Phill Oostdyk
Dr. Adam Johns
Essay #3
What people are for has always been open for subjectivity depending on your beliefs, desires, or creeds. What are people for could have completely different meanings. Scientifically, it could mean to only reproduce and make your DNA survive. Religiously it could mean, at least in Christianity, to spread the word of God. Preaching, evangelizing, and living your life by the Bible are the most important things.
What people are for is just to be themselves. To make choices, enrich their lives, to make themselves and the world around them better. This may sound like a copout answer or even not an answer at all; but I have a reason for believing this. People live their lives and make choices. These choices may not always be the best for themselves or others around them, but they are choices. If the ultimate reason for what people are for is to, say, preach the word of god, then people wouldn’t have a choice not to.
Everyone in this world is different. Different cultures, different ethnicities, different everything. Even identical twins have different personalities. Having a belief that there is one ultimate reason, or even a few reasons, for what people are for is a farce. To have an opinion that there is a reason for people being here or that there is a meaning of life is based on one’s beliefs. There can never be one eureka moment of discovery that shows that there is a definite reason. Even this essay is based on my opinion and not solid fact. ‘What are people for’ is, and always will be, a question based on a person’s views.
Choice is matter of who you are, not what you are made up of. DNA may influence your decision, but it does not completely control it. A team of researches conducted a test in 2007 in Sweden to try and prove that genes influence people’s choices. These researchers used both fraternal and identical twins for this controlled experiment. What they found was that the identical twins were more likely to make the same choices than the fraternal twins. This does suggest that DNA does play part in the human decision process, but does not eliminate it. The experiment does not mention if the any of the sets of twins have the same experiences. The researchers went through the Swedish Twin Registry to find their subjects. But what if some of the identical twins were separated at birth and lived completely different lives? Would this change the results than if they were raised the same? Did the fraternal twins who grew up together fair better in the experiment than any identical twins separated at birth? My point is that people’s experiences and surroundings also have an effect on people’s choices, not just their DNA.
Bill McKibben, in his book Enough suggests that with genetic engineering, people will lose their ability to make choices. He says that in the future, without choice, democracy will fall. “Democracy depends on the idea that we’re free actors” (199). On this point, I do agree with McKibben that with the loss of choice will lead to the fall of democracy, but we will never lose our ability to choose. McKibben seems to claim that with the future of germline genetic engineering that eventually, humans will lose the ability to choose. Our choices will be made by the DNA built into us without us as humans realizing that we are not making them ourselves. But there are points to where he seems to contradict this. He says that parents will have to choose to let there their kid fall behind by not engineering them, or manipulate their genes. McKibben uses an example of adding IQ to a child. He quotes economist Lester Thurow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology saying “Wouldn’t you want to do it? And if you don’t, your child will be the stupidest in the neighborhood” (33). McKibben then adds, “That’s precisely what if might feel like to be the parent facing the choice” (33) But how are parents suppose to make, or even realize, these choices if people lose the ability to choose with germline engineering? They might decide to give their child the higher IQ without it even seeming like a choice, but it will still be a choice to be made.
People being themselves, as individuals, goes hand in hand with making choices. According to McKibben, the world is on the verge of losing ourselves as individuals. I think that this could never happen. Our individualism comes from who we are, not what we are. A person is still a person, no matter what. McKibben argues that the advancement of genetics will change how people are; what they feel, how they think, etc. Even if we get to a point where human are altered before birth to what they are going to be or what they are good at, that person is still going to have to live their life. A genetically altered person will still have opinions, confront tragedy, and make choices.
Whether a person close to you dies, you lose a limb in an accident, or even just fail a class, the result would affect the person, engineered or not. If a person was modified to always feel happy, some sort of change has to occur. I believe that it just in not in a person’s soul to always feel happy.
Another point that individualism will not fade is the fact that no one could be altered precisely the same way. Geneticists could create two babies genetically the same, but their experiences will be different. For example, two embryos are both modified to run faster. Their genes alter to the same specifications. The babies grow up to be the same heights, weight, build, everything. One, Child A, has parents that push him to run. They cheer him on and support him, show up to everything he does. The other, Child B, has parents that do not really care either way. These parents show up to the occasional activity and do not pay him as much attention. These children both have nurturing factors that the other does not have. So, in a foot race, theoretically (and by design), both of these children should run at the same speed and tie, but only one wins. Who won is the irrelevant question, but the real one would be, why wouldn’t they tie? Maybe Child A won because he was pushed to be the better runner. Maybe Child B won because he wanted to prove something. The point of this story is that the argument that genetic engineering is the downfall of individualism is nothing but fear mongering. Individualism has lasted millennia.
McKibben, Bill. Enough. Owl Books 2003
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/ultimatum-1001.html
4 comments:
Glenn,
I am still working on this, but I wanted to get something up here for you to critique. I am working on using more quotes from both Silver and McKibben, but I'm running into snags. If you have any suggestions, please let me know, thanks.
Phill,
There are various solid examples in this paper. Maybe think about narrowing your argument a little bit more, it's a little too broad. You're only really exploring one side of the spectrum; that being your argument and all the examples and details. Develop a counter-argument entailing why your argument is more valid. Using what you already have in the paper, specifying your current argument and developing the opposing side should strengthen up this writing a bit.
Phill Oostdyk
Dr. Adam Johns
Essay #3
What people are for has always been open for subjectivity depending on your beliefs, desires, or creeds. What are people for could have completely different meanings. Scientifically, it could mean to only reproduce and make your DNA survive. Religiously it could mean, at least in Christianity, to spread the word of God. Preaching, evangelizing, and living your life by the Bible are the most important things.
What people are for is just to be themselves as individuals. To make choices, enrich their lives, to make themselves and the world around them better. This may sound like a copout answer or even not an answer at all; but I have a reason for believing this. People live their lives and make choices. These choices may not always be the best for themselves or others around them, but they are choices. If the ultimate reason for what people are for is to, say, preach the word of god, then people wouldn’t have a choice not to.
Everyone in this world is different. Different cultures, different ethnicities, different everything. Even identical twins have different personalities, are two different individuals. Having a belief that there is one ultimate reason, or even a few reasons, for what people are for is a farce. To have an opinion that there is a reason for people being here or that there is a meaning of life is based on one’s beliefs. There can never be one eureka moment of discovery that shows that there is a definite reason. Even this essay is based on my opinion and not solid fact. ‘What are people for’ is, and always will be, a question based on a person’s views.
Choices are what makes us individuals. Choice is matter of who you are, not what you are made up of. DNA may influence your decision, but it does not completely control it. A team of researches conducted a test in 2007 in Sweden to try and prove that genes influence people’s choices. These researchers used both fraternal and identical twins for this controlled experiment. What they found was that the identical twins were more likely to make the same choices than the fraternal twins. This does suggest that DNA does play part in the human decision process, but does not eliminate it. The experiment does not mention if the any of the sets of twins have the same experiences. The researchers went through the Swedish Twin Registry to find their subjects. But what if some of the identical twins were separated at birth and lived completely different lives? Would this change the results than if they were raised the same? Did the fraternal twins who grew up together fair better in the experiment than any identical twins separated at birth? My point is that people’s experiences and surroundings also have an effect on people’s choices, not just their DNA.
Bill McKibben, in his book Enough suggests that with genetic engineering, people will lose their ability to make choices. He says that in the future, without choice, democracy will fall. “Democracy depends on the idea that we’re free actors” (199). On this point, I do agree with McKibben that with the loss of choice will lead to the fall of democracy, but we will never lose our ability to choose. McKibben seems to claim that with the future of germline genetic engineering that eventually, humans will lose the ability to choose. Our choices will be made by the DNA built into us without us as humans realizing that we are not making them ourselves. But there are points to where he seems to contradict this. He says that parents will have to choose to let there their kid fall behind by not engineering them, or manipulate their genes. McKibben uses an example of adding IQ to a child. He quotes economist Lester Thurow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology saying “Wouldn’t you want to do it? And if you don’t, your child will be the stupidest in the neighborhood” (33). McKibben then adds, “That’s precisely what if might feel like to be the parent facing the choice” (33) But how are parents suppose to make, or even realize, these choices if people lose the ability to choose with germline engineering? They might decide to give their child the higher IQ without it even seeming like a choice, but it will still be a choice to be made. McKibben even cites Lee Silver saying “In 2050, he (Silver) sees, a young mother in labor comforting herself by leafing through a photo album of what her child will look like when she’s sixteen” (21). McKibben, among many others, worry about the loss of choice, but even this quote he took from Silver proves that choice will still be around. It will stay around because making choices as an individual is what people are here to do.
People being themselves, as individuals, goes hand in hand with making choices. According to McKibben, the world is on the verge of losing ourselves as individuals. I think that this could never happen. Our individualism comes from who we are, not what we are. A person is still a person, no matter what. McKibben argues that the advancement of genetics will change how people are; what they feel, how they think, etc. Even if we get to a point where human are altered before birth to what they are going to be or what they are good at, that person is still going to have to live their life. A genetically altered person will still have opinions, confront tragedy, and make choices.
Whether a person close to you dies, you lose a limb in an accident, or even just fail a class, the result would affect the person, engineered or not. If a person was modified to always feel happy, some sort of change has to occur. I believe that it just in not in a person’s soul to always feel happy.
Another point that individualism will not fade is the fact that no one could be altered precisely the same way. Geneticists could create two babies genetically the same, but their experiences will be different. For example, two embryos are both modified to run faster. Their genes alter to the same specifications. The babies grow up to be the same heights, weight, build, everything. One, Child A, has parents that push him to run. They cheer him on and support him, show up to everything he does. The other, Child B, has parents that do not really care either way. These parents show up to the occasional activity and do not pay him as much attention. These children both have nurturing factors that the other does not have. So, in a foot race, theoretically (and by design), both of these children should run at the same speed and tie, but only one wins. Who won is the irrelevant question, but the real one would be, why wouldn’t they tie? Maybe Child A won because he was pushed to be the better runner. Maybe Child B won because he wanted to prove something. The point of this story is that the argument that genetic engineering is the downfall of individualism is nothing but fear mongering.
What people are for will be up for debate for generations to come, just as it always has been. Some people will always go for the religion, others for the scientific. No matter which way people lean, there will never be a total agreement of what we are here for.
McKibben, Bill. Enough. Owl Books 2003
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/ultimatum-1001.html
Glenn - Your advise isn't bad, but it's very generic and abbreviated - it could apply to half the papers in the class.
Phil - It's interesting that you raise the problem that your argument might be viewed as a copout. There are times, reading through it, when I felt that it was - that you were just giving an incredibly broad argument that would offend virtually nobody. There were also times, though, when I thought it was very focused and interesting, despite initial appearances.
Here's what it boils down to, for me. When you lapse (as you sometimes do) into a highly general, abstract discussion of what can seem a cop-out argument, it seems weak. When, however, you defend your seemingly overly general, copoutish argument in a precise, detailed way (for instance, through your discussion of the twin study, which should, incidentally, have been cited when you used it), the whole thing works, even though it seems like it shouldn't.
Essays should, be default, be precise and focused, especially when the idea or the argument isn't. When you do that, it's great; when you don't, it's not.
Post a Comment