The Issue Of Creative Accomplishments

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.

On the last years, genetic technology have been improving. The research carried out in this area are focused on the early diagnosis of diseases. Moreover, manipulation of genes in the future provides a critical tool for eliminating fatal diseases to humans. Also humans will be able to manipulate genes from birth. But the real question is although can be perform it, we allow it? Everything possible is ethically permissible? Some dramatic demonstrations of genetic modification have been made with mice and other animals, however, evidence in humans are generally considered outside the ethical boundaries. Gregory Stock, director of the Program on Medicine, Technology, and Society at UCLA and author of Redesigning Humans, in his article “Choosing Our Genes” (2012) argues the use of technology to change humans genetic in order to avoid imperfections or diseases. Stock shows genetic engineering as a very useful technology and that applying it on the future to humans, positive results they will gain. Stocks article is effective, since he gives good reasons why using genetic technology would provide several benefits that people wish to have.

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.

In the essay, titled "Building Baby from the Genes Up?" Ronald M. Green proclaims his approval of genetic selection and extraction of human genes. He gives reasons that support his outlook on the matter, that this will be useful to civilization. Ronald M. Green is in violation of several ethical codes, with his view on genetic modification. I am against genetically modified humans, and I will explain to you, why this is my stance on the subject. First, I will summarize exactly what Ronald M. Green says in his article about his view on genetic modification and why practicing it is vital. Second, I will describe research

Although this may be the case in many areas of people’s lives today, it is not always beneficial, or necessary. People may have trouble deciding whether messing with human genes and cells is ethical. Designing the “perfect child” in many parent’s eyes becomes a harsh question of reality. The concept of a parent’s unconditional love for their child is questioned because of the desire to make their child perfect. If genetically engineering humans becomes a dominant medical option, people could have the chance to create their child however they like: from physical appearances, genetically enhanced genes, and the possibility to decide what a child thinks and acts, parents have access to designing their entire child. Naturally, people could be creating a super-human. Issues between different races, and eventually creating new prejudices against genetically engineered humans may increase. People may not realize how expensive genetic screening is at first. With only the rich being able to “enhance” their children, another social issue might occur, giving the world another type of people to outcast.

Nowadays, people will claim that the world is on the verge of scientific revolution that leads to the most controversial idea; genetic engineering of humans. When science technology grows exponentially faster than moral understanding, therein lies the argument between these two aspects. One can argue that genetic engineering is some sort of vast achievement in technology especially in this modern era whereby people live in full of access. However, if we look closely at the impact of this technology towards human beings, genetic engineering has many flaws and ramifications that can be debated thoroughly. Arguments and points of view are explained by Michael J. Sandel, the author of “The Case Against Perfection” and Nicholas Agar, the author of “Liberal Eugenics”.

The last 150 years have seen the origin of—and rapid expansion in—human knowledge involving the nature and mechanisms of trait and disease inheritance in human beings. Advances in genetic research hold great promise for the future development of effective prevention and treatment strategies for a great many, often devastating, heritable conditions. However, these advances also raise a series of policy, legal and fundamentally ethical questions concerning what we should and should not do with the knowledge and technology we acquire. These questions are numerous and both imminently practical and speculative, ranging from the exhausted, yet still largely unresolved, question of the moral status of the human embryo to fears about slippery slopes into a Brave New World or Gattaca-style dystopic future characterized by designer children and a genetic underclass.

For the entirety of the fall semester, I took on a project to create a three-page layout for a fictional campaign in National Geographic magazine about endangered species. The goal was to create different content for my portfolio, challenging my skills in photography and photo-manipulation. I transformed people into animals and used gel lighting and Photoshop to create my artwork (see Appendix A figure 1 & 2). At the end of the semester, I reviewed my completed pieces and two theorists best fit my creative process, Julie Burstein, and Teresa Amabile. Julie Burstein discusses the best way to foster creativity is by ‘letting go’ she outlines this in four lessons (Campbell and Dubois, “Artist Best practices” 25). These lessons include experiences, challenges, limitations and loss (Campbell and Dubois, “Artist Best practices” 25). While Teresa Amabile discusses how the theory of creativity is fostered through her componential model of creativity (Campbell and Dubois, “On theories of” 14). These include domain-relevant skills, creative thinking skills and motivation (Campbell and Dubois, “On theories of” 14). Both of these theorists go hand in hand providing me with the framework for my best work. This essay will discuss how Amabile’s theory for intrinsic motivation and Burstein’s lesson of experience and loss, align in my creative process to be conducive to my work.

Following the background and history of genetic engineering and eugenics, it can definitely be seen why ethicists and scientists are concerned. The concept and idea of passing on heritable traits was introduced by English naturalist Charles Darwin in his work The Origins of Species in 1859. Soon to

Most parents would do almost anything for their children to be the best and know that in life they will be successful and ahead of the game, but what if even before they are even born you could alter their genes to give them an even greater advantage. This would allow one to “create” a child who is smarter, taller, and prettier, even if the parents never carried any of these traits. As the human race continues to develop and modern technology continues to advance, we have been able to create new inventions that could potentially help us overcome daily issues linked with diseases and mutations, but although to some this seems like an incredible idea, the motion of one day being able to modify your unborn baby to look and be who you want is not only morally wrong, but could result in drastic environmental changes. Genetically engineering has influenced many debates as to whether the ethics behind the motion are right, and like most scientific discoveries comes with many advantages and disadvantages.

Human progression is a key motive in the field of science and technology. New techniques and designs are made to improve the general welfare and life span of human beings. However, development requires risks and those risks may have deadly effects on future generations. One such debate is over genetic engineering and creating “Designer Babies”. The ability to alter any trait an offspring may possess.

Who would have ever thought we could live in a world that can make genetically modified humans; some think the idea of genetically modified food is absurd. According to the encyclopedia, “Eugenics is the conviction and practice of enhancing the hereditary nature of the human population”. In our modern world, eugenics has become a center of conversation because of its numerous progressive usages, but also its probable consequences. Some believe it is the future of our world, some believe it will do more harm than good. With this proclamation, there is no uncertainty that it will be tremendously helpful in the use of preventing diseases such as cancer and countless more, before we are even outside the womb. However this idea can also be mistreated

Attention Getter: Grab a seat, pick up your baby catalog and start choosing. Will you go for the black hair or blonde hair? Would you prefer tall or short? Funny or clever?

Essay
 
As the world is becoming more and more populated we have to think of new ways to sustain life by possibly using cloning and genetic engineering. This text is going to examine how James Cameron and Nancy Farmer portray Cloning, Genetic Engineering and how sustainability is evident. Cloning and genetic engineering can both be used to sustain life on our planet but whether we can put behind us the ethical concerns relating to them in order to sustain life is another story. All three of these evident themes have a very similar underlying message in both of these examples.
 
Genetic engineering means the modification of of an organism by manipulating its genetic material. Both James Cameron and Nancy Farmer use some form of genetic engineering

The birth of a child is supposed to be a time of joy, the uncertainty of life leads to this one point in time. Will she or he be the next president, a star athlete, a genius or just fall into the crowd as another citizen. With recent advancements in science, this uncertainty has become a thing of the past. The human being is now seen as a commodity and no more is valued in the uncertainty of individuality. The parent can now choose how they want their child to come out or develop into. Sandel’s book The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Case of Modern Eugenics is a well researched look into examples of modern eugenics and the problems that arise from it. These topics range from the ethics of cloning, athletes using performance enhancing drugs, and other practical uses in everyday life. Sandel’s argument is that there is value in human nature (even with all its flaws), and genetic engineering will forever change human nature. Destroying the very essence of what it is to be human and scarring humanity. The main features of human nature that will be altered: are responsibility, humility and solidarity.