How will genetic modification change human equality and diversity?

Genetic engineering is useful for treating and preventing genetic diseases, but if it becomes widespread, it could threaten humanity’s right to equality and diversity. To prevent this, we need to limit the scope of genetic modification and strengthen social morality.

 

Our right to be different must be protected. I am different from the person who lives in the room in front of me, and I am different from the person who lives in the room next to me. Every n different people have n unique characteristics. Some may be short, some may be tall. Some may be white, some may be black, some may be yellow. N people have N unique characteristics. None of these characteristics can be judged as right or wrong. This is because under the fundamental human right to equality, we have the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of something different from others, the right to be different. However, it is my contention that genetic engineering, and in particular genetic modification, which has recently gained attention, could threaten the existence of this right to be different. In the following article, I will explain what genetic engineering is, what its prospects are, and how it can threaten our right to equality, or the right to be different, from an equality perspective, and conclude with a discussion of the extent to which genetic manipulation is acceptable.
Genetic engineering is literally the manipulation of genes, essentially the modification of living organisms to obtain new byproducts that benefit humans. Genetic engineering has been touted as a solution to many challenges that humans have been unable to solve. Some examples include food shortages and genetic diseases. When it comes to food scarcity, GMOs are the answer. GMOs are organisms whose genes have been manipulated by humans, for example, to remove a disease-causing agent from a crop so that the crop doesn’t develop disease A. This technology can be used to increase food production. This technology is very effective at increasing food production and is having some impact on solving food shortages and making food more affordable. Most people don’t realize it, but many of the foods we already eat, such as soy and corn, are GMOs. In the case of genetic diseases, genetic engineering can be used to treat the problematic gene or prevent it through pre-implantation genetic testing, which will be discussed later. Furthermore, the development of animal cloning through genetic engineering has made it possible to create cloned organisms that exhibit genetically identical traits, which can contribute greatly to the safety of our experiments. As you can see, genetic engineering has had a positive impact on humans in many areas. However, the impact of genetic engineering on humanity is not only positive.
There is a phrase “personalized babies”. It’s defined as a baby whose genetic characteristics are artificially selected with in vitro fertilization. In this case, “preimplantation genetic testing” (PGD) allows parents to determine the child’s gender, eye, skin, and hair color, hereditary diseases, etc. and select them through manipulation. If genetic engineering develops further, it could also affect intelligence, beauty, height, athleticism, and more. These “personalized babies” can be used to treat genetic diseases, and at the same time, they can prevent genetic diseases from occurring in the first place, which has the effect of preventing genetic diseases in society.
In this sense, “personalized babies” are a very attractive option. But only if they are used for therapeutic purposes. If this kind of genetic manipulation were to occur indiscriminately in other areas, such as skin color, it would undermine the aforementioned right to equality. In order to talk about this, we need to understand what the right to equality, and by extension, human rights, are based on. Equality rights and human rights are based on “natural rights”. In other words, human rights are inalienable, inherent rights that humans have received from a transcendent source, which means that people with intellectual disabilities and even newborn babies are equally entitled to them. The right to equality, which is one of the basic rights established by the Constitution to guarantee human rights, is based on this “natural right” and allows humans to demand that they are not treated unequally by the state and social groups. Of course, if we want to talk about the right to equality in detail, we should divide it into absolute equality and relative equality, but for this bioethics, we should focus on the congenital factors rather than the acquired factors that affect a person’s growth, so we should give more weight to the absolute equality theory.
The word “transcendent” in the definition of “natural rights” has led to many attempts to interpret it religiously. In particular, it has been argued that the concept is overly Christian-based. However, I think it’s important to pay attention to why this concept of natural human rights emerged in the first place. If Christianity is the reason why people have established the concept of the transcendent, then it would be right to interpret it as religious. However, I believe that this concept of the transcendent was necessary because there was a limit to the extent to which humans could intervene in the creation of life, and this limit made humans less responsible for the creation of life. A child born to a black man and a black woman is likely to be black. But their child didn’t choose them, so the child doesn’t have to take responsibility for being black. The same goes for both parents. Also, a child born to a tall man and a tall woman is likely to be tall, so if the child is tall, the child is not responsible for being tall. Conversely, if some genetic phenomenon, such as a mutation, results in a shorter child, that child is not responsible for their height. (A slight exception is when both parents have a genetic condition that affects the child’s genetic condition. This is exceptional because, unlike the case of no genetic disease, the presence of a genetic disease involves objective suffering. We will discuss this in more detail later when we discuss “Where genetic manipulation is permissible”). In this view, everyone is free from having to take responsibility for any of their traits (except for genetic diseases), and therefore everyone with any trait is entitled to equal treatment.
But what if we can arbitrarily decide which traits to have through genetic manipulation? As we said in the first paragraph, all humans are equal, and there is no right or wrong trait. However, social discrimination does exist. There is a tendency to favor taller people, and discrimination against people of color is happening all over the world. If this kind of genetic manipulation is allowed to run rampant without any sanctions, it is very likely that it will be used to favor socially advantageous traits in the creation of life. The moment humans become fully involved in determining the traits of life, the limits in the previous paragraph will be broken and humans with more socially favorable traits will be artificially created. It is likely that most of the humans created will be socially advantageous, the preferred form of humanity for most humans. If this happens, we will not be creating “other humans” but “wrong humans” somewhere in the world. In previous generations, blacks, whites, and yellows were on equal footing, but the emergence of a particular form of humanity makes some races fail and others succeed. It may be tempting to think that if everyone in the world became a certain shape, inequality would disappear. However, that would create a framework of what is “right” and would lead to labeling those who don’t fit that mold as wrong.
For these reasons, to ensure that genetic manipulation does not threaten equal rights, it should be prohibited to manipulate the genetic traits of any fetus for personal preference. However, there are exceptions to this prohibition. Among the genetic traits of a fetus are the ones mentioned above, such as whether the fetus will develop a genetic disease. In cases such as height, skin color, and athletic ability, there is no difference between right and wrong, and unfair treatment due to the trait is due to the moral harm of the surrounding society, not because the trait is objectively inferior, but in the case of hereditary diseases, there is an objective difference between the two, as the disease entails objective discomfort and suffering compared to the case of not developing the disease. Therefore, it is argued that genetic manipulation is partially permissible in order to prevent the development of hereditary diseases. However, we need to discuss a little more about those who already have the disease. Assuming that genetic manipulation can completely prevent genetic diseases, and assuming that no parent would want their child to suffer, there are three cases in which a child with a genetic disease is born to a parent Either a mutation has occurred, the parents didn’t know they carried the gene, or finally, they did know but for some reason, such as financial reasons, were unable to prevent it. In the first case, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, no one could have predicted the mutation, so no individual can be blamed for it, not even the affected person themselves, and society should help them to reduce their suffering. In the second case, if the society is well-equipped to test for the causative agent and they neglected to do so, the parents should be held responsible, but if it is a genetic disease that is not well-equipped and not well-recognized by the society, it is the same as in the first case. If the third case is prevalent, then economic inequality is determining whether or not a person will develop a genetic disease, and since the right to avoid the pain of a genetic disease should not be violated by economic poverty, society should help them, but no one should be held responsible for the development of a genetic disease. This leads to the conclusion that the development of genetic diseases is neither right nor wrong in itself.
Genetic engineering is becoming a very good solution to many of the problems we face. However, we have seen that genetic manipulation can also lead to problems that violate our human rights and equal rights if the scope of the manipulation is not limited. However, we cannot ignore the benefits of genetic modification in cases such as the prevention of genetic diseases, so we need to keep it within limits. We conclude by reiterating that the moral awareness of society’s members is necessary to prevent human rights issues arising from genetic modification.