Possible Ethical Concerns Regarding Human Engineering

Genetic engineering is a process that has been dreamed of for generations by the most ambitious of scientists. With current science making this once far off dream a reality, two men were quick to throw their opinions into the air, making their stance clear on the subject. In “Building Baby from Genes Up” Ronald M. Green encourages people to embrace the inevitable benefits that genetic modification will shower upon the world. Contrasting this article is the more reserved Richard Hayes with “Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks”, in which he warns of the harm it will undoubtedly bring to humanity.

Since the risks of the worst impacts of climate change are closely related to greenhouse gas emissions, the authors proposed that by genetically engineering human beings to be smaller in height, our consumption and utilization of natural resources would reduce correspondingly: this in turn would help reduce and stabilize greenhouse gas emissions. The article also proposed that by altering humans’ desire for red meat into a repulsive attitude, mass livestock estates would lessen, therefore resulting in a decrease in greenhouse gases. In summary, the article suggests that we should change ourselves physically and psychologically in order to change the world. Although the question of whether this is a feasible task is still left unanswered, the solution of inventing new technology to make humans more inclined to be environmentally friendly strikes the bioconservatives as improbable because of the potential dehumanization associated with it. If we re-examine it in a bigger picture, suppression of desire or manipulation of physical properties are violations of the spontaneous, natural existence of human beings.

Thomas Jefferson once declared the rights to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” to be inalienable rights. Before him, John Locke espoused the philosophical view of Libertarianism with the belief that everyone has the right to life, liberty, health, and property. Since the Enlightenment there has been an emphasis on life, but rarely has the quality of life been an issue. There are no written ethical codes in science or engineering that defines what should be an appropriate quality of life.

One of the most prominent ethical issues faced today is that of human enhancement. The ethical issues that occur when looking at the concept of human enhancement are defined by the ideas of “human nature, personal identity, moral status, well-being, and problems in normative ethics, political philosophy, philosophy of mind, and epistemology” (Savulescu, 2) There are a plethora of ways in which human enhancement can become an issue in every profession such as sports, marketing, and any job that requires heightened brain use. Three categories that are most talked about are: the use of steroids, cosmetic enhancement, and the use of drugs for enhancement (Savulescu, 17). These categories of enhancements can be argued for because of the idea that one’s body is one’s own- one has the right to do what they want with their body, whether it be piercing, tattooing, or enhancing the inside of your body. For those who say, “human enhancement is not a just system and not right,” the response would be, don’t we live in a world of constant human enhancement?

There have been many instances in science where ethical consideration for human participants has been called into question. Between 1920-1970 many ethical guidelines were put into place to ensure researchers were conducting experiments safety, ethically, and fairly. Out of all the experiments that took place within this time frame, a few stand out. These cases were groundbreaking for ethical treatment within the scope of research done on human subjects.

Genetic engineering is the manipulation of genetic material in a cell to produce desired characteristics; desired “new” genes are placed into a little virus like organism that is allowed to get into your cell and insert the new genes into the cell along with the “old” genes. Scientists have learned how to pair and mix different characteristics of unrelated organisms by moving genes from one organism to another. Genetic engineers modify human genes using three approaches: cloning, somatic cell manipulation, and human germline manipulation.

People have been eating genetically modified foods for decades without even realizing it. Now that people are aware of additives and chemicals, some are concerned about the safety, and an increase in food allergies has made people wary. However, there are advancements in engineered crops, such as increased nutrients. Furthermore, crop engineering is not the only area dealing with tension. Another part of the developing science that is viewed with apprehension is engineered humans. Advocates claim that stronger traits, and new improved medicines will be made as a result of genetic engineering, but critics argue that the exact opposite will occur, such as, ethics will

With the breakthrough of scientific discoveries in recent decades, humans have attained progressively more power over Mother Nature. Specifically, genetic engineering has allowed for the modification of the genetic makeup of humans. While the power to modify genes sounds great and many possibilities, it also burdens mankind with many ethical issues. Although genetic engineering in humans is acceptable under some circumstances it is unacceptable and unethical in others.

Since the development of genetic engineering in the 1970s, scholars have questioned its ethical justification, claiming that it was playing God’ and was unnatural. Others claimed that humans have always altered their environment to benefit themselves. An example is that of genetically modified crops which some people believe can be justified for a number of reasons. The food has better taste and quality and a greater resistance to pests and diseases; it is environmentally friendly in that it does not require chemical pesticides and will conserve soil, water and energy; and it offers the world’s

Genetically engineered organisms or to be more precise food are actually not very good for human safety. Let us take the example of a genetically engineered brand of L-tryptophan, which is a common dietary supplement. It killed more than 30 people and permanently disabled more than 1,500 others with a potentially fatal and painful blood disorder called eosinophilia myalgia syndrome in 1989 and 1990 in America[1]. Other examples include the widespread use of DDT in past decades that has caused serious problems that were unintended and unexpected.

"The characteristics of genetic engineering have substantial behavior towards the good and the bad” (Powell 13). Although we do not recognize the true meaning of this quote at first glance, these words actually posses the key to mankind. Even though genetic engineering supports an exciting opportunity for the humanity, many red flags have been raised related to problems with safety, the availability, and most of all the epidemic itself. It has been portrayed throughout the years that genetic engineering not only induces a strong risks to children, Ladies, and gentleman, but also produces a new threat to the environment. Yes, genetic engineering has the chance to have a number of medical advancements, but in reality it is a devastating experiment for the development between technology and mankind.

What’s morally acceptable depends on where in the world one lives. Accepting a position can be very immoral. Balancing the general needs of an individual with the needs of the society at large that will provide the most benefit to the most people is very important as depicted clearly in the moral theories (Harris, Pritchard, Rabins, James & Englehardt, 2013). As it is said that humanity have a right to life, liberty and prosperity it’s very important for one to be very honest to respect individuals and protect the rights of others and making sure that in any way they do not make the to suffer with the choices we take. Since the best hope for saving the family’s farm would be for Gerald to find for employment as an

The purpose of this article is to bring awareness to the increasing health effects global warming and climate change have on humans. In addition, to encourage readers to consider that by reducing the effects of global warming, they are by default improving public health. Going off of that, it’s evident that the authors intended audience is people in the medical field because in the article she addressed her audience by saying “Health professionals everywhere have a responsibility to put health at the heart of climate change negotiations.” (Rossati, 2017). This doesn’t necessarily mean that only people in the medical field can read the article, but it’s obvious they would have more to gain from the content.

Industrial Engineers are seldom faced with the major moral dilemmas that will affect public safety, which often headline the news when they go wrong, examples including: a plane wreck, a building falling, or a major gas leak. Industrial Engineers are faced with numerous moral predicaments, albeit they are not the kind that affect the lives of large amounts of people. The moral issue that I will be exploring, is whether it is acceptable to execute a slightly immoral action, when being pushed to do so by a superior. There is not a right answer that applies to every situation, or to everybody; I will explore this issue from various standpoints and ethical ideals before I reach my conclusion.

Modern human civilization is currently changing and expanding at an outstanding rate, unparalleled by any period of development in all of history. Unfortunately, the quick advancement of our technology over the past 250 years has resulted in unforeseen consequences that prove to be one of the biggest threats facing the world today. The mistreatment of the diverse environments on our planet and the reckless exploitation of resources such as fossil fuels have resulted in the rapid degradation of our environmental health that is endangering life all over the globe. In response to these unprecedented circumstances, Engineers who help to create these technological advancements must do all they can to ensure they cause no harm to the environment with their work. An engineer engages in a social contract that requests their actions be in the interest of the public – any projects that can cause further harm to the global ecosystem in which we live must be cautiously managed with great attention to detail and an understanding of the importance in maintaining an ethical relationship with the environment and those who inhabit it. In order to better understand how an engineer must act, we must first develop an understanding of why environmental damage is a serious issue and why education on environmental issues seems to be lacking. To begin, we will first take a moment to review our understanding of the dangers of climate change.