Why, exactly, does a genetic predisposition force a loss of meaning? I feel that Bill McKibben fails completely to explain, in basic, explicit fashion, why losing the randomization of our genetic makeup will also force the loss of our identities and our basic meaning in life. How do genes that have been preselected by one’s parents, rather than chosen at random by an invisible molecular force, strip humanity of their identity and purpose, if one exists? I feel that germ-line engineering will do little to change the basics of human nature or the concept of the meaning of life.
Our “engineered” progeny will still face the same existence that we do today and that mankind generally has for hundreds of thousands of years. They may do so with an extra genetic advantage or two, but the lives they lead will remain largely the same as ours. They will seek improvement, happiness, and knowledge. They will laugh, cry, and live. They will, however, do so without facing the possibilities of cystic fibrosis, Huntingdon’s disease, sickle cell anemia, or any of the countless genetic diseases that currently plague humanity. They will be able to run faster, jump higher, and think more deeply. Yet, they will still run, jump, and think for themselves.
Germ-line engineering is not a “magic bullet.” McKibben often overlooks this and, throughout his book, exaggerates the abilities of the technology, distorting the effect it may have on humanity. It will never be able to produce a child who is completely predictable or robotic. It may produce offspring who has an especially efficient blood-oxygen exchange system, or one with long, nimble fingers and proficient hearing. Yet, it will be unable to compel these offspring to embrace their athletic ability or to embrace their musical tendencies any more than our current, “natural” genes can.
Genes are not the only determinants and predictors of humanity. As we stand now, we are already predisposed to enjoying particular things based on culture, genetics, and human nature. Directing this somewhat through germ-line engineering does not alter this. The “nurture” side of our development will remain unchanged. The world tends towards chaos. Thousands of unpredictable forces act on our development and genotypes now—how do engineered genes differ? Environment wields enormous power over the people we become.
So how, in consideration of the shortcomings of germ-line engineering and the force of the environment upon our genes, does a future of genetic germ-line engineering devoid humanity of its basic meaning? Purpose and meaning take a variety of forms for each individual. Some such as McKibben find meaning in pushing their physical or mental limits. While McKibben argues that meaning would be lost in this sense if germ-line engineering were to take effect, I disagree with this opinion. As stated before, germ-line engineering will not produce robotoic offspring. It may produce a child who can run at previously impossible speeds, but it will not make said child enjoying running or motivate him or her to develop their skill. Even today, the best of runners are not necessarily those who were born with the best ability to run. The best runners are those who train day in and day out, who dedicate themselves to the sport they love, and who push themselves beyond what nature has given them. Nearly all Olympic runners most likely have very little difference in ability. It is not the runner who is naturally fastest that wins the race; it is the runner who is most dedicated.
McKibben also feels that the search for self is a large portion of the purpose of human life. He claims that if we were to pre-select our children’s tendencies, they would have no opportunity for this self-searching experience, as their identities would be laid out before them. Yet, our genetic makeup is not the only place from which our identities emerge. For quite some time, scholars, psychologists, and philosophers have debated the question of “nature vs. nurture.” Which has greater effect over our eventual development and identities? While I will not attempt to answer this question in this essay, I believe I can safely state that, no matter which one believes to have a greater effect, it cannot be denied that both contribute. So, regardless of if the “nature” half of our development is predetermined, the “nurture” portion cannot be predicted. Humans will continue to have the opportunity to search for their identities even after the implementation of germ-line engineering and may, perhaps, even find new meaning in exploring how their environment has impacted their preselected genes to produce unique and unpredictable human beings.
The meaning of human life originates in many ways and is different for every individual. Yes, some find meaning in testing themselves, others in discovering themselves, and countless others find meaning in countless other ways. Germ-line engineering will not destroy these purposes, but alter them, ever so slightly. It will not force the loss of meaning that Bill McKibben envisions, but enhance it, streamline it. Mankind is not dependent on genes alone.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Jessica,
This is a very good paper, it presents your argument that "germ-line engineering will do little to change the basics of human nature" very well, and does not stray off topic. You grab the reader's attention and constantly try to get them to see eye-to-eye with you and get them to agree with you.
As I was reading, a few things stuck out at me. The first is that Huntington's disease is spelled as such, it's trivial, but it's his name.
If it's at all possible, I think you should go through McKibben's book or find some research to support your points. Find someone who agrees that the conditions a child is brought up in are more influential than their genetic disposition and use them. Like we talked about in class, there's a point where quotations and use of personal opinion are balanced, and something like that will get you there. Also, I feel that your last sentence does not add much to your paper and actually makes it end on a weak note. I think it'd be great if you just ended it after "... loss of meaning that Bill McKibben envisions, but enhance it."
Here's another question just for the sake of thought, once again not necessarily for addition to your essay. What if scientists found a gene that controls human choice (or the ability of humans to make decisions independent of what others around them do or tell them to do) and modified it, so that it didn't confer that ability. Would you still support your argument?
Why, exactly, does a genetic predisposition force a loss of meaning? I feel that Bill McKibben fails to completely explain, in basic, explicit fashion, why losing the randomization of our genetic makeup will also force the loss of our identities and our basic meaning in life. How do genes that have been preselected by one’s parents, rather than chosen at random by an invisible molecular force, strip humanity of their identity and purpose, if one exists? I feel that germ-line engineering will do little to change the basics of human nature or the concept of the meaning of life.
Were germ-line engineering to be utilized, our “engineered” progeny would still face the same existence that humanity does today and that mankind generally has for hundreds of thousands of years. They may do so with an extra genetic advantage or two, but the lives they lead will remain largely the same as ours. They will seek improvement, happiness, and knowledge. They will laugh, cry, and live. They will, however, do so without facing the possibilities of cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, sickle cell anemia, or any of the many other genetic diseases that currently plague humanity. They will be able to run faster, jump higher, and think more deeply. Yet, they will still run, jump, and think for themselves.
Germ-line engineering is not a “magic bullet.” McKibben often overlooks this and, throughout his book, exaggerates the abilities of the technology, distorting the effect it may have on humanity. It will never be able to produce a child who is completely predictable or robotic. It may produce offspring who has an especially efficient blood-oxygen exchange system, or one with long, nimble fingers and proficient hearing. Yet, it will be unable to compel these offspring to embrace their athletic ability or to embrace their musical tendencies any more than our current, “natural” genes can force us to develop our talents.
Genes are not the only determinants and predictors of humanity. As we stand now, we are already predisposed to enjoying particular things based on culture, genetics, and human nature. Directing this somewhat through germ-line engineering does not alter this. While the “nature” side of human development may become engineered or predictable, the “nurture” side of our development will remain unchanged. The world tends towards chaos. Thousands of unpredictable forces act on our development and genotypes now—how do engineered genes differ? Environment wields enormous power over the people we become.
So how, in consideration of the shortcomings of germ-line engineering and the force of the environment upon our genes, does a future of genetic germ-line engineering devoid humanity of its basic meaning? Purpose and meaning take a variety of forms for each individual. Some such as McKibben find meaning in pushing their physical or mental limits. While McKibben argues that meaning would be lost in this sense if germ-line engineering were to take effect, I disagree with this opinion. As stated before, germ-line engineering will not produce robotic offspring. It may produce a child who can run at previously impossible speeds, but it will not make said child enjoying running or motivate him or her to develop their skill. Even today, the best of runners are not necessarily those who were born with the best ability to run. The best runners are those who train day in and day out, who dedicate themselves to the sport they love, and who push themselves beyond what nature has given them. Nearly all Olympic runners most likely have very little difference in ability. Oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, without a doubt a very successful man, once said: “I do not think there is any other quality so essential to success of any kind as the quality of perseverance. It overcomes almost everything, even nature” (Rockefeller qtd. Marden 207). It is not the runner who is naturally fastest that wins the race; it is the runner who is most dedicated. Thus it will not be the child with the most advanced genes who is the best runner, it will be the child who, through his or her life, developed the skills to become a good runner and dedicated him or herself to the task of improvement most wholeheartedly.
McKibben also feels that the search for self is a large portion of the purpose of human life. He claims that if we were to pre-select our children’s tendencies, they would have no opportunity for this self-searching experience, as their identities would be laid out before them. Yet, our genetic makeup is not the only place from which our identities emerge. For quite some time, scholars, psychologists, and philosophers have debated the question of “nature vs. nurture.” The well-known eighteenth century philosopher John Locke was an emphatic proponent of the importance of environment on the development of human beings: “Locke judged the bulk of human variation to be the result of differences in experience: ‘I think I may say, that of all the men we meet with, nine parts of ten are what they are, good or evil, useful or not, by their education’” (Loehlin 1). In other words, man is taught throughout his life to be gregarious or withdrawn, ambitious or unmotivated, steadfast or flighty. Which, our environment or our genes, has greater effect over our eventual development and identities? While I will not attempt to answer this question in this essay, I believe I can safely state that, no matter which one believes to have a greater effect, it cannot be denied that both contribute. So, regardless of if the “nature” half of our development is predetermined, the “nurture” portion cannot be predicted. Author Christopher Ware demonstrates the effects of one’s life experience in his graphic novel, The Adventures of Jimmy Corrigan: the Smartest Kid on Earth. Jimmy’s life and the lives of his forefathers produced unique individuals with unique strengths, weaknesses, and neuroses, despite their common genetics (though these, too, were expressed by the men’s similarities). Humans will continue to have the opportunity to search for their identities even after the implementation of germ-line engineering and may, perhaps, even find new meaning in exploring how their environment has impacted their preselected genes to produce unique and unpredictable human beings.
The meaning of human life originates in many ways and is different for every individual. Yes, some find meaning in testing themselves, others in discovering themselves, and countless others find meaning in countless other ways. Germ-line engineering will not destroy these purposes, but alter them, ever so slightly. It will not force the loss of meaning that Bill McKibben envisions, but enhance it, streamline it.
REFERENCES:
Loehlin, John C. Nature–Nurture Controversy. (2004). In The Concise Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Retrieved March 02, 2009, from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/4410575
Marden, Orison Swett. How They Succeeded: Life Stories of Successful Men Told by Themselves. Boston: Lothrop Publishing Company, 1901.
James - good response, especially your closing question. You and Jessica are finding effective ways to focus on one another's ideas.
Jessica - This is, characteristically, a well written paper with a strong, clear argument.
I have an interesting problem in my response to this paper. First, I agree with you absolutely that McKibben doesn't make his case that Germline engineering equals the end of human freedom, and I'm delighted that someone else is willing to call him on that. However, I don't think you really deal with McKibben's text as well as you should here; you might have found one of the 2 or 3 moments in the book where he really tries to pin the problem down, and demonstrate with that text how he fails.
Your turn to Jimmy Corrigan and Nature vs. Nurture is thoughtful; it's very good conceptually, but again, a little shy on evidence.
Post a Comment