Question: Should people be allowed to use gene therapy to enhance

human traits such as height, intelligence, or athletic ability?

Essay by: Nick Schock

Feb,26,2018

As we enter an age of advanced bio-engineering and gene editing,

many moral dilemmas arise because of religion, sociology, and
philosophy. The common thread of all of these dilemmas is the question
of “is it right to change who we are as people, as a society, and as a race
of sentient beings”. However, the result of such a study, if positive,
would be undeniably a leap forward in our progression towards an
interstellar race.

If we could enhance our genes, why should we? What do we have

to gain? If gene editing becomes widespread throughout our daily lives,
we could see drastic improvements with struggles that have plagued
humanity from the start. With gene editing we could create immunities
to common and deadly diseases alike, while implementation of such an
undertaking would be difficult. It could create a long-term solution to
epidemics such as malaria, and other deadly diseases. On top of it’s use
in medicine, gene editing could be used to adapt our digestive system to
a more practical diet. If we could redesign ourselves so that we can
digest new genetically modified foods, we could produce healthy, and
cheap food incredibly quickly. Beyond fixing current issues gene editing
of our fitness and intelligence can push innovation and competition to a
new level. Because of the many benefits of successful gene editing it is a
tempting field of study, however it could just as easily wreak havoc on
our society.

gene editing is a highly controversial topic. Some religious people

see gene editing as us "playing god", this argument could stunt the
growth of the gene editing business, worse still it could create a
biological divide between people for and against gene editing. However,
 even with the religious taboo against gene-editing, people will
experiment and progress in the field and their hesitation and/or repulsion
to this progress could lead to disastrous consequences. Religion isn't the
only cause for division on gene editing, poverty could make it so that
only the rich can get gene enhancements. If the divide between rich and
poor ever became a biological difference, it could lead to the creation of
a superior race, and an inferior race. This would then open the door for
racial subjugation worse than the African slavery issue of the last few
centuries. Lastly, people question the morality of gene editing within
philosophy, personally i find a certain thought experiment called "the
ship of theseus" provokes interesting questions on the topic of gene
editing. "The ship of theseus" thought experiment asks you to imagine a
ship on a long journey for 20 years, over the years the ship's boards rot,
and when they do they are replaced. 20 years later the ship returns back
to the original port, over the 20 years all of the boards have been
replaced, because of the continuous repairs, not even a board of the
original ship is still there, if that is the case is it still the same ship? when
in relation to gene editing this question can be modified to, if we change
the DNA of the human race are we still human? this is a difficult
question to answer and as such there has been no widespread consensus
on how much DNA editing we can do without changing our identity.
When laws, and politics have to cope with this befuddling question we
may end up with laws that benefit certain sub-races and deter others,
while the complications of this question are far in the future, this
question will need to be answered.

In my opinion, there are a couple of ways to proceed with genetic

editing and enhancement. First, we have to accept the progression of
gene editing, however we must also guide it very carefully. Gene editing
will continue to progress whether it's guided by transparent and
responsible governing bodies like the united nations, or by greedy black
market dealers. this kind of progress can't be stopped it can only be
guided and regulated. Another way we can help create a safe
environment for gene editing is retaining equal oppurtunity for both
modified and un-modified humans. along with strict enforcement of anti-
subjugation laws and a government made up of a 1:1, modified to un-
modified ratio, would help create a world were people kept their rights
whether they chose to be "enhanced" or not. Lastly, I believe that the
field of philosophy could help with some of the difficult moral questions
our government will be asked. With the proper foresight and answering
of questions like "how do we keep a fair and equal constitution with
different sub-races of humans?" if we are ever asked to answer these
questions on legal issues, it would be incredibly useful to have a widely
accepted answer before the crisis arrives.

In conclusion, I believe we must tread carefully, gene editing is a

field of study as dangerous and unpredictable as a minefield. However
without open, and transparent governing of these issues the progress of
gene editing could be tainted in a similar fashion as the discovery of
E=MC2. E=MC2 has helped us understand how the universe works,
however, it was also responsible for the use of 2 nuclear warheads that
took at least 129,000 civilian lives before the united nations brokered a
treaty. If we can set up the foundation for strong united nations policies
about gene editing we could reap the massive benefits of gene editing,
without creating a dystopian society.