As Haidt explains, research done by psychologists has demonstrated that some significant percentage of a person's average level of happiness is genetically determined. Much of this research has relied on studying twins, and comparing identical twins and fraternal twins separated at birth. Even when they are raised separately and in different environments, identical twins often share an affective style (that is, being a "Tigger" or an "Eeyore" or something between), indicating that there is a strong genetic component. Early estimates claimed that genes determined as much as 80% of a person's average happiness level; more recent studies put the number lower, at 30-40%.
In the near future, using CRISPR-CAS or similar technologies, we may be able to change a person's genes, even altering embryos before they develop. If this technology develops sufficiently, it may be possible to identify and change the genes to ensure that a child is born with one affective style over another--that is, you can make sure your child is a Tigger!
If such technologies were available, should we use them? Would you use it on your child? Why or why not?
Technology will always be improving and it does seem like a cool idea to be able to change genes, BUT I see it as very unethical. I feel like no one has the right to change the genes of someone who doesn't has a say. So I don't think it is OUR choice to change the genes of our children. To me it almost seems selfish because you aren't already appreciating the genes they already possess. It is almost like we'd be controlling the kind of life they live without actually giving them a chance to live their life for themselves.
ReplyDeleteI believe there is some good arguments for both sides. On one hand, being able to cure genetic diseases is a huge advancement that has the potential to save millions of lives. A problem I see with this relates to the discovery of viruses becoming immune to anti-biotics over the past few years. The question that needs to be asked is could a similar thing take place? Could gene alteration hurt us more in the long run? Another argument is the ethics of gene alteration. My point of view is very similar to the existentialistic ideology. There is value found in suffering. If everything was easy, then there would be no character built up through hardships. We make ourselves better people by using pain to teach us how to be better and how to avoid that pain. The only thing that gene alteration would accomplish is it would make life easier for the upper class. This can also be seen in today's society and it is debatable to who actually has a better life. On one hand you have a kid who never has to work for anything and grows up with no work ethic, or respect for people around him. He finds himself jobless and depressed because he has accomplished nothing for himself. On the other hand you have a kid who had to get a job in high school and had to pay his way to college. From this struggle he learns work ethic and how to appreciate what he has. The question stands, Who has a better life? I believe that gene alteration for the purpose of making life easier would result in similar outcomes.
ReplyDeleteAlthough technology will always progress over the years and things will become more interesting I personally believe that we should not use it because it would be unnatural. In my opinion I would not use this because it wouldn't give my child any originality which would take away from his/her personality.
ReplyDelete