Bioengineering of the Human Race - Case Study Example

 Bioengineering Bioengineering of the human race came to be an object of strong discussion recently because of the developments in technology that we experience today. Bioengineering means manipulation of the genes in order to get a desired individual. This manipulation can be done through pharmaceutical administration in humans beings or introduction of genetic material into the grown human. Other's ways to do bioengineering are at the gametangium or embryonic stage, were scientist's can choose the genes and then let them replicate in order to create a child with the chosen characteristics There are two viewpoints regarding this subject, one of then is that bioengineering is bad and will have negative consequences, viewpoint shared by Francis Fukuyama. The second viewpoint is that bioengineering will bring good results to all humans and will have positive consequences, viewpoint shared by Gregory Stock. Francis Fukuyama does not support the bioengineering of humans because he thinks that we should respect natural selection. Natural selection is so perfect that have created connections between our genes that we can't even start to realize. This connections reflects also in our functioning within the ecosystems. How can we start bioengineering humans if we still not fully understand the functioning of mother nature? Though we are cultural individuals, bioengineering would alter one way or another who we are. This would create strong social, and governmental changes. The risks are unpredictable. For Fukuyama bioengineering can even be co-related to the Germans Nazi activity. For Gregory Stock bioengineering can't be stopped because people will demand to have the advantages of such technology. For Stocks it can not be banned because someone somewhere will develop it, so it should be done in the U.S. because it is a country with good ethics. For Stocks the development of this technology will reduce the incidence of diseases, retard the aging effect, bring the possibility for the parent's to “design” their child's physical and mental characteristics like the color of the eyes or the degree of intelligence of the child for example. The works of nature by trial and error can be very cruel, so, of course everyone will see bioengineering of humans as a beneficial technology that everyone will what to have access to. In Fukuyama positions he makes it clear that we shouldn't play good or mess with natures works. He disagrees with Stock about the parents being able to take such decision about their childes, and if there's anyone to regulate such choices it should be the state. Fukuyama gives two utilitarian reasons on why the parents shouldn't have full control: if there is any mistake that only shows in future generations it would be pretty bad because population grow exponentially, so, when we take notice of the error we would have a large number of individuals carrying the same problem. The second utilitarian reason is that if the parents get to choose physical aspects like the color of the eyes or sex it might develop into a big social problem like the one in China, were there aren't enough womans to the amount of mens, and all because of the right to choose the children sex. Other reasons are the ones like: How can we decide the best “design” for our children, and isn't it against human nature. A question about “designing” the child would be: wouldn't gay parents want gay children? how cold that enhance society? Take into account as well, that longer lifespans may represent more suffering, and that presently we have examples on how the biotechnology permits people to live longer life but without being able to function. Fukuyama admits that sex selection might be possible in the U.S. but still we can't say for sure that it won't have a negative effect. As the subject goes through cloning, Fukuyama is fearsome of the consequences that might come in families, like increasing cases of incest. Fukuyama admits that Stocks is right about that there will be someone developing this technology despite the consequences, and if that happens we should make sure that there will be structures regulating those researches like the ones that we have today regulating the biomedical technology. For Stocks, Fukuyama is suspicious of change in general and doesn't acknowledge the desire of people to want a better future to their children. If it wasn't for the human exploration in biotechnology we would never had restrained many medical problems or improved our health, this is just another step into having better lives. For stock the sex selection argument isn't good enough because of the conditions that the Chinese government upholds, those conditions are made so that parents abort more likely a girl than a boy. In the U.S. the case would be completely different. About cloning Stock is absolutely sure that it won't pose a problem because we have laws regulating our country, so the incest argument can't be taken seriously. For Stocks having state institutions regulating peoples and scientists choices will only bring more problems because he doesn't believe that lawmakers and others from the state will understand the peoples needs and choices. So the most that they can do is only to bring problems. Stock thinks that prolonging life with bioengineering is a good thing to hope for, because since a long time we've been trying to prolongue peoples life. Or if we think that prolonging peoples lifespans is bad, why we give treatments to old aged? But the question isn't just increasing the lifespan, it's increasing the lifespan avoiding degenerative diseases like for example cancer, and other physical or metal diseases, avoiding that way the necessity for the state to loose billions trying to cure those diseases. Of course that increasing peoples lifespans will bring challenges, but that only can mean that we have to resolve them and create a better way for people to enjoy a longer life. For sure that eliminating diseases and creating longer lifespans between other benefits is very good , but at what costs? The costs can be tremendously high when we stills not fully understand the way nature works. For the writer, if we get to develop bioengineering before fully understanding natures works, we must have institutions regulating these procedures. Is extremely necessary and of the utmost importance to have institutions, that carry the choice of the representants of the majority of the population, to regulate the sector. If we manage to achieve this most probably will have a better enhanced human race. Works cited page Gregory Stock. Choosing Our Genes. Francis Fukuyama. In Defense of Nature, Human, and non-Human Abortion is a question that has been troubling the conscience of the U.S . population for Read More