mmoa_writes

There are very intelligent people out there who have rather silly ideas about a genetically modified future for humankind.



One of my (least) favourites is the old 'people will only want perfect children' line. In itself, this isn't actually such a bad thing and noone seems to be able to tell me why it is a bad thing to want perfect children, but they still insist on spewing this out at me, with a concerned shake of the head as they do so. Maybe it's the idea that if people conceived imperfect children, they would abort them, but then, by that time we would have the technology to make them perfect and hey presto, no abortion!

Or do they mean that because only the rich would be able to afford such treatment, the lower-classes would feel inadequate and anort any obviously imperfect babies, in order to be on equal terms with the elite? Perhaps they would, but somehow I doubt it. Lower-classes are actually proud of being lower-class (shock! Horror!). Just as some parents really don't want their child to go University (because they didn't and it worked out alright for them, huh!) or to eat 'rabbit food' that would eventually ensure their child live to say, 60 at least, or to enjoy classical music and go to the theatre, it wouldn't surprise me if the lower-class actually take their non-GM selves as a point of pride.

The middle classes would just squirm uncomfortably.

But actually, I don't think people are actually thinking to that extent. So what do they mean by the desire for perfect children as a critisism?

Is it... the fear that all children will end up looking the same? First off, again, it has to be explained why this is bad (don't get me wrong, it's an unattractive future, but not necessarily bad) and secondly, it seems highly unlikely that every single person means exactly the same thing when they say they want a 'perfect' child.

Some want a child who is gregarious, and others, one that is thoughtful. Some cheeky, others shy. Even if we found that we could never engineer personalities, I doubt that all GM children will even look all the same. I, for example, happen to find dark skinned children utterly entrancing, especially when paired with green-hazel eyes (a mix I have actually seen). Most Nigerians, however, actually find lighter skinned, dark eyed children more attractive, but not too light or they might look like an albino (which has connotations of leprosy for most West Africans). I'm sure there's someone in Abuja now, who's dreaming of bearing an albino baby girl. Even against the backdrop of a culturally accepted notion of beauty, you can still get the cultural pariahs who hanker after something different.

In fact, I propose that we would see a future where children are genetically modified for novel features, rather than in an attempt to ape some stock idea of beauty.

And in this supposed future where everything can be modified after birth, what would really be the point of going through the extra expense of genetically modifying your child before birth?

Until we define what perfect means, I think we should stop using it in criticism. Just a thought.

Is it... fear that parents will only want super-smart/genius kids?

Geniuses are actually pretty useless. I'm not sure if anyone's realised this, but they are. What we really need, and have only ever needed, are clever people, but not geniuses. In today's world, we have no real use for the genius: the computer has taken over calculation, the Internet/library system for data storage. Even the highly intelligent, apart from back rubbing in their MENSA clubs, are not really doing what one would think is deserved of their mental 'capacities'. They are not, in short, out there ruling the world or advising politicians. Geniuses are often at a handicap because they cannot be moulded into a particular, or several particular (?), use. They come already formed. Clever people are more malleable and hence more useful: they have mental potential which true geniuses lack.

By the time humanity is in an age where we can genetically farm super-humans, we would have realised this. Why bother engineering a math genius when a computer chip in the brain can transform you into the next Euclid? Why would a parent want a genius for a child anyway? Well, even if they did, I cannot say that it would even be a large percentage of the future parent population would do so, so that argument flies out of the window as well.

Is it... fear of the unnatural?

This is the most fun of the arguments because it illustrates the base hypocrisy of humanity. When people talk about GM as unnatural, I wonder if they have pets, or eat farm reared animals or live in a city or any man made construction, or wear complex clothing. Interfering with genetics, with what nature has made, is what makes us Human. Being unnatural is what makes us Human. We think up ethics and morality and religions and philosophy and politics and aesthetics. We have absurd fashions and fetishes that we live and die by. We have manners and taste. We have elegance.

We know that the supposedly simultaneous reponses of desire and so on are little more than us actively selecting which partner we would rather have children by. So, even naturally we are trying to control the genetic heritage of our offspring, it's just that nature is so goddamn inefficient.

Maybe it's just that which terrifies people; turning all that wonderful sex and stuff into efficient mechanised processes (because all that thrusting isn't already: I mean come on, we even lubricate on demand...)

But I don't see why it has to be like that. I mean, we're not simple robots or machines. We can make new rituals and religions. Hell, that's what we do as a matter of course.



A little more imagination. That's all it takes.