(Up to: Cloning As APhilosphical Aid Technology Vs Evolution Philosophy )

...or "Why Gattaca Misses a Point"

In the film 'Gattaca', society has the ability to discriminate between people according to whether or not they were born via genetic manipulation, i.e. as what some of us refer to as "designer babies". This science fiction approach to the issue has successfully transferred itself into the mainstream discourse of the morals and ethics of having control over how our babies enter this world, and how they grow up.

There are, as with cloning, two main points in this, and I intend to separate them out. The first is disease, whilst the second is aesthetics. These could also be referred to as "normalisation" and "improvement" - both very relative terms, but sitting on opposite sides of a middle line. However, I also think that where medicine finds a cure, it also necessarily also discovers a market. By this, I don't mean a capitalist market in which the "cure" can be sold to those with the right money, but a new avenue for desire and opportunity. The advantages offered up by our altruistic drive to make one thing better more often than not result in either a directly applicable technique, or an understanding of the field that allows us to develop one, that can offer an desired, but unnecessary "improvement" to someone's entity - physical or mental. This is the intrinsic pairing of flip-sides that we must learn to cope with, and that is at the heart of so many matters that we find controversial at any point in time.

It is, however the desired flip-side that I wish to take issue with at the moment. The fear, whether hyped or not, that progress inspires. Mankind's curiosity that reminds us of who we are, but never answers who we should be.

In the case of genetic design (and as with many other controversies), I think that the debate surrounding the area is far too polemic and simplistic for its own good, and that this detracts from any real discussion and can, in extreme circumstances, act even as a barrier to our own understanding, making a subject matter taboo and preventing us from entering into truly enlightening and (more importantly) useful discussion for fear of being castigated from one side or the other.

Our fascination with the hypothetical idea of being able to create offspring in our own image, or as we see fit, suffers from both its almost mythical status, and the insistence of various sectors to hold onto the sacredness of naturalism, without proferring any real rationale as to why or how this should be the case (again as with cloning). These factors combine to place the concept on a pedestal of unreachability, and serve to restrict the thinking pertaining to it.

Firstly, "manipulation" should be thought of moderately. The alien scenes of Gattaca cast a gloomy shadow, and portray a future in which the process is so common that it is the norm. Perhaps this may be the case in a far-flung destiny of mankind, but there are many other factors to consider that would contribute otherwise to the scenario. For instance, it assumes a world of equal access to the technology. Currently, a vast proportion of the world has dubious access to hospitals and medical care as it is, and in the remainder, there is a decidedly large proportion that have merely "adequate" recourse - they may have what is necessary, but even in today's progressive development culture, that is still all they have. We should not fall into utopian thinking and fool ourselves over the state of our healthcare systems. Nonetheless, this is simply an example to show that there are alternative factors within economies and societies that prevent or hinder access to non-necessary technologies, and manipulation will remain a non-necessity so long as it is in the realm of human-centred "design". (And similarly, the domain of corporate-centred "profit".)

Secondly and, I think, more importantly, I think it is dangerous not just to either ignore the problem and hope it diffuses, or to limit the scope of discourse surrounding it, but also to assume that the principles are at stake are merely under threat in the future. I think that much of the criticism levelled at loss of our humanity is already evident in modern culture today, and has been for some time now. In large numbers, there has generally been an atmosphere of "social design" - from morals, to beliefs, to fashion and trends. This is becoming more commonplace and more unindividual with the increasing encroachment of branding and more widespread influence of large companies. Individuals, either as influenced by parents or of their own accord, are living their lives in an attempt to match up to an intangible, imagined superiority. The perfection presented to us via all channels, in an attempt to garner our attention and persuade our desires, is now being reflected all around us.

It is useless to discuss the possible "dangers" of cell manipulation to bend nature to our own perceived lust, if we are not going to realise that there are more fundamental attitudinal powers at work that, unless inspected, will pervade through whatever we do, independent of the technology we develop. It is acceptable to realise that these new techniques may hold directions that we would do well to avoid, but it is almost hypocrisy to sidestep the same causes present in our society today.

2003-10-01