Is human evolution through genetic design an inevitable future, or will it end in ethical controversy?

Genetic design technology is presented as a new means of evolution to enhance human capabilities and reduce inequality. However, it is a double-edged sword with both advantages and disadvantages, raising ethical issues and debates about freedom of choice.

 

Recent advances in genetic engineering have raised the issue of ‘genetic design’. Genetic design is not just biological modification, but a technology that can manipulate human nature or give us new traits, and its possibilities and impact are beyond our imagination. As we enter an era where science and technology dominate our lives, the emergence of genetic design is a critical moment that will redefine our future. Genetic design refers to the manipulation of human genes using genetic engineering methods to design them for specific purposes. It is considered a revolutionary technology that could open up new opportunities in every aspect of human life, not only for treating diseases, but also for customising our appearance, personality, intelligence, physical abilities, and more.
Let’s assume for a moment that genetic design is so inexpensive that everyone can use it, without thinking about the side effects, and that the technology is so affordable that it can be used by everyone, which is a very controversial assumption. There are many economic and social barriers to widespread adoption of genetic design, and the number of people who can benefit from it may be limited. But let’s put those practicalities aside and assume that the technology is freely available to everyone. Sandel raises the issue of this technology being used in athletics. What if an athlete was genetically engineered to have superior athletic performance and won a competition? Would an athlete who relied on genetic design to win win dishonourably? I don’t think so. I think the enhancement of the body through genetic design is a form of human evolution.
Humans have been evolving and growing since prehistoric times. Our physical capabilities are much better than they were in those early days, and our brains are more developed and capable of deeper thinking than ever before. However, there are still many more mysteries than we have uncovered, and our desire to discover the truth drives us to continue researching and discovering new technologies and facts. In this process of progress, human will and effort have been important factors, but now science and technology can also take over. While natural evolution has been the main way that humans have developed, the tool of genetic design offers a new way of evolution that allows humans to push themselves beyond their limits. In this sense, genetic design can be thought of as a new form of evolution for modern humans. Moreover, the ability to artificially control biological evolution opens up new possibilities for the future of humanity. Through genetic design, humans could become even better than we are now in many ways, becoming more advanced creatures.
Opponents of genetic design will counter this argument by saying that it will increase inequality. However, genetic design would actually reduce the inequalities that currently exist. Those who are socially advantaged already have the opportunity to develop physically and mentally through better education and environment. However, genetic design has the potential to equalise these opportunities, even if artificially. For example, suppose that the current distribution of 100-metre running ability among students is 5 to 10, which means that the ability of the worst and best runners is twice as different. If all students were to increase their running ability by 5 through genetic design, the distribution of running ability would go from 10 to 15, and the difference in ability between the worst and best runners would be reduced to 1.5 times. This can serve as an example of how genetic design can promote equality. This is an example of how genetic design can promote equality.
Of course, the benefits of genetic design are not limited to improving general ability. As Sandel illustrates, there are cases where a child is designed by a parent and the child is not happy about it. Especially in a modern society that values autonomy and personal choice, children who are given traits that they did not choose are likely to be unhappy about it. For example, if a child is born with a disability due to a parent’s genetic design. The child would be unhappy with the parent’s genetic design, which was not intended to be malicious. However, on a common sense level, you would think that a parent’s genetic design for their child would not necessarily work against them. Rather, parents want their children to be happy and successful, so they will strive to make the best choices for them. Because parents basically want their children to do well, it would be extremely unlikely that they would deliberately cause their child to have a disability, as Sandel suggests in his example. This is also a realistic argument. If there was a ‘figure craze’ in figure skating, and it was popular to inject genes that made people good at figure skating, and a parent chose to inject genes that made them smart instead of figure skating genes, to the displeasure of their child, would this really be an ethical issue? The child might not be good at figure skating, but they might be good at school and succeed in other ways. In other words, genetic design cannot be considered the cause of all problems. There will always be the issue of selection.
Despite the many advantages of genetic design, we can’t ignore the problems and disadvantages that come with it. Furthermore, the ethical issues surrounding genetic design have not been clearly resolved, even though many of the arguments against it have been refuted. This is because some of the arguments against genetic design are only wrong in the ‘usual’ case, but not always. In this respect, the debate about genetic design needs to be expanded beyond a discussion of scientific and technological advances to include philosophical and ethical discussions about the nature of human beings, the meaning of life, and the future. As with any new technological advancement, it is a double-edged sword with both advantages and disadvantages, and we must weigh the value of both. We need to weigh the ethical issues of genetic design and the evolution of humanity through it.