Over the last 70 years, researchers have come a long way towards unwinding the foundations of human life. In the process, they have discovered, encoded, analyzed, decoded, and interacted with the human genome. This information has been used in the quests to identify the genes that cause breast cancer, among other diseases, and in addition, researchers have tried to create stem cells from human cells. All these advancements have led to an exciting brink, which involves the existence of perfecting technologies that allow researchers to edit genes with precision. Even as the researchers embark on the novice world of gene revolution, and participate in deconstructing human beings into their most basic parts, it is vital to question whether the process leads to the loss of just these parts; or it leads to the loss of a more significant part, that is, what it means to be truly human. Therefore, this research paper analyzes how technological advances in genetic engineering questions morality through the application of moral theory and the use of Nietzsche’s historical and unhistorical arguments (Agatonovic, 2018).
Technological advancements in genetic engineering can transform humans into posthumans, who are the enhanced future ideal beings. Nietzsche’s philosophy fits well with this ideology, as his notion of Overhuman fits well with the transhumanists notion of posthuman, which can be achieved through advancements in genetic engineering (Agatonovic, 2018; Porter, 2017). According to Aydin (2017), genetic engineering exists to enable humans to improve themselves. Rather than relying only on traditional humanists methods such as discipline and education, humans should be more open to utilizing the widely available technology to modify and enhance human nature radically (Bostrom, 2020). The exponential progress of technology can transform what is typically defined as “human.” As such, humans view the evolution of technology as a survival means that makes humans new and better. Genetic engineering is at the top of the list when it comes to defining technologies that radically modify the human organism. Courtesy of biotechnology, nanotechnology, and other genetic engineering disciplines, individuals will have the option to change and improve themselves in the future, as desired. Predictions show that advancements in genetic engineering may make people conscious machines.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Humans have a consistent need to acquire new capacities, and the desire to expand the boundaries of existence has led to advancements in technology. For instance, the human imagination has always been fascinated by human ‐ like automata. The current world is characterized by new technologies that continuously challenge human values. The rapid development of technology, especially in genetic engineering, has led to the conception of the idea that continued technological innovation would eventually have profound effects on humanity. Some of the variables created through genetic engineering have the capability of exponential growth, which will continually drive change. Questions regarding the future of genetic engineering that lingers focus on whether biotechnology will lead to the manufacture of genetically designed human beings. Gene-editing technologies like CRISPR create an opportunity for researchers and scientists to alter human genetics and acquire specific outcomes. This will allow humans to choose the characteristics that they need for their children. Technological advancements will allow people to change their bodies and minds fundamentally, making them smarter, healthier, and happier. However, the feasibly of changing human physiology is a question that lingers in the mind of many since even with the recent advancement in technology; scientists are yet to unravel the concepts behind the human body and brain completely
One classic example of the wrongfulness of genetic engineering, as described by moralists, is the potential psychological effects of germ-line engineering. Creating designer babies by selecting genes for children is considered corrupt, and the overall outcome is that such parents only view their children as products. Considering this, the future will be characterized by the evaluation of children based on quality control standards, thereby undermining the ethical concept of accepting children unconditionally, despite their abilities and traits. Therefore, genetic engineering alters the deep values expressed in traditional relationships between children and their parents, but it also interferes with individualism. Moralists argue that the quest for perfection is not worth the cultural and moral costs resulting from germ-line engineering. Despite these concerns, the future may be characterized by a less pressing concern for moral dimensions of individuality, while emphasizing the commercial benefits of new technology. One concern expressed in Nietzsche’s arguments affirms that while the use of science, medicine, and biology is vital in examining human life, technological advancements could be easily misused, leading to disastrous consequences to humankind (Agatonovic, 2018).
While genetic engineering raises varying questions in different disciplines, the essential issue is the challenge, that genetic engineering presents to the human conception of humanity and what it means to be an individual. In Nietzsche’s historical arguments, his assertions are that every man is a unique being, who is an extraordinary piece that exists on this earth only once, without a chance of existing a second time (Agatonovic, 2018). The uniqueness in individuals goes against the value of the group, and in a more humanistic approach, Nietzsche affirms that creativity, belief, and subjectivity are vital in describing how the individual self-thrives beyond the span of rational intelligence (Aydin, 2017). Ideally, genetic engineering involving human cloning and engineered enhancements of human genomes challenges individualism as described by Nietzsche (Agatonovic, 2018). Genetic engineering alters biological building blocks, and through this process, individuals are intimately exposed to the society’s political economy through the revelation of personal genetic information to more powerful groups. Such groups include scientists, who can create more power individuals through genetic modifications. Genetic modification resulting from genetic engineering are irreversible, and while this may be a good this, there is a possibility of permanent adverse consequences.
Genetics is nearly becoming a currency for corporations and governments, and the politicization and commercialization of genes will become more rampant with the continued advancements in technology. Continued improvements of genetic technology create difficulty in differentiating between humankind’s proper dominion over nature and the domination of technology over human nature (Stahl, 2015). The sole purposes of advancements in genetic engineering and technology are the abolition of disease, elimination of needless suffering, radical expansion of human health-span, and escalation of human intellectual, physical, and emotional capacities. Most human enhancement technologies are faced with scant attention in ethics literature. However, the morality of genetic engineering has been debated for years. The use of science and genetic engineering to initiate the manipulation of human nature is considered morally wrong by a group of moralists who believe that transhumanists are misguided in their support for genetic advancements (Jotterand & McCurdy, 2016). In the view of transhumanists, however, judging genetic enhancements against the associated potential benefits is critical (Porter, 2017). The exploration of the posthuman realm is a transhumanistic hope for a more advanced future, which can be achieved through genetic engineering.
In the transhumanist perspective, genetic enhancements through technology represent a moral obligation (Agatonovic, 2018). This notion is against Nietzsche’s view, as he criticizes moralistic norms that are regarded as universal (Aydin, 2017). For instance, empowering parents to utilize technologies that enable them to choose the characteristics they wish for their children is a way of assisting them in aligning their actions in life to plans and goals. A genetically modified child who has specific preferred characteristics will enable the child to achieve success in life as planned by the parents. Ideally, seeking personal growth beyond the human’s own limitations through genetic engineering is a path towards what humans are meant to become. Nietzsche insists that human beings are more than their biology and physiology (Aydin, 2017). Connecting this notion with the transhumanist’s view that humans are not only a product of their DNA justifies the need for technological advancements in genetic engineering (Porter, 2017). However, Nietzsche believes that overcoming human limitations does not necessarily mean finding new technological methods of enhancing human capabilities. More importantly, selective enhancements such as designing a child as guided by experts and parents is an action that Nietzsche would oppose (Aydin, 2017).
The primary concern aired by Nietzsche is the human way of life, and the absolute answers to his questions do not offer a guide to a particular way of living (Aydin, 2017). More realistically, Nietzsche criticizes morality, which shows connections between his views and the transhumanistic view of genetic engineering and enhancements (Sorgner, 2016). Contrary to traditional moralists, Nietzsche believed that improving human life should not only focus on morality. Nietzsche emphasizes the will to power, which he describes as a characteristic of human life in general (Aydin, 2017). The tendency to power is a natural phenomenon, which individuals are trying to achieve through genetic engineering in the contemporary world. Human enhancement through genetic engineering is, therefore, justified by man’s interests to seek power. At the same time, Nietzsche did not have technological transformation through genetic engineering in mind but was only focused on cultural and personal up-lifting. Of utmost importance, however, is that in his philosophical ideologies, he did not exclude the possibility of technological enhancement through genetic engineering.
Genetic engineering is a way of bringing to the world a superior human with unique capabilities, which in Nietzsche’s literature is emphasized in his affirmation for science, favor for enhancement, and the bringing of the Overhuman (Aydin, 2017). If used the right way, genetic engineering is a way to enhance humans radically. In a transhumanistic point of view, this is possible if the available science and technology are appropriately utilized (Thompson, 2017). However, Nietzsche asserts that if an individual is already well informed, resorting to technological advancements is nor an obligatory or a respectable option (Pearson, 2019). Essentially, adversity makes the human race stronger; hence resorting to technological advancements eliminates the good that a genetically modified individual would have made in the world before the enhancements. For example, when choosing to genetically modify a child such that the child’s propensity to violence and adhesiveness is reduced, it is critical to ensure this does not negatively affect humanity in the future, by making them overly submissive and complacent. In a more critical perspective, genetic engineering in the future can manipulate humanity into living shallow lives, in which they are content with their sub-optimal existence. Contrary to this, the Nietzschean approach asserts the need for humans to improve themselves to become more powerful beings (Pearson, 2019),
The future promises of genetic engineering encompass, creating a thin boundary between humans and technology. While the future of genetic engineering is both terrifying and exhilarating, the society is provided with a chance to overcome detrimental illnesses. This is achieved through the modification of individual genes, or the selection of desired embryos to avoid health defects. However, these modifications can bring forth humans that have optimization for specific characteristics, for instance, higher intelligence and better looks, thereby exacerbating the already existing social inequalities in society. One aspect that is certain about the consequences of genetic engineering in the future is that individuals will have the ability to make decisions about their lives in ways that were far-reaching in the past. This notion is supported in Nietzsche’s assertions, who believe that humans have a right to will power and, as such, should not be limited by the idea of morality (Pearson, 2019). The human race previously relied on evolution, but genetic engineering presents humans with a chance to improve themselves.
Genetic engineering presents a future where survival might depend on the ability of a human being to alter themselves genetically. This might be spearheaded by the rapidly changing environments, which might be characterized by a runaway deadly virus, global warming, or nuclear war that cannot be predicted. Therefore, the future of genetics might be characterized by a shift from health and lifestyle to the “ingredient” for survival. For instance, the development of CRISPR-mediated genetic engineering has welcomed a new era where huge discoveries have led to the transformation of biomedical research. This has additionally be associated with the development of new treatment options for genetic diseases. While Nietzsche did not specifically mention the need to modify an individual to make them better genetically, he did leave a window in his historical literature for individuals to utilize the available scientific tools to improve their existence (Sorgner, 2016). Thus, CRISPR gene editing, which involves replacing faulty genes that lead to the development of disease with healthy genes, is a representation of Nietzsche’s ideas of what humans ought to do to enhance their worldly existence (Sorgner, 2016).
Genetic techniques are rapidly evolving in a quest for them to become more comfortable to use, precise, and safer. However, the future of genetic engineering remains a highly debated topic, with a passionate debate leaning more towards the use of gene editing in germ-line cells (Macpherson et al., 2019). In this regard, it is essential to differentiate between somatic gene editing and germ-line gene editing for reproductive purposes. Somatic gene editing involves changing body cells such as the brain, lungs, or liver. A point worth noting is that gene editing is irreversible, hence the changes made remain with that individual for eternity. Currently, gene editing is in use in some parts of the world, with some of the uses being to improve vision among individuals with hereditary blindness. Other contemporary uses currently under research involve gene editing and the treatment of blood disorders and cancer. With germ-line editing, DNA modification occurs in the sperms, eggs, or an embryo (Macpherson et al., 2019). Such modifications lead to DNA changes in most, if not all, body cells. These changes are heritable and hence passed between generations. The morality question arising from this is whether the practice will involve changing the genetics of future generations, thereby affecting their cultural diversity, as well as heritage. Germ-line gene editing encompasses the radical transformation of the human race by incorporating the capacity to prevent future generations' genetic diseases. Consequently, germ-line editing can eradicate genetic diseases from the human population. This would primarily involve making the human race better, as depicted in Nietzsche’s literature (Sorgner, 2016).
Genetic engineering is believed to lead to significant changes in global health in the future. For instance, prime editing is a newer technology that can correct most of the genetic defects existing in the human population. The next few years will be characterized by the approval of gene editing therapies to treat adults of children. Additionally, genetically modified children might be born in the next few generations, and these children will have particular abilities that cannot be ignored. However, some of the critics of genetic engineering focus on the fact that meddling with genes is unnatural. It is imperative to agree that the world is already unnatural since humans have continuously made changes that seek to make the world more habitable. Therefore, this obsession with natural misaligns with the fact that the world has already been engineered to suit the needs of human beings. Some of the modifications currently acceptable in the society include alteration of appearance through cosmetic surgery, improvement of vision through Lasik eye surgery, and assisting hearing with hearing aids (Ward, 2013). The concept of engineering the body to align with personal aesthetic preferences, health, and wellbeing intrinsically supports the idea of genetic engineering. It outweighs the idea that genetic engineering is unnatural.
Enhancements through genetic engineering, for instance, raise questions regarding the line between therapy and enhancement. Gene therapy is ideally a medical intervention, whose intentions are to recover lost health and ensure that humans live an optimal life. The modification of pathological human traits, on the other hand, is a method that scientists use to optimize human capabilities (Ward, 2013). A vital aspect of genetic engineering that aligns with Nietzsche’s thoughts is that gene editing services to clone children might be associated with severe issues of identity and individualism (Agatonovic, 2018). Personal identity is a subtle and complex psychological phenomenon that shapes how humans interact with diverse environmental factors. While there is no existing evidence that human clones present a disabling challenge in the formation of individual identity, it is essential to consider how humans value genetic uniqueness, which is a source of who a person is and how they regard themselves. Personal uniqueness is an emblem of individuality and independence (Ward, 2013).
In recent years, advancements in genetic engineering have been becoming more real, primarily due to two significant developments that have recently occurred. Scientists in the new era have gained a more specific understanding of the human genome due to the development of a sophisticated and inexpensive gene-mapping technology. Additionally, the development of CRISPR, a gene-editing technology that splices out parts of its DNA and replaces them with new genetic code to create a new genome has revolutionized genetic engineering (Ward, 2013).
This technology has dramatically expanded the realm of what researchers seek to achieve in the field of genetic engineering. This technology is, however, not without potential dangers, mainly because scientists cannot predict the safety of changes that have the potential to be passed down across generations. While genetic engineering offers promising possibilities, it is accompanied by a series of issues ranging from its morality to the need to alter humans' biological base in a quest to produce better-performing individuals. Therefore, the focus of human enhancement through genetic engineering is to utilize technological tools to improve humanity and the human condition. The possibility of the future of human genetics leaves individuals wondering what one needs to know, for them to make responsible decisions. A more critical question is what needs to be done to ensure that humans are physically, emotionally, spiritually, and mentally prepared for the future that genetic engineering will bring.
References
Agatonovic, M. (2018). The case of transhumanism: The possibility of application of Nietzsche’s ethics and critique of morality today. Filozofija i drustvo , 29 (3), 429-439. https://doi.org/10.2298/fid1803429a
Aydin, C. (2017). The Posthuman as a hollow idol: A Nietzschean critique of human enhancement. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine , 42 (3), 304-327. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhx002
Bostrom, N. (2020). Human genetic enhancements: A Transhumanist perspective. The Ethics of Sports Technologies and Human Enhancement , 339-352. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003075004-29
Jotterand, F., & McCurdy, J. L. (2016). Transhumanism. Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics , 2820-2829. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09483-0_423
Macpherson, I., Roqué, M. V., & Segarra, I. (2019). Ethical challenges of Germline genetic enhancement. Frontiers in Genetics , 10 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.00767
Pearson, J. S. (2019). United we stand, divided we fall: The early Nietzsche on the struggle for organization. Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 49 (4), 508-533. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2018.1475183
Porter, A. (2017). Bioethics and Transhumanism. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine , 42 (3), 237-260. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhx001
Sorgner, S. L. (2016). From Nietzsche’s Overhuman to the Posthuman of Transhumanism: Transcultural discourses. The Journal of English Language and Literature , 62 (2), 163-176. https://doi.org/10.15794/jell.2016.62.2.002
Stahl, D. (2015). Moral evaluations of genetic technologies. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly , 15 (3), 477-489. https://doi.org/10.5840/ncbq201515346
Thompson, J. (2017). Transhumanism: How far is too far? The New Bioethics , 23 (2), 165-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2017.1345092
Ward, J. (2013). Life, the unhistorical, the Suprahistorical: Nietzsche on history. International Journal of Philosophical Studies , 21 (1), 64-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2012.744532
