Opportunist Argument

Throughout our lifetime we are in constant change, many of those changes are ones that you don’t notice. However permanent we set a change to ourselves, one thing we hardly notice change is our DNA. Just growing recently in popularity is genetic engineering , along with its immense potential which can do very much for us, in the future and today. However, with all the potential that genetic engineering carries many people have begun to resent what genetic engineering could become instead of focusing on the great capabilities, and what lies ahead of its bright future. Regardless of what others believe, Genetic engineering will renovate the way we do things today, genetic engineering is a tremendous step to accept, and without a doubt a step

Human genetic engineering is one of the newest scientific breakthroughs allowing DNA that is considered “bad” to be replaced using CRISPR. Due to this new technology discovered, many scientists around the world have agreed on banning the practice of humans and embryos, after China first was able to partially succeed in using CRISPR on embryos. The topic of human engineering is very controversial on ethics but also the benefits of the outcome on human genetic engineering and the fast pace that it is going in. Mary Shelley explains in Frankenstein that scientific progress is advancing faster than the human knowledge of science and shows this when Victor creates the creation and how he deals with the creation afterwards. Scientists are careful about transgressing ethical boundaries in the name of progress so that humans should

Worryingly, there has been minimal public debate regarding this technology that could irreversibly alter the human race. Instead, ethical discourse has been largely contained to scientific and political circles. It is extremely problematic that a large majority of the general public is unaware of the research and debate regarding human gene modification. In addition, the current debate has stagnated, with researchers and politicians being unable to find any common ground. However, upon close examination of the three main ideological groups within this controversy, a key similarity becomes apparent: each group, regardless of whether they are proponents or opponents of human gene

It is incredible to see how far genetic engineering has come. Humans, plants, and any living organism can now be manipulated. Scientists have found ways to change humans before they are even born. They can remove, add, or alter genes in the human genome. Making things possible that humans (even thirty years ago) would have never imagined. Richard Hayes claims in SuperSize Your Child? that genetic engineering needs to have limitations. That genetic engineering should be used for medical purposes, but not for “genetic modification that could open the door to high-tech eugenic engineering” (188). There is no doubt that genetic engineering can amount to great things, but without limits it could lead the human race into a future that no one

The ethical debate concerning biotechnological exploration into genetic cloning has created a monster in itself. A multitude of ethical questions arises when considering the effect of creating a genetically engineered human being. Does man or science have the right to create life through unnatural means? Should morality dictate these technological advancements and their effects on society? The questions and concerns are infinite, but so to are the curiosities, which continue to perpetuate the advancement of biotechnological science. In order to contemplate the effects that science can have on our society we can look back in history and literature to uncover the potentiality of our future

Humans desire perfection in everything, even if that means crossing the boundaries of natural life. A new looming untested technology, human genetic modification, raises questions as to whether it will advance human society or cause inconsistencies in the human genome. Essentially, this controversy will effect everyone since it is still early but it is an upcoming topic. Genetic engineering specifically effecting the next generations. Commentators on this debate argue that it will promote the positives of scientific advancements, but others dispute that this raises strong ethical concerns. Genetic engineering has the possibility to cure diseases while furthering modern medicine, but humans would abuse the process by creating a competitive

When most people perceive the slightest sound of the word Genetic Engineering they robotically think about cloning. A massive ninety seven percent of people in the Unites States of America have heard of cloning at least once in their lives has a from of Genetic Engineering. Most undoubtable because of infamous

“Humans have the will to live, and if gene medicine can improve our lifestyle, then we should be accepting of of this new technology.” In the science fiction novel, Flowers for Algernon, by Daniel Keyes Charlie wants to live a better lifestyle, and wants to become smarter, so he has gene surgery. Gene modification can cure genetic diseases, create a more enhanced human, and enhance our lifestyle. Genetic engineering should be, and can be used, because we can change the future by using it, we can ensure that future generations won’t have to deal with genetic disease, because we eliminated them, or being unintelligent.

In “DON’T TRY TO ENGINEER HUMAN EMBRYOS,” Stuart A. Newman proposes a number of negative outcomes that could become very real should mankind choose to pursue genetic engineering on a mass scale. He explains that this technology, should it become available to the public, has the potential to cause the creation of a genetic caste system, the over manipulation of human genes to create non-human creations, and the high probability of birth defects or cancer among genetically altered creatures. There is a high level of bias within this article that raises questions about its reliability. He fails to use any real statistics to back up his argument, makes outrageous claims without backing them up, and stoops so low as to simply attempt to make a

We know have to technology to create genetically superior humans that are stronger and faster. We now have the technology to reduce or eliminate deleterious genes and encourages desirable or superior traits. Human genetic engineering is portrayed as threatening by many and it is scary to think of the possibility of using gene engineering harmfully. We could create humans that are resistant to poisonous gases or war fighting machines. While these harmful things could happen, it is important to focus on the positives. We could prevent a child from being born with a life threatening disease or provide a loving mother, who can not naturally reproduce, with a child. In their book, Population Wars, Caroline Greeven and Greg Graffin provide two possibilities of human existence, one being “the rough trajectory of our lives have already been set in motion before we are born, that some of us are dealt good hands and some bad” (Greeven and Graffin 2015). While Graffin and Greeven are not directly talking about evolution and human genetic engineering, their words represent the argument against human genetic engineering. Many argue that we should not tinker with something as serious as human genetics and refer to that as “playing God.” However, French existentialist, Jean-Paul Sartre claims, “Man is free, man is freedom” (Sartre) and we should use that freedom to better ourselves and our societies because it is unjust to infringe on a person’s freedom. Humans have control over how we use this technology and hopefully we will use it safely and responsibly to produce societies that prosper and

This development has made the speculation of genetic engineering a reality, raising the question of whether or not it should be allowed. This is also just the beginning of what will be possible with genetic engineering of a human. Eventually, whole diseases could be eradicated, diseases such as alzheimer's or down syndrome. But as the technology would advance, it would make genetic engineering cheaper, and more available to the public, which raises the issue of people using the technology to create a

These results clearly show that the public stance on the matter is varied, with 46% saying that genetic modification of babies is appropriate when it is used in order to reduce the risk of genetic disease, but that in cases of improving the baby’s intelligence the vast majority (83%) viewed that this was ‘taking medical advances too far’ (Pew Research Center, 2015). Whilst nearly a half of the public viewed germ-line engineering to be acceptable for therapeutic purposes, there was still a larger percentage (50%) which said that even this was a step too far, thus indicating the public caution around such a controversial topic, and showing that Berger’s predictions may not be completely accurate .

Genetic engineering has become increasingly normalized in today’s society, and people are exposed to this technology now more than ever before. Most people are aware that food companies practice genetic engineering on their plants in order to design the most profitable crops, but it isn’t generally known that this same technology can be applied to humans. The concept of picking certain traits and characteristics of a human may appear desirable, but many risks and potential side effects may follow considering that it is unknown what genetic engineering could affect in future generations. Francis Fukuyama, an accomplished and distinguished professor of political economy and philosopher, conveys his concern that genetic engineering is developing at a surprisingly rapid rate. Within his book, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, he claims that genetic engineering not only will potentially be detrimental for the human race, but due to the change in nature of human beings, such engineering will also result in significantly impacting government and politics. Although genetic engineering can be seen as a huge technological advancement that could potentially help millions, there are drastic negative effects and reasons for disapproving genetic engineering that are too important to be overlooked.

Bostrom argues that society can adapt to see the worth in modified, “posthuman” people, allotting them dignity and rights as humans even though they are modified (Bostrom 3). Sade looks at genetic modification through a much more practical lens, observing real, immediate benefits and drawbacks of genetic modification rather than overarching philosophy. There are undoubtedly many dangers and problems that will arise from mainstream genetic modification, some that may even shake the foundation of the society and culture of today. However, countless benefits come with gene therapy as well. Concrete improvements to the human race, from increased intelligence, athleticism, and height, to immunization from major diseases to perhaps eventually immortality. These benefits largely outweigh the ethical drawbacks that society will surely adapt to as the years go on. Many groundbreaking technologies have changed the structure of society in the past, like the cotton gin, assembly line, and internet. Each time, humans have successfully adapted to take full advantage of the benefits while manage the dangers and drawbacks, concrete and cultural. Whether people like it or not, mainstream genetic modification is inevitable as technology keeps increasing, and society should find solutions to manage it rather than cower from it. The future is coming, and humans should be ready for the

One of the biggest pictures that are against genetic engineering is that humans are not supposed to play the role of God. DNA is a unique thing to every person. Bioengineering itself involves the very technical aspects of modification, and the enhancement of stem cells or DNA and this process can change the human structure. “The progress of civilization has been having been largely dependent upon the out ‘interference with nature’.”(Encyclopedia of Applied Plant Sciences).