Causes for Concern: Difference between revisions

From Dickinson College Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Woodrofj (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Woodrofj (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
(18 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
This second period of Eugenics has the potential to be far more harmful to mankind than the first and although much can be written about this, I will outline only some of the dangers of this new and 'improved' Eugenics.
This second period of Eugenics has the potential to be far more harmful to mankind than the first. The following causes for concern follow the three stages mentioned earlier in the Return of Eugenics. Each general concern only becomes worse as another stage is entered.




*The Blurry Line Between Fixing and Improving - Cosmetic Pharmacology and the Likes
<h1>Stage 1 </h1>
<h2>Increased Difficulty in Predicting Side Effects</h2>


*The Return of Eugenics
The greater the number of gene interactions involved, the greater the number of possible outcomes. Also, the higher the complexity level of these interactions, the higher the probablity of side effects resulting from a change in the process or any of the genes involved in that process. Thus not only would it be more difficult to predict all side effects, there would be a greater likelihood of them occurring.


*Altering Human Nature and 'The Point of No Return'
However, as noted before,




<h2>The Blurry Line Between Fixing and Improving - Cosmetic Pharmacology and the Likes</h2>
::“[The fact] that the multiple functions of genes and gene interactions are highly complex does not mean that all human genetic engineering will be on hold until we understand them. No technology ever develops in this fashion. New drugs are invented, tested, and approved for use all the time without the manufacturers knowing exactly how they produce their effects." (Fukuyama, )


Even today, without the biotechnological advancements of genetic specific drugs, psychotropic drugs such as Prozac and Ritalin can offer us some indication of what may lie ahead.


Prozac is an antidepressant that has garnered much fame and support in many circles. It blocks the reabsorption of serotonin by the nerve synapses and effectively increases the levels of serotonin in the brain. Serotonin is an important neurotransmitter and low levels are associated, in both humans and other primates, with poor impulse control and uncontrolled aggression against inappropriate targets, and in humans with depression, aggression, and suicide.


Today, Prozac and its relatives have been taken by approximately 28 million Americans, 10 percent of the entire population.
<h2>Potentially Worse and More Complicated Negative Side Effects</h2>


However, some studies have indicated that Prozac is not as effective as claimed and a number of books have argued that Prozac has a host of side-effects that its manufacturer has tried to cover up such as weight gain, tics, memory loss, sexual dysfunction, suicide, violence, and brain damage.
Most drugs have side effects and are regulated as a result. However, most side effects remain unknown until the drug is actually tested in a large enough population. Drugs have been recalled as a result of their side effects but only after a number of people were affected.  


Although these may turn out to be true and the drug discontinued, the acceptance of the drug as safe and useable may lead to some interesting, somewhat disturbing consequences for Prozac is said to affect that most central of political emotions, the feeling of self-worth, or self-esteem.
However, with genetic engineering especially, the stakes are higher. The genetic manipulation cannot be 'recalled' and may not be able to be treated since genes are more fundamental and their interactions are likely more complicated and less understood than conventional drugs.  


As Socrates argued, in Plato’s Republic, there is a distinct part of humans that has an intersubjective demand for recognition by another human being of one’s “worth” or “dignity.” Economist Robert Frank refers to this in relation to economic interest in saying that it is a demand for status recognition that leads people to buy goods best referred to as positional goods. This demand for status recognition has also been demonstrated in political history, from rival princes who engage in battle, neither of whom needs the land or money, to more recent developments as the independence of Ukraine and Slovakia. (Fukuyama, 44-45)
This problem gets worse in the next stage.


Understanding that there are clearly millions of people in the world who suffer from depression and whose feelings of self-worth fall far below what they should be, and for them, Prozac is a “godsend,” Fukuyama asserts, “The normal, and morally acceptable way of overcoming low self-esteem was to struggle with oneself and with others, to work hard, to endure sometimes painful sacrifices, and finally to rise and be seen as having done so. The problem with self-esteem as it is understood in American pop psychology is that it becomes an entitlement, something everyone needs to have whether it is deserved or not. This devalues self-esteem and makes the quest for it self-defeating.” (Fukuyama, p 46)
<h1>Stage 2</h1>
<h2>The Blurry Line and Negative Externalities</h2>


The problem arises when self-esteem, in a sense, now comes in a bottle, and because low levels of serotonin do not demarcate a clear pathological condition, the door is open to “cosmetic pharmacology: that is, the taking of a drug not for its therapeutic value but simply because it makes one feel better than good. If a sense of self-esteem is so crucial to human happiness, who wouldn’t want more of it?” (Fukuyama, p. 46)
Negative externalities are costs borne by third parties not involved in the transaction that gave rise to the cost. In the case of the family, parents who may even be seeking the best interest of their children may make genetic decisions for their children that may have several types of negative consequences. These negative externalities will be born primarily by the children and may have varying degrees of seriousness.


Similarly, with Ritalin, a stimulant created to help “treat” ADHD. In large doses, it is very similar to cocaine and so its use is somewhat restricted. However, during the 1990’s, Ritalin became one of the fastest-growing drugs used in high schools and on college campuses, as students discovered it helped them study for exams and pay better attention during class. The drug is also widely abused by people who are not diagnosed with ADHD. Elizabeth Wurtzel of Prozac fame describes chopping up and snorting forty Ritalin pills a day, which led to emergency room visits and detoxification therapy, at which she met mothers who stole their children’s pills for their own use.” (Fukuyama, p. 48)
Given the afore-mentioned 'blurry line' these genetic decisions could start with small increases in memory capacity of the child (similar to Ritalin) but eventually lead to the addition of traits that may be simply be considered favorable in a particular culture at a particular point in time. Such things as "ultrathin girls, pliable boys, or [even] red hair" (as Fukuyama suggests) may change within the culture and from one generation to the next or may even be harmful to the child irrespective of generation or culture.  


It is not hard to see how Bill McKibben, author of “Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age” would be concerned about the use of genetic technology to improve rather than fix. If scientists were to discover how to manipulate intelligence, it probably will not be presented as manipulation, but fixing. How would we determine what normal intelligence is and where the line is to be drawn?  
What makes such decisions particularly harmful is that a child can change his/her ideas or practices but it would be substantially more difficult for him/her to change his/her own genetic make-up or genotype. One can even imagine a situation in which a gene manipulation (although the term 'gene treatment' may eventually be preferred) that results in an unforseen but significant harmful side effect. Let us say for instance that the side effect involves a painful disorder or a signficant succeptibility to a certain virulent disease. These conditions will be suffered by the child and all its descendants. Are they then to suffer and forego children of their own for what could have been a superficial enhancement that their parents chose?


<h2>Let the Competition Begin!</h2>


<h2>The Return of Eugenics</h2>
Eventually, as genetic engineering becomes widespread enough that differences between the haves and haves-not become noticeable, there will be an increased demand for treatments (i.e. improvements) for children who may be entering a generation of unskilled, skilled, and 'super-skilled' workers. Aside from those parents who may end up warring with their peers to see who can get the better upgrade for the child for their own glory, there may be parents who feel that unless they help (i.e. improve) their children, all of their progeny may be doomed to become members of some genetically inferior underclass.


Embryonic Research for the medical purposes or human cloning has caused much debate in recent years.
Even currently, with our competitive job market and consumerist culture, sociologists such as Austin Bunn are saying that we have already gone from parenting to "product development." (NYT Magazine, 2002). Genetic Engineering will simply allow parents to do this more efficiently.
 
What happens when we continually treat human life in a utilitarian way?
 
When are Rights accorded to a human life? – Is this decision based on ability or superficial traits?
 
If we assert that the lack of these traits mean a lack of humanity or a lack of worth, what are we simultaneously asserting about people who currently live with disorders that lack these abilities or traits?
 
 
If genetic engineering were to be legalized, who would have access to this technology?
 
Would some kind of Superhuman class be inadvertently created by the market and the already-existing disparities in wage and wealth distributions along lines of race, class, or gender?
 
Would there be a need for a genetic welfare democracy?
 
 
<h2>Altering Human Nature and 'The Point of No Return'</h2>
 
"Happy Slaves with a slavish happiness?" - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World


On an even larger scale, consider Japan's somewhat miraculous post-war economic recovery. This economic growth with such limited natural resources was mainly due to its investment in human resources (education) and later, technology. Imagine if a nation, Nation X, were to eventually reach a stage (whether through state laws or the process just described) where its labor force were  genetically enhanced to make them more efficient and productive.  Nations desiring to become or remain economically strong relative to others would then have a greater incentive to 'improve' their workforces. At this point, governments may not even have to use force but only financial incentives, patriotic calls to their citizens in the interest of the nation's survival, or even just good advertising.


Neo-mercantilists would also see this as a cause for concern since Nation X could invest more money in its military and this would not be favorable for national security (in the realist world, it is capability not intentions that matter).


But why even bother with the economy? Why not just gentically engineer superhuman soldiers? There would, of course, have to be the ability to control such soldiers especially if a large number are, for lack of a better word (or not), created. This could take several different slavish forms, from neurological adjustments to implants all of which would be dehumanizing.


But whether the competition is sociological, economic, political (which includes military), it will likely act as a catalyst towards full-scale, worldwide eugenics, that is, if the number of human casualties from the countless possible genetic mistakes does not stop it first.


<h1>Stage 3</h1>
<h2>Humans? What humans?</h2>


If genetic manipulation continues through a prolonged period of time of intense competition, eventually a point will be reached at which the existing species will be so specified that it will be more of a cumulative human creation than it will be human. Members of this new species may have a constant feeling of 'happiness' but have no memories of interpersonal experiences that caused the happiness. Since a person's specifications have become so important, people are valued based on their capabilities and thus only on their utility. Some members may therefore become 'obsolete' before the end of their lifetime, which, by this time, may be very long. But it's 'okay,' they will probably still be 'happy,' because they are hard-wired to be. This species may likely have less interpersonal needs, family may become obsolete or may only exist for structural purposes. Love -that which many would see today as the most powerful aspect of human nature, would not be possible in a utilitarian society such as this. If its members see each other as having only instrumental value without any inherent dignity, then every relationship would be selfish since people would only use each other for utility or instrumental value instead of sacrificing for each other after recognizing each other's innate worth.




In the end, this new non-human species may exist more like robots than humans after we would have inadvertently brought about the extinction of humanity.





Latest revision as of 04:11, 3 January 2008

This second period of Eugenics has the potential to be far more harmful to mankind than the first. The following causes for concern follow the three stages mentioned earlier in the Return of Eugenics. Each general concern only becomes worse as another stage is entered.


Stage 1

Increased Difficulty in Predicting Side Effects

The greater the number of gene interactions involved, the greater the number of possible outcomes. Also, the higher the complexity level of these interactions, the higher the probablity of side effects resulting from a change in the process or any of the genes involved in that process. Thus not only would it be more difficult to predict all side effects, there would be a greater likelihood of them occurring.

However, as noted before,


“[The fact] that the multiple functions of genes and gene interactions are highly complex does not mean that all human genetic engineering will be on hold until we understand them. No technology ever develops in this fashion. New drugs are invented, tested, and approved for use all the time without the manufacturers knowing exactly how they produce their effects." (Fukuyama, )


Potentially Worse and More Complicated Negative Side Effects

Most drugs have side effects and are regulated as a result. However, most side effects remain unknown until the drug is actually tested in a large enough population. Drugs have been recalled as a result of their side effects but only after a number of people were affected.

However, with genetic engineering especially, the stakes are higher. The genetic manipulation cannot be 'recalled' and may not be able to be treated since genes are more fundamental and their interactions are likely more complicated and less understood than conventional drugs.

This problem gets worse in the next stage.

Stage 2

The Blurry Line and Negative Externalities

Negative externalities are costs borne by third parties not involved in the transaction that gave rise to the cost. In the case of the family, parents who may even be seeking the best interest of their children may make genetic decisions for their children that may have several types of negative consequences. These negative externalities will be born primarily by the children and may have varying degrees of seriousness.

Given the afore-mentioned 'blurry line' these genetic decisions could start with small increases in memory capacity of the child (similar to Ritalin) but eventually lead to the addition of traits that may be simply be considered favorable in a particular culture at a particular point in time. Such things as "ultrathin girls, pliable boys, or [even] red hair" (as Fukuyama suggests) may change within the culture and from one generation to the next or may even be harmful to the child irrespective of generation or culture.

What makes such decisions particularly harmful is that a child can change his/her ideas or practices but it would be substantially more difficult for him/her to change his/her own genetic make-up or genotype. One can even imagine a situation in which a gene manipulation (although the term 'gene treatment' may eventually be preferred) that results in an unforseen but significant harmful side effect. Let us say for instance that the side effect involves a painful disorder or a signficant succeptibility to a certain virulent disease. These conditions will be suffered by the child and all its descendants. Are they then to suffer and forego children of their own for what could have been a superficial enhancement that their parents chose?

Let the Competition Begin!

Eventually, as genetic engineering becomes widespread enough that differences between the haves and haves-not become noticeable, there will be an increased demand for treatments (i.e. improvements) for children who may be entering a generation of unskilled, skilled, and 'super-skilled' workers. Aside from those parents who may end up warring with their peers to see who can get the better upgrade for the child for their own glory, there may be parents who feel that unless they help (i.e. improve) their children, all of their progeny may be doomed to become members of some genetically inferior underclass.

Even currently, with our competitive job market and consumerist culture, sociologists such as Austin Bunn are saying that we have already gone from parenting to "product development." (NYT Magazine, 2002). Genetic Engineering will simply allow parents to do this more efficiently.

On an even larger scale, consider Japan's somewhat miraculous post-war economic recovery. This economic growth with such limited natural resources was mainly due to its investment in human resources (education) and later, technology. Imagine if a nation, Nation X, were to eventually reach a stage (whether through state laws or the process just described) where its labor force were genetically enhanced to make them more efficient and productive. Nations desiring to become or remain economically strong relative to others would then have a greater incentive to 'improve' their workforces. At this point, governments may not even have to use force but only financial incentives, patriotic calls to their citizens in the interest of the nation's survival, or even just good advertising.

Neo-mercantilists would also see this as a cause for concern since Nation X could invest more money in its military and this would not be favorable for national security (in the realist world, it is capability not intentions that matter).

But why even bother with the economy? Why not just gentically engineer superhuman soldiers? There would, of course, have to be the ability to control such soldiers especially if a large number are, for lack of a better word (or not), created. This could take several different slavish forms, from neurological adjustments to implants all of which would be dehumanizing.

But whether the competition is sociological, economic, political (which includes military), it will likely act as a catalyst towards full-scale, worldwide eugenics, that is, if the number of human casualties from the countless possible genetic mistakes does not stop it first.

Stage 3

Humans? What humans?

If genetic manipulation continues through a prolonged period of time of intense competition, eventually a point will be reached at which the existing species will be so specified that it will be more of a cumulative human creation than it will be human. Members of this new species may have a constant feeling of 'happiness' but have no memories of interpersonal experiences that caused the happiness. Since a person's specifications have become so important, people are valued based on their capabilities and thus only on their utility. Some members may therefore become 'obsolete' before the end of their lifetime, which, by this time, may be very long. But it's 'okay,' they will probably still be 'happy,' because they are hard-wired to be. This species may likely have less interpersonal needs, family may become obsolete or may only exist for structural purposes. Love -that which many would see today as the most powerful aspect of human nature, would not be possible in a utilitarian society such as this. If its members see each other as having only instrumental value without any inherent dignity, then every relationship would be selfish since people would only use each other for utility or instrumental value instead of sacrificing for each other after recognizing each other's innate worth.


In the end, this new non-human species may exist more like robots than humans after we would have inadvertently brought about the extinction of humanity.



Eugenics | Eugenics and Family | People of Tomorrow | The Biotechnological Revolution | The Return of Eugenics | Causes for Concern | Conclusion - 1