Steven Chien April 29, 2012 Theory of Knowledge Dr.

Marcela Rossi Homo Futurus Scientists often argue about whether modern humans are called homo sapiens or homo sapiens sapiens. Some argue that there are enough anatomical changes that separate them; some argue that the distinction is in the massive difference in development. Some argue, that there is no difference. However, advances in Genetic Engineering have already paved the way for a new species, the Homo Futurus. There has previously been speculation about the possibility of genetic manipulation, but advances in genetic engineering have made that a reality. At first glance it might seem obviously convenient to enhance select facets of the human genome, but that is an idealistic view. The practical and moral barriers make the idea of genetic modifications having a net benefit to society ways away. First is the practical barrier, which is basically why it wouldnt work. As is usually with breakthrough technology, making a genetically perfected child would cost a large sum of money. If In Vitro Fertilization by itself is already so expensive, there is no knowing how expensive a designer baby would be. Most likely, however, the service would only be available to the very wealthy. In a world in which the rich tend to stay rich and the poor tend to stay poor, giving the rich a head start before they are even born would make things even more uneven. The baby lucky enough to be born with genetic predisposition will most likely be born into a family that is already privileged, and it would be even harder for those not as well off to catch up and even out living conditions.

With so many genes to choose from, it is hard to make a choice. Blue eyes or green eyes? Brown hair or blond hair? The choosing of the childs physical traits would be out of a catalog, much like choosing the ingredients in a sushi roll. Both the waiter/waitress as well as genetic manipulation are not perfect; the end result could possibly not be exactly the way it was ordered. Eating shrimp instead of crab wouldnt be a major problem, and there is always the choice of returning it and asking for it to be done again. But would it be ethically and morally acceptable to return an imperfect baby? This leads to the second barrier: the moral and ethical. Most parents would not get rid of their child for being naturally born with a disease or imperfection; the child is after all, their own blood. Having been carried in the mothers womb for nine months, the baby has a story to tell. But does the genetically modified child have any of these things? The child wouldnt resemble the parents, wouldnt carry many of their genetic traits and wont have been carried by the mother. This does not mean the child is any less human or worth any less, but then the traditional arguments for not terminating the life of an inconvenient child are no longer valid. It makes for an entirely new ethical reform. If they were considered equal, then would they be allowed to compete on the same competitions, take the same standardized tests, and even go to the same schools? If they were allowed to do so, then they would have an obvious advantage, and would kill the spirit of competition. Conversely, if they were separated, then there would be segregation based on ability and could create an inferiority complex among those who were born normally. The feeling of being sub-standard based on concrete, palpable bases (the genetic composition) might be a detriment to society among those who are not modified. We currently live in a world in which we are all born more or less equal

regardless of financial status (how we preserve, improve, or deteriorate this condition might be more influenced by financial status, but that is aside the point), and the availability of genetic manipulation would make it so even natural ability is no longer fairly distributed. Allowing for correction instead of perfection is raising an individual from a sub-standard to a standard level. An example of this would be the correction of a lazy eye, for example. Fixing a problem that affects a small amount of the population and allowing that individual to be at the same level as the majority is something that has been done for a very long time. When instead of correcting a mistake, one gives 25/20 night-vision to a child, matters become different. Instead While predicting too far into the future could potentially lead to the logical fallacy of the slippery slope, the fact is that these short-term outcomes are most likely to happen. Expensive procedures, with a chance of there being a mistake, will create inequality to an even further extent among the different social classes within society.