Genetically enhanced humans
Project: The great enhancement debate

Richard Hayes over at the Washington post has a critique of Ronald Green (Ronald M. Green is a professor of ethics at Dartmouth College. His most recent book is "Babies by Design: The Ethics of Genetic Choice.") entitled :” Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks”


The article starts with following:” In an essay in Sunday's Outlook section, Dartmouth ethics professor Ronald Green asks us to consider a neo-eugenic future of "designer babies," with parents assembling their children quite literally from genes selected from a catalogue. Distancing himself from the compulsory, state-sponsored eugenics that darkened the first half of the last century, Green instead celebrates the advent of a libertarian, consumer-driven eugenics motivated by the free play of human desire, technology and markets. He argues that this vision of the human future is desirable and very likely inevitable…. To put it mildly: I disagree.” Says Hayes

And then come the questions:” Once we begin genetically modifying our children, where do we stop? If it's acceptable to modify one gene, why not two, or 20 or 200? At what point do children become artifacts designed to someone's specifications rather than members of a family to be nurtured?”

Green in his original article entitled:” Building Baby From the Genes Up” comes to dispel the very ideas that the majority of poll respondents hold in this regard:” Genomic science is racing toward a future in which foreseeable improvements include reduced susceptibility to a host of diseases, increased life span, better cognitive functioning and maybe even cosmetic enhancements such as whiter, straighter teeth. Yes, genetic orthodontics may be in our future. The challenge is to see that we don't also unleash the demons of discrimination and oppression. Although I acknowledge the risks, I believe that we can and will incorporate gene technology into the ongoing human adventure.” (the article is worthwhile reading in its entirety)


Having read the article and the critique I hold steady the thought that Green is on the right track. I believe, as he does, that the future of genetically enhanced humans on the grand scale of human evolution is not only desirable, it is also inevitable. The ‘so-called’ ethical questions that the opponents raise be it on religious grounds, on social grounds, or on humanitarian grounds are not only fundamentally false but politically self serving and hypocritical.

The human race is not one entity because of its genetic heritage, though most will desire to find the unity of humanity on these genetic lines, being the lowest common denominator for lack of a higher common denominator.

It is my view that humanity’s unity may (and should) be based on a higher ground of dreaming and betterment, the total annihilation of suffering, disease, and mortality and finally the total freedom to redesign the human “nature” (body and mind) to encompass all possibilities existing in the phase space of potential evolution that the multiverses allows (and maybe even beyond that).

The issues at play, as I see it, lay with the vision one holds of the interconnectivity of all life on all dimensions of existence. The total liberty to be whatever and how ever, where ever and whenever in whatever fashion one desires is the ultimate objective of all human aspirations.

Would love to see a discussion opening on this critical subject sitting at our doorstep.

Sat, Apr 19, 2008  Permanent link
Categories: humanity,genetic design, better humans
Sent to project: The great enhancement debate

RSS for this post