In this blog post, we will examine the validity and issues surrounding the choice of selecting your child’s genes from personal, social, and ethical perspectives.
It is natural for everyone to want their loved ones to live healthy lives without illness. This desire is even stronger when those loved ones are your children. The pace of scientific and technological advancement is rapid, and what was once considered science fiction in the movie “Gattaca” just over a decade ago is no longer an impossible scenario. Therefore, we may soon face the choice of whether to select the genetic traits of our unborn children.
When faced with this question, numerous considerations come to mind, making it difficult to make a decision easily. One of the first concerns that arises is whether it is right for humans to defy the laws of nature. Of course, those who believe that following the laws of nature is right will reject this proposal outright. However, even among those who believe that humans can sometimes defy the laws of nature, not everyone accepts this option positively. Some may argue that while humans can defy nature, pre-selecting the genetic traits of one’s children is wrong. Therefore, when addressing the issue of genetic selection, pondering whether “defying nature is right” can lead to confusion due to differences in categories.
To decide whether to accept or reject the proposals of science and technology, we should not look at “nature” as a whole, but rather at “human beings.” We must consider what is more beneficial for “human beings” and make a decision based on that. To conclude, when considering the impact on humanity, no one should be allowed to select the genetic traits of their unborn children. The reasons for rejecting the choices presented by science and technology can be examined from two categories: personal and social. The specific reasons for each category support the opposition to genetic selection while also pointing out the flaws in the arguments put forward by those in favor of genetic selection.
First, genetic selection deprives individuals of the opportunity for self-discovery. Maslow (A. H. Maslow) described self-actualization as the highest level of human needs in his hierarchy of needs theory. Even psychologists who disagree with Maslow’s theory do not dispute that self-actualization is an important aspect of human needs. Self-actualization begins with self-exploration, which requires a process of discovering one’s interests and aptitudes. Through this challenging process, humans establish the starting point for self-actualization. However, children born through genetic selection are denied this exploratory process because their aptitudes are already known. All that remains for them is the choice of whether their innate aptitudes are interesting or not.
Those who support genetic selection argue, “Since our strengths are already determined, isn’t it better for children to be born with strengths that will benefit them?” However, determining what “strengths will benefit them” is already depriving the child of an important right. All humans have the right to decide what values are important in their lives. They have the right to live their lives autonomously. However, the judgment of what is “good to have” inevitably involves the parents’ values. This amounts to implanting the parents’ values in the child beforehand, and the child is born deprived of one choice due to the parents’ abuse of their rights. Needless to say, depriving a child of the opportunity for self-exploration also reduces the possibility of self-realization.
Second, there is the problem that individuals’ feelings of inferiority may be exacerbated. Inferiority is a relative emotion. Even if an individual excels in many areas compared to others, they may feel inferior because they lack one thing. In a society where genetic selection is commonplace, there will be many more factors that foster feelings of inferiority in individuals. When selecting their children’s genes, parents are unlikely to choose inferior traits. Therefore, it can be expected that most children will be superior to the current average. However, since each parent focuses on different strengths, some children may have to rely solely on natural selection for traits that others have genetically determined to be superior. Such children are more likely to feel a greater sense of inferiority than those of average ability.
The bigger problem is that this situation can occur frequently. Those who argue that it is acceptable to determine a child’s genetic traits through genetic selection claim that “by eliminating the possibility of disabilities or social maladjustment through genetic manipulation, children will not only be better able to adapt to society but also lead happier lives.” However, there is a problem with the very act of eliminating recessive traits so thoroughly.
Social perceptions of people with disabilities or social maladjustment could worsen compared to current levels. Since trait expression is not guaranteed to be 100 percent, there remains a possibility that traits parents sought to eliminate—including those associated with disabilities or social maladjustment—could still manifest. In a “leveled-up” society, could individuals born with dominant traits overcome feelings of inferiority and lead happy lives under a more critical social gaze?
It is an issue that must be carefully considered whether it is right to further marginalize a minority in order to improve the average quality of life. Third, there is a risk that an unhealthy competitive system will spread throughout society. Even humans born with superior traits through genetic selection will live in relationships with others. Competition in this process is inevitable. Even in today’s society, the nature of competition is a hotly debated issue.
It is impossible for all members of society to compete under the same conditions, and it is difficult to measure the extent of effort made by each individual. As a result, questions about the validity of outcomes inevitably arise. When the level of the environment provided is too disparate or when effort is disregarded, dissatisfaction is particularly pronounced. If strengths are predetermined through genetic selection, competition will inevitably become a contest of innate abilities. This creates a high likelihood of problematic competition emerging.
From this perspective, the argument by supporters of genetic selection that “identifying dominant genes in advance can have a positive impact on society” loses its validity. If elements deemed “social evils” are eliminated in advance, this could certainly benefit society. However, if genetic selection transforms societal competition into a contest over innate traits, this could be regarded as the emergence of a new “social evil.”
The social benefits that can be gained through genetic selection cannot be considered advantageous when viewed from a broader perspective. Finally, human dignity could be significantly undermined in our society. Genetic selection inherently implies the assumption that humans can be quantified and evaluated. This is a dangerous notion that threatens human dignity.
For example, if there is a child who is likely to be born with a curved spine, at what percentage of probability can we label that child as inferior? Humans cannot be easily judged as superior or inferior like corn or rice. Furthermore, it is not right to deny an individual the opportunity to be born and live just because they are deemed inferior. The core of human dignity lies in the fact that every human being has value simply by virtue of their existence. However, if we not only judge people as superior or inferior but also deny those deemed inferior the opportunity to live, we cannot say that human dignity is being respected.
Of course, supporters of genetic selection argue that “we are merely allowing genetic selection; its implementation is entirely up to the individual. Furthermore, they argue that if genetic selection is used solely for the purpose of preventing serious diseases in advance, there is no need to worry greatly about the issue of human dignity. However, this is a misunderstanding that stems from the belief that human dignity is something that is protected on an individual basis. Values such as safety consciousness, community consciousness, and human dignity are not important because of whether a few individuals cause problems or not, but because of the seriousness of the decline in the status of these values themselves. In other words, the problem is not how many people violate it, but the fact that it is not being upheld. Genetic selection should not be permitted because it always has the potential to undermine the value of human dignity. There is no guarantee that genetic selection, which began with the purpose of preventing disease, will not take on the same form as the current obsession with plastic surgery.
Based on the discussions so far, selecting a child’s genetic traits would lead to the deprivation of opportunities for self-exploration and the deepening of feelings of inferiority on an individual level, and the formation of an unjust competitive system and the violation of human dignity on a societal level. Therefore, genetic selection must never be permitted. At the core of the idea of using genetic selection to determine a child’s genetic traits lies the desire for one’s beloved child to live a healthy life. However, is genetic selection the only way to achieve this desire? The answer is a resounding no. Genetic selection is, in fact, a difficult technology to realize. The prediction that various diseases will not yet have been cured by the time genetic selection becomes possible lacks persuasiveness.
John Stuart Mill once said, “Better to be a hungry Socrates than a well-fed pig,” emphasizing the value of living as a human being. Proponents of genetic selection believe that it can create a “well-fed Socrates.” They argue that it is possible to enjoy physical and material benefits without compromising human dignity. However, genetic selection is not an option that will create a “well-fed Socrates.” While one may become well-fed, one must sacrifice the things that make one human. Ultimately, genetic selection deprives one’s children of the opportunity to live as Socrates. Technology is merely a means to help humans live as humans. Children are not tools to realize their parents’ values. The fear of dominant gene expression in children evokes the proverb, “A fear of maggots prevents one from making pickles.” Therefore, the choices that science and technology may present to us in the future must be firmly rejected.
