necessary processes required for technology to fully adapt to society from a broader perspective. Personally, unlike Sandel’s position, I see genetic engineering as a necessary technology when viewed from a broader perspective, and I believe that the misuse of technology, including human desires, will ultimately be controlled by society.
This perspective I advocate may be strikingly optimistic, diametrically opposed to Sandel’s view. This is because genetic engineering could represent both a great leap forward for humanity and, conversely, a significant threat. The misuse of technology capable of upending social structures falls into a realm humanity cannot tolerate. Moving beyond genetic engineering, nuclear technology serves as a prime example of technological misuse. Specifically, nuclear technology was originally intended to generate immense energy through atomic fission, yet it also became the technology that created nuclear bombs, which have claimed countless lives. To prevent such misuse of technology, caution must be exercised when introducing new technologies, and it is necessary to view technology in light of humanity’s desires.
However, even when technology is misused, society can progress, and technology can permeate positively. Returning to nuclear technology, while humanity possesses this flawed technology, it has also gained the technical capability to address energy depletion and formidable military power. Of course, the state of nations possessing nuclear weapons is akin to pointing guns at each other, but this has also created an opportunity for more rational compromise than perpetual war. It is an undeniable fact that nuclear technology has been applied not merely as a weapon of mass destruction, but as a political and social tool. Similarly, if we take a long view of genetic engineering technology, while it may initially be misused due to human desire, it possesses the potential to develop sufficiently as a social tool in the long term, beyond its short-term limitations. In this case, the technology’s inherent advantages would be realized while simultaneously gaining new societal benefits.
Those opposing genetic engineering might fundamentally point out that there is no solution to human desire. Looking more closely at the misuse of technology mentioned above, it can be said that methods to control desire at the individual level are likely limited. The expressions of such desires commonly found in our society today could serve as evidence for this. This was precisely the point Sandel highlighted. Given the reality that parents express their own desires through their children, genetic engineering technology will undoubtedly amplify these desires. A society craving perfectionism beyond capitalism will be unable to curb the infinite competition of desire.
It is difficult to refute the point that desire control is impossible at the individual level. However, I believe it is necessary to look more specifically at the objects of desire and the motivations behind them. The desires of parents, as Sandel pointed out, are in fact highly altruistic in nature. The object of parental desire is their children, and the goal is their happiness. This is a desire with a clear purpose. In other words, while desires for oneself can be controlled, desires for others cannot. Such altruism, stronger than mere self-interest, can foster social harmony and unity. When we consider that perfectionism doesn’t necessarily mean perfecting oneself, but rather altruistically perfecting a single object, we must remember that desire is not inherently bad.
Conversely, viewed from the outcome, such altruism can also be seen as infringing upon autonomy. To cite an extreme example of genetic engineering technology: if parents select an embryo with tall stature and resilient muscles because they want their child to become a basketball player, but the child’s dream is not to be a basketball player, this could constitute an infringement on autonomy. For instance, if the child wants to pursue studies or art—activities diametrically opposed to basketball—they may feel suppressed in their desires. Therefore, from a consequential perspective, expressing desires through genetic engineering could be described as selfish rather than altruistic.
From a consequentialist perspective, it might seem like parents infringed on their child’s autonomy. However, children inherently lack autonomy over what genetic information they are born with. Even now, without the technology to design children, no one chooses their genetic makeup at birth. Therefore, even if such technology emerges, designed children are born out of pure altruism; it cannot be called selfish. Moreover, if altruism for the child’s life is already ingrained in the upbringing, it is more likely that an environment where the child can enjoy it will be created rather than one where they reject it. While focusing solely on extreme outcomes might reveal unfairness, parenting involves a process. When altruism is considered the primary driving force, compromise with the child is entirely possible.
We must reconsider the introduction of technology in light of the preceding points. While the book’s author, Sandel, argues that there is no way to control human desire and that the risk of technological misuse cannot be ignored, I refute this for the following reasons. First, regarding the introduction of genetic engineering technology, even if misuse occurs, it will be socially accepted, and for the advancement of humanity, a long-term perspective is necessary. Furthermore, while controlling individual desires is impossible, if we examine the objects and purposes of these desires, they are altruistic and aimed at harmony and peace. Finally, while concerns exist about infringing on children’s autonomy, this is a result-oriented perspective. Examining the process reveals the root issue: children were never granted autonomy in the first place. Furthermore, if altruism is considered the primary driving force, this argument lacks persuasive power. When considering the introduction of genetic engineering technology in relation to human desires, I believe these reasons necessitate a reinterpretation of individual desires. For these reasons, I support genetic engineering.
