The Convergence of Humans Into Products
August 13 2008 / by Antonio Manfredi
Category: Biotechnology Year: General Rating: 11 Hot
Genetic manipulation may create whole new industries in the future where we engineer the attributes of our offspring. Is this biological manipulation for the greater good and what role does this play in the argument of public vs private healthcare?
Imagine a world where you earn points on your Visa card that allow you to engineer your new born childs IQ. Earn enough IQ points and you can elevate this child far beyond their natural abilities, all contingent on your ability to spend.
Now proceed five years into the future. You are planning to have a second child and have earned as many points as before. Because technological evolution changes faster than human evolution, your IQ points now buy much more intellectual enhancement than with your first child. Your first born would now become a sort of Windows 95 of children. Do you discard the child? How would your first born and new born interact? With whom do you concentrate your love and care?
Aside from social and psychological issues that would develop with the children, what would this mean to our global economic class structure? Instead of getting ahead through hard work, you now would be barred from progress because the rich and their offspring would be tied to the tenants of accelerating change.
These scenarios have become more plausible in the future since the cracking of the human genome, the equivalent of the moon shot for our recent history. As more and more genes have been discovered, a roadmap for manipulating our existence has arrived.
In adopting this technology how would we insure universal access, equality, and fairness? Furthermore how does this impact the debate over public vs private medicine in the future? Interestingly the concept of genetic manipulation is looked at differently depending on whether the society has a public or private healthcare system. Personal genetic information, and the accessibility of such, also varies in these societies. European countries such as Iceland and others have developed much stronger rules governing the sharing of this information, as well as how it can be used.
In the United States many industries look at access to genetic information as a key to new products and profits. Insurance companies would be better equipped to deny coverage, and thus limit their claims. The genomics industry could be in a position to sell the packaged enhancements already mentioned. Interestingly this private industry was created by a massive public investment in the mapping of the human genome.
In response to this dilemma many researchers have begun to look at the future as ailments vs enhancements. Treating and preventing disease and infirmity, or traits such as poor eyesight, are all seen as universally good. Enhancing an already healthy person creates a new social equation that will have to be sorted out by people outside the realm of science. As we develop these radical new technologies, maybe we need stronger social systems to regulate them and insure equal access. In the process of shedding our natural biology maybe therein lies the time we should be embracing our humanity the most.
Comment Thread (4 Responses)
-
One word: GATTACA
Posted by: martymcfly August 13, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend -
A few possible implications: 1) The technology is limited, regulated to the point of virtually not existing thanks to religious/ethical opposition. 2) The fabric of of social structure is overturned, similar to (but vastly dwarfing) the effects of the Pill. 3) All the issues become irrelevant as other develpments undermine these problems; ie: Nanotechnology brings abundance for all and EVERYONE can be upgraded to the maximum level of intelligence and fitness, creating an entirely new set of social issues; or we all get uploaded into a virtual utopia and discard our physical bodies anyway.
Posted by: StuartDobson August 13, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend -
Great piece. I think questions of public accessibility and the public versus private medicine debate are very important when considering these new technologies. I wonder if we won’t consider these “enhancements” the way we view plastic surgery today – as desirable in some respects but also somewhat fake. Or perhaps these enhancements could make class politics much more visible. In the 1910s and 20s, you could tell just about anyone’s class just by looking at them – maybe this will become the future as well.
Something else to think about – beyond a certain point, intelligence does not really correlate with success. Perhaps some of these enhancements will not deliver on the level expected.
Posted by: Mielle Sullivan August 14, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend -
Already the gap between the rich and poor creates a situation like the one you portray in your article (access to education versus money to upgrade intelligence). I hope that, as you said, the regulations develop alongside the technology. I’m not sure if I would enjoy the technology, myself, but the idea that everyone could reach the same level of “development” is an interesting one.
Posted by: jvarden August 14, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend