Rhetorical Analysis Of `` Newgenics `` By Edwin Black, And `` A Pragmatic Optimism Of Enhancement Technologies `` Essay

We are living is a world where very soon it will be possible for people to create ‘designer babies’ that have all the features they wish for. In the article Building Baby from the Genes Up, Ronald M. Green talks about all the positive impacts that genetic modification of human beings can have on our future generations. Green acknowledges some of the negatives such as parents creating perfect children and being able to give them any trait the parent wants. However in the end he comes to the conclusion that the positive impacts of getting rid of genes that cause obesity, cancer, learning disorders, and many other diseases and disorders, outweighs the negative aspects. Richard Hayes, author of Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks, takes the stance that we should not be able to change anything about human beings through genetic modification. He believes that once we start modifying a few features, it will slowly turn into every parent altering as many of their babies’ genes that they want. While he does acknowledge the positive impacts of getting rid of negative genes such as Tay-Sachs, he believes that it is not worth the risk of having parents manipulate all their future children’s genes to their liking. Green and Hayes stand on opposite sides of the debate about genetic modification of human beings and this essay will explore the similarities and the differences of their articles.

Savulescu in "Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement" suggests that we have an obligation to enhance. His core argument can be interpreted as threefold: The right thing to do to enhance, the consistency that comes with the enhancement, and there is no difference between enhancement and treating diseases.

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

Sandel does a wonderful job of refuting many of the common arguments against genetic enhancement before presenting us with his own case which revolves around three negative outcomes he thinks will come as a result of human genetic enhancement. Sandel argues that the first negative outcome, is a severe reduction in human humility, which he claims is necessary human emotion. He argues against what he calls “the drive to mastery” (27); since we would have complete control over our genetic makeup, and could manipulate it to our liking, we would no longer have to be grateful to some higher power

Dan W. Brock makes a few interesting points in defending genetic engineering, while being observant of the possible downfalls and negative views of the science. Brock starts of his commentary by addressing how the limits to our genes can not "confidently predict the rate at which that understanding [of genetic engineering] will be achieved in the future nor the ultimate limits on it" (pg. 615). Also, the author states how genetic engineering could help parents ensure their children the abilities to live healthy lives, create new treatments for disease, and produce stronger immune systems.

Gregory Stock, in his article Choosing Our Genes, asserts that at this point not ethics are important, but rather the future of genetic technology. Stock supports his conclusion by providing powerful examples of how genetic modifications can benefit our population anywhere from correcting genes at the time of conception to extending lifespan. He wants to inform his audience about all of the benefits of genetic technology in order to prove that there are way more advantages in this technology that are highly desirable by people of different ages. He reaches his readers by writing a very detailed yet coherent article that brings awareness to various groups of people from parents to be to older populations.

Humanity is always trying to find a way to make themselves better. In recent news, this has led to a moral debate on weather or not using performance enhancing drugs for sports is morally correct or not. But, what if we had already manipulated the human body to make it better before we were even born? This is what Bill McKibben is referencing in his essay “Designer Genes”, on the morality and the biological arms race that could result when dealing with genetic manipulation and engineering. Though the cat isn’t out of the bag for genetic engineering he references what scientists are doing to skim the fine line that laws and ethics have laid down for us. McKibben’s audience is people who can make laws

Julian Savulescu wrote Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings and in this article he clearly states his position on the issues as well as providing supporting and opposing sides to the matter. He starts off by explaining this issue is focused on biological enhancement and more specifically genetic enhancement. Then the thesis statement is provided, “I want to argue that, far from it’s being merely permissible, we have a moral obligation or moral reason to enhance ourselves and our

This paragraph explains that scientific technologies are not permissible if it used for illegitimate or unnecessary means. Ethical frameworks would all agree on rejecting the use of Genetic Enhancement which is used for morally unacceptable purposes to better an individual which already has necessary wellbeing for life.

In an ever-increasing technological world, many scientists and researchers are now trying to revolutionize the human body through genetic enhancement. Genetic enhancement is defined as the transfer of genetic material intended to modify one or many non-pathological human traits.

       Since the beginning of organized government there has always been a clash between science and politics. Whether it is as complicated as a new drug's detainment of federal approval or whether it is as commonplace as the social acceptance of a new medical procedure, politics has performed an integral part in the formation of science; this integrated unit is what greatly affects most of the society at large. Thus, it is no surprise the scientific discussion of genetic engineering is peppered with political rhetoric.

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

In Nicholas Agars reading ‘A Pragmatic Optimism about Enhancement Technologies’, his first major concern is how everyday individuals have been misinformed regarding the reality of enhanced technology works. Agar believes Hollywood is responsible for the illusion surrounding cloning, believing that Hollywood uses films such as “Star Wars: Attack of the Clones and Star Trek: Nemeses”, (Agar 20) imply the idea that under the control of military forces clones “ have the potential to replace humans with a race of: ‘emotionless zombies” ,(Agar 20). Agar’s style of approaching this argument is very analytic, which is the way he wants his audience to interpret his reading. He believes it is crucial to understand the science behind human enhancement

We have technology everywhere in all aspects from organ transplants to digital and social media, the internet and cell phones and so much more. All of these technologies have helped us improve as a species and evolve at a rapid pace over the last few decades. We can quickly connect, get information and decide on which choices to make. More and more we realize the importance of personal health, healthy food, and the health of the planet. Technology in Genetics is moving front and center, gaining a higher profile than it has ever previously had. The GMO has brought about changes in resources for food and medicine and even animals. The controversy both for and against combined with mixed unclear information make it a bit of a double edge sword

My first argument against Genetic enhancement is about the safety of the technology used. Is it safe to use? There are several safety concerns about the technology, all of which lie within the physical alteration of the gene. Genes are very specific and will only work correctly in certain ways. Although scientists may know a fair deal about genes, do they know about the consequences if their technology were to fail? One of the risks directly involved with their technology is the technique of introducing a gene at a random place in the genome. By doing this the gene could interrupt another sequence of genes that are vital for survival. It could also alter the effect that the gene has. The gene might have the effect wanted, such as an increased intellect, but it may also introduce an unwanted effect. This became apparent in 2001 when Joe Tsien genetically altered mice to have a high memory capacity. The mice were able to learn very quickly and were able to retain more information but at what cost? The mice also had an extremely high sensitivity to pain: something that a human being wouldn’t be able to live with. Do you think that’s fair? Would you be willing to sacrifice your quality of life for an enhanced learning capacity? I know I wouldn’t. But what is more unfair is that the embryos, who are the ones who are going to be enhanced, don’t have a choice in the matter. What about the children’s