Although genetic altering could help to cure many of the world’s diseases, it would ultimately cause more problems than it would solve. In Brave New World, the seemingly perfect society is full of people who have been genetically altered to work and live in conditioned areas of the world. They live without diseases, attachment, or basically any feelings. So, what could go wrong?
Genetic altering could rid the world of fatal diseases like cancer and AIDS, and could give people longer lives and more opportunities. People would not have to face every day knowing they only have a ceratin amount of time to live, or have to see a loved one slowly lose their life. Genetic altering people to rid them of disease could change the world we live in as we know it. But would it ultimately be for the good? At the start, ridding people of disease will give everyone longer lives. Slowly, however, as the lives of people grow longer and the people of our planet continue to repopulate, our world will grow smaller. Overpopulation, starvation, and poverty will become more of a problem than it already is today. With more people on the planet, and longer lives than ever, those who are unable to keep up with the changing world will be dragged under the new civilization. They will be left on the streets, without diseases yes, but starving and poor.
This would also lead to a record-breaking growth between the social classes. With Darwinism coming into effect, those who cannot keep up with society will fall behind and be lost. The population of the world’s homeless will sky rocket while the rich grow richer. Cities will drown in poverty, leading to out breaks and riots in the streets. The genetic altering of people would do a lot more to this world than cure diseases or let parents chose the eye color of their child. There is also the issue of the cost. Who would pay for it, the government or the family? If it is the government, a limit on the spending would have to be created in order to keep a balance. And also, who would chose which families would receive the chance to alter their children? If the family were to pay, than only the rich and well-off would be able to. This would again create a growth in the distance of the social classes. If only the rich can alter their children, than their children will ultimately be better, leaving the children of the poor behind in the world.
I understand that this does give many parents the opportunity they did not previously have to conceive a child. It opens up a new world of possibilities for those who are unable to start a family. "No politician wants to get between a childless couple and the doctors who offer an answer to their prayers" (Gibbs). In an article found in Time magazine, Nancy Gibbs brought up the argument of where the line should be drawn in the new found world on genetic altering. "Science has given us childbirth miracles. Now we need laws to create some boundaries."
Many aspects come into the process of creating these boundaries. Religion is huge. It is believed that a child who is genetically altered loses their soul, and therefor, is hardly human. It is messing with nature and what God has intended and stepping in the balance of the world. Many would argue that it’s not right to create a child through science because it is not natural. Children should be born through parents, two humans, not scientists and their test tubes. There are so many different aspects coming into the decision of the boundaries, that it would be next to impossible to create them.
Another positive aspect of genetic altering, however, is that if parents can chose the physical appearance of their child, they would also be able to chose their race, leaving no one in the minority. This would eliminate racism. A world without racism would contain less conflicts between its citizens, and everyone would be the best. At least everyone would consider themselves the best. In the novel Brave New World, each social group considers themselves the best, based solely on childhood conditioning. However, none of these citizens know anything of the other groups of people. This creates great ignorance. In a world where everyone is superior, great pride lives along side its citizens. There is no superiority if there is no one, or no group, under who or what is the best. If everyone is the best, who does everyone consider the worst? Eliminating race from the factors of the minority, what new factors will emerge as the cause for racism? These new factors could be worse than the ones we are living with today; a new racism.
So we as a world society must decide what is better: a world rid of disease, or overpopulation, poverty, and new forms of racism. What would you chose?
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
At the end of your blog, you focus on race. You mention eliminating race. Will the various races be eliminated? Do you think the Chinese will allow such a thing to happen. Or will it be the caucasian race that will be eliminated. It appears that you and your colleagues are thinking only of America as you write about genetic engineering. What about Africa? I am looking at an article on global populations. http://www.census2010.gov/ipc/prod/wp02/wp-02004.pdf
What influence will Africans and Chinese have in the use of genetic engineering?
Today racial problems abound. In some places, such as Africa, the term used is tribal coflict. In a place such as Bosnia, it was ethnic conflict. In our country, discrimination continues, not just racial, but ethnic. Can any of these be solved with genetic engineering. I wonder...
Your use of counterarguments worked effectively to emphasize your own arguments and stances. They created a nice balance in your paper showing your ability to see both sides of the argument, while creating jumping off points for your own beliefs. Your use of rhetorical questions also helped to create transitions from argument to refute, which enhanced the fluidity of your paper.
You brought up some good points about the idea that genetic engineering could result in overpopulation which would in turn lead to starvation and poverty. There definitely would have to be a solution to the growing population. I think your example of Darwin’s survival of the fittest was a good way to explain how the rich and poor would continue to grow apart. You effectively integrated pathos into this portion of your argument in order to appeal to the emotions of the reader.
However, I think you could have expanded on your topic of a new racism. Perhaps, giving examples of a new form of racism would have helped to further defend your argument. Right now it seems sort of like a slippery slope with little logic to back it up.
But overall good job!
Post a Comment