Gattaca gives us a futuristic idea of how genetic engineering will affect the human race and discriminate those of less genetic superiority. Eugene Morrow, a member of the elite who has been genetically engineered, donates his DNA to join to become a borrowed ladder with main character Vincent. Eugene is a perfect example of genetically engineered child in the representation of his attitude as well as the way he acts. Though Gattaca may not specifically state whether genetic engineering is safe for reality, the understanding of what genetic engineering is and evaluating whether genetic engineering affects traits and personality is crucial to the understanding of this movie. Biologically, genetic engineering is understood as the “process of making changes in the DNA code of living organisms” (Miller 1094).
Through advancing our knowledge in cloning and genetic engineering, we can eliminate unwanted traits and genetic diseases. Wesley may then try to argue that these unwanted traits and diseases make us unique, but I doubt he will get much support, especially from somebody who suffers from some horrible genetic disease or deformity. Wesley then uses nature itself in his arguments by stating: “Eugenics, as awful as it is, is only the beginning of the threat posed to the natural order by human cloning”.
If we are already genetically modifying plants and animals, is a... ... middle of paper ... ... endure the consequences of their actions. This film could be taken as a worst case scenario of human gene modification. As the technology continues to evolve, we can only hope that the leading scientists have a higher ethical standard than those portrayed in the movie Splice. References Hoban, S. (Producer), & Natalie, V. (Director & Writer). (2009).
Should we continue with these scientific advances if we do not understand their consequences? This paper analyzes the above questions. In a life of technological advancement, we are faced with many ethical issues regarding the natural world. Humans have become capable of scientifically manipulating genes to create organisms that nature never intended to exist. Although we have the technology at our disposal, is it ethical to change living organisms to better satisfy our own needs?
I believed that any thought of genetically engineering babies was sick and that there was no way we could put our future generations at risk by making them into some mad scientist's warped experiment, no matter how good were the intentions about wiping out disease were. If we left any loopholes in the use of the technology, it would be exploited and then it would be no time before we ended up having mass human genetic engineering laboratories, like those in "Brave New World" by Aldus Huxley or failed experiments such as Frankenstein in Mary Shelly's novel of the same name. However, as we delved deeper ... ... middle of paper ... ...d that detailed, informed debate takes place immediately otherwise we could end up with a human spare parts industry or a warped Utopia, like Brave New World. The voice of history and literature should not be ignored as they can serve as warnings to the governments today. The attempted Swedish eugenics of the 1970's is only today fully coming to light and Brave New World is so frighteningly accurate it chills my spine thinking about it.
In addition, if the cloned baby is born with many defects, what are the parents to do? Throw that baby away and keep trying the process of cloning until they have the perfect baby, now this will raise other ethical concerns. Living the life as a genetic creation, created I a laboratory with a group of scientist is just an awkward thought. These are only some the mental issues about cloning that should be considered when the thought of human cloning is at hand.
The Factor of Gene Therapy: the Ethics, Progress, and Future Abstract Erasing genetic diseases from the human race has been a vital role in science. However, there is a point where the moral standards have interrupted the advancement of curing genetic diseases. One of the many sciences that have the ability to completely wipe out the future of any genetic diseases, gene therapy, is being stifled due to the infliction of morals. There is a fine line in what is inhumane and moral to the standards of society; causing the advancement of gene therapy to be limited. The answer to the future of gene therapy relies on what we will accomplish for the future generations, but this is based on our past, our current morals, and our cooperation.
This may be a be... ... middle of paper ... ...mpowers scientists to eliminate disorders from the human genome and will soon allow parents to choose the traits and genetic factors of their children. However, the risks involved in genetic engineering of human genome are far too great. Genetic engineering is unnatural; but it is not bad. Until we have sufficient knowledge on the risks of genetic engineering, the risks to all the future descendants of the individuals outweigh the benefits to the small number of the individuals. The lack of knowledge should limit the advancement of genetic engineering.
This modern reconceptualization is able to situate human centered thinking within the story of evolution, but it also elucidates a complex and uniquely human crisis in which anthropocentrism becomes self-destructive. The biological species concept is crucial to understanding both the reason why outmoded anthropocentrism is completely invalidated by Darwinian evolution and why Murdy's modern version is not only compatible with evolutionary theory but is an inevitable evolutionary phenomenon. It is important to no... ... middle of paper ... ...x implications for one another. Given their drastically different time scales, we must be careful not to conflate cultural evolution with biological evolution, but a brand of anthropocentrism that will not backfire must negotiate a careful course through both biology and culture. Works Cited Dennet, Daniel 1995 Darwin's Dangerous Idea.
should prevail with a main task to investigate and understand the consequences of these new technologies and to represent it in scientific, social and ethical debates. Similar to when Kant urged philosophers in the eighteenth century to turn towards humans, now there is a need to turn towards genes. In continuous dialogs and partnerships with life scientists and politicians, philosophers have to develop new merits of freedom, person and evolution and to investigate the possible ways of improving human life on earth. We have to remember on the pragmatic adage, if philosophy and science lack social fruits in the long run, then it does not deserve the attention of the society. On the other hand, if the science and society do not open up for philosophical deliberations, it can have monstrous consequences.