Thensomeone else may argue “if thegenes of the next generation could be chosen, we would have many more intelligent,rational, and logical children”.However, “revolution works at the margins, and it does so throughtrade-offs”. (KOZUBEK, 2017) For example, the infamous “APOE4 variant, thesingle strongest risk variant for late-onset Alzheimer’s disease, remains at15% frequency in the population—one reason is that it may also up Vitamin D.”(KOZUBEK, 2017) Overall, engineeredtraits may advance the mankind in a temporary period, butultimately they may turn out to be detrimental.
From a biological standpoint, decreased biodiversitydue to “baby designing” will impede the human abilityto adapt, which is quite dangerous considering the worsening environmentalconditions???1 . On the other side, eugenics, an ideaworshiped by the Nazis holds the similar idea that selective breeding can beused to improve the human race.( Parry,2013) Winston and Krimskypointed out that “genetically modifying children via selecting desirable traitsfor them evoked this approach”.
(Parry, 2013) In aninternational level, What if some countries secretly launch an ambitiousprogram to “improve the quality” ofits citizens? What if mutants with wings, flippers, gillswere created as a tool for the richand those in power to dominate the earth? Just as described by Hayes(2008): “In a world still barely able to contain theforces of nationalism, ethnocentrism, andmilitarism, the last thing we need to worry about is a high-tech eugenic arms race.” Many people contended that “most of the babies’ genes are genetically altered becausethey will die without the altering”, and “we could have healthy babies freefrom any diseases, removing genetic disorders, deformities and giving them a longerlife expectancy”. (Debate.org,2018) But, if this technology becomes arealistic and accessible medical practice, it wouldcreate an even wider disparity between those that can afford the service andthose who cannot. With the cost of “sequencing one humangenome” dropping from over$100,000,000 in 2001 to about $7,000 in 2013, a set of assisted reproductivetechnology including IVF (in vitro fertilization), PGD (preimplantation geneticdiagnosis) and CVS (chorionic villus sampling) have opened the door to parents seeking advantages fortheir children, in the meanwhile, however, limited its use in the poverty colony, which will contribute an unfair condition for theunderprivileged. (“Designer”,2017)Furthermore, the impecunious parents who cannotafford the fees of the procedure are doomed to fail the preparation for theirchildren to compete with their counterparts who will seize the favorableposition by virtue of enhanced traits owing to advantageous genes their wealthyparents “bought” them before birth.
Just as is illustrated by thescience-fiction film Gattaca, which explores this issue by depicting a worldwhere only genetically-modified individuals can engage in the upper echelon ofsociety. The wealthy able to afford the selection of desirabletraits for their offspring and those of lower socioeconomic status unableto afford the same option will ultimately divide to a segregation between thesuperior “modified” humans, and the pure but inferior ones. And the “economicdivisions may grow into genetic divisions, with social distinctions delineatingenhanced individuals from unenhanced individuals”.( Ly, 2011) Therefore, if the usage of thetechnology is not constrained properly, the social situation of inequalitybetween the rich and the poor will turn more serious.