Germ Line Engineering
MIT Tech Review asks:
Questions like that always amuse me, especially when coming from a school full of people who claim to be geniuses. The question supposes that it's possible to stop at all, which a cursory examination of history will show to be foolish self-deception. If a thing can be done, it will be done.
That poll result is nothing more than a graphical representation of sophistry. You can't have one without the other. Oh, you can make laws and rules and regulations and create huge departments full of government workers whose presumptive reason for existence is to prevent abuse of the technology, but in the end anyone who wants a "designer baby" and has the money for it will get one.
It is just as ridiculous as asking people if they're okay with nuclear power but not nuclear warheads; the two are inseparable, no matter how many laws you may pass and oversight committees you may form. The ongoing shenanigans between Washington, Tel Aviv and Tehran are all the evidence you need of that.
Genetic engineering is coming on with a full head of steam. It is as inevitable a result of the 21st century as the automobile was of the 20th. Before your grandchildren die, it will be a fact of life. So the question becomes not "should we do it?" but rather "how can we do it better than everybody else?" Because when you throw out all the moral hand-wringing which people use to make themselves feel better, the real issue here is not the existence of genetic engineering, but how widespread access to it will become.
Every advanced technology can -- and will -- be weaponized. If Country Blue has nearly universal access to designer baby technology and Country Red limits or bans it under pretenses of moral uprightness, who do you think will have the advantage when it comes time to create an army? It may not be popular to think in such terms, but it is the cold reality of existence.
Curtis LeMay came under fire from all of the big-mouthed cowards after the war for the fire bombings of Tokyo and other Japanese cities in which hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed. His response to these backseat drivers was simple and to the point: "It had to be done, so I did it." He later added that if the U.S. had lost the war, he expected he would have been tried and executed for war crimes. In other words, winning is all that matters.
We need to stop worrying about whether we should create designer baby technology and start focusing on how quickly we can perfect it -- because I can guarantee you that's exactly what the Chinese are doing at this very moment. If that offends your sensibilities, my advice to you is this: grow up.
Scientists are developing ways to edit the DNA of tomorrow’s children. Should they stop before it’s too late?
Questions like that always amuse me, especially when coming from a school full of people who claim to be geniuses. The question supposes that it's possible to stop at all, which a cursory examination of history will show to be foolish self-deception. If a thing can be done, it will be done.
That poll result is nothing more than a graphical representation of sophistry. You can't have one without the other. Oh, you can make laws and rules and regulations and create huge departments full of government workers whose presumptive reason for existence is to prevent abuse of the technology, but in the end anyone who wants a "designer baby" and has the money for it will get one.
It is just as ridiculous as asking people if they're okay with nuclear power but not nuclear warheads; the two are inseparable, no matter how many laws you may pass and oversight committees you may form. The ongoing shenanigans between Washington, Tel Aviv and Tehran are all the evidence you need of that.
Genetic engineering is coming on with a full head of steam. It is as inevitable a result of the 21st century as the automobile was of the 20th. Before your grandchildren die, it will be a fact of life. So the question becomes not "should we do it?" but rather "how can we do it better than everybody else?" Because when you throw out all the moral hand-wringing which people use to make themselves feel better, the real issue here is not the existence of genetic engineering, but how widespread access to it will become.
Every advanced technology can -- and will -- be weaponized. If Country Blue has nearly universal access to designer baby technology and Country Red limits or bans it under pretenses of moral uprightness, who do you think will have the advantage when it comes time to create an army? It may not be popular to think in such terms, but it is the cold reality of existence.
Curtis LeMay came under fire from all of the big-mouthed cowards after the war for the fire bombings of Tokyo and other Japanese cities in which hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed. His response to these backseat drivers was simple and to the point: "It had to be done, so I did it." He later added that if the U.S. had lost the war, he expected he would have been tried and executed for war crimes. In other words, winning is all that matters.
We need to stop worrying about whether we should create designer baby technology and start focusing on how quickly we can perfect it -- because I can guarantee you that's exactly what the Chinese are doing at this very moment. If that offends your sensibilities, my advice to you is this: grow up.
posted by Jar(egg)head at 08:56
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home