Genetics is the most powerful tool we have for producing “who” we want to be – in someone else. What happens when a base-pair within the DNA molecule gets shifted or damaged? With 23,000 genes in the human genome, we may be limited in what genetic engineering can produce (in us anyway).
Are we wanting to create a better species of humans? Where do you start the process? Is it in the brain, where potential for great intelligence is said to be seated? Is it in the body’s athletic stamina and strength? How about a super human ability to heal and regenerate, possibly a limb or organ? How different from ourselves would or could those individuals be?
An article in the Journal of Young Investigators points out a possible problem with human genetic engineering:
Female zebra finches prefer males with symmetric colorings. The rationale behind symmetry preference in both humans and animals is that symmetric individuals have a higher mate-value; scientists believe that this symmetry is equated with a strong immune system. Thus, beauty is indicative of more robust genes, improving the likelihood that an individual’s offspring will survive. (Journal of Young Investigators “Looking Good: Psychology and Biology of Beauty”, Issue 6, December 2002)
Looks can be deceiving. Individuals who look different from “the norm” can be adored – and ostracized, teased and worse. Celebrities like entertainers, political figures, and elite athletes often get ostracized for their own safety from an adoring or jealous following – we want the “best of us” to look and behave like we wish we could – but what do celebrities sacrifice as a result of our adoration and envy?
Whatever the reasons driving us towards a better and, well, “perfect” human, all we had to do in the first place was wiggle our noses! Perhaps we have been looking in the wrong direction – appearance. DNA is more about successful survival based on real threats from our environment than on producing “the best looking.” Besides, there seems to be among humans a strong desire for variety – an interesting little contradiction to the hive-mind philosophy that makes us respect and honor the “rugged individual” over the more cooperative.
From time immemorial, we humans have tried to change everything around us into something different than what it is. This is a somewhat conflicted behavior, as we abhor others doing the same to us. “I just love change as long as it doesn’t apply to me!!”
I wonder if DNA is just a program that keeps everything in perspective for us. It’s nice to go on vacation but it’s even nicer coming back home.
As I’m writing this I’m sure there are scientists in laboratories trying to engineer the “perfect” human being. But what that might look like is anybody’s [wrong] guess. Hitler and Tojo tried to engineer humans to serve as robot super-soldiers and members of the “master race.” We can see how that worked – and what it cost.
OTOH, I like the idea of genetically designing humans to be more resistant to deadly diseases like cancer and the flu – it’s just that when we do that, we open another flap of Pandora’s box. Our problem in genetic modification is that we cannot with certainty determine all the possible outcomes from our “fiddling”. Sure, one aspect may be addressed – happy, happy, joy, joy – but at the expense of what OTHER vital aspect?
You’ve only mentioned a couple downsides of genetic modification – but there could be horrific downsides – kind of like a computer programmer who doesn’t take into account ALL the possible consequences of his code, some of which might lock up a computer or cause it to melt down.
A genetic engineering “oops!” could spell death to all life on the planet. That’s more than a tiny bit worse than a computer meltdown… I’d say…
Well said! The older I get the more I appreciate being accepted for who I want to be rather than having to look like the politically correct beauty or behaving like an Olympic gold medalist. I definitely agree that there are consequences for idealistic thinking just like there is for unrealistic thinking. That’s not to say that following a dream isn’t admirable, just that transition may require a higher level of respect for the intrinsic worth of humans and not just on the aesthetic level. Perhaps the natural aspects of beauty and physical attributes must be developed in the eye of the beholder.
re: “being accepted for who I want to be…”
Me, too – it’s a stress I can no longer support. It’s a hard enough job being me… 😉
You certainly nailed it – there are consequence for thinking – not all of which I like… 😉
No doubt we are easily tricked/fooled by looks (aesthetics). What I like best about “intrinsic” is that it is mostly under my control and doesn’t depend on aesthetics, which are basically out of my control – I can more easily control my behavior than I can my basic looks.
Yes, Billions of dollars are spent each year on making the body look acceptable. Knowing who or what I am appealing to , I mean really knowing, could put a damper on cosmetics, hair coloring, hair applications, body piercing, tattooing, perfumes, skin and hair modification, plastic surgery, adornments like jewelry, shoes, clothing and many more. These financial investments put a strain on parents, or on those who use these things daily. We have so many people who need just the basics for living, while others are at the stores buying goodies to make themselves believe they are going to be better or more acceptable but to who or what?
My heart goes out to the”aesthetically needy” because the feeders may have just found a feast here.
For sure! And that doesn’t begin to address the psych market – $3T/yr goes to psychologists, psychiatrists, alternative healers, etc., and products in a vain attempt to make ourselves “acceptable” when if we could simply accept who we are as simply who we are, we’d probably all live in bliss.
Americans especially have a “never good enough” mentality that releases huge amounts of psychic energy into the ethos. Our collective belief is that “more is better” – that, “if I just had more, I’d be okay – for now.” – so buy, buy, buy…!!! Even those at the top of that food-chain are not immune – always seeking to possess or control more and more and more… ad infinitum, I suppose.
Talk about feeding!