Advances in genetic modification technology have led to controversies such as human cloning. Weighing the positive and negative effects this technology will have on humanity, it requires a careful approach that takes into account moral and social issues.
As human lifespans continue to increase, the field of biotechnology is making great strides, and biotechnologists are working tirelessly to perfect the art of genetic modification. Like any technology, genetic modification has both advantages and disadvantages. Hilary Putnam begins by presenting a scenario in which genetic modification technology has advanced to the point where human cloning is possible.
A cloned sheep named Dolly was the beginning of the hope that human cloning might be feasible. Hilary Putnam argues that the desire for parents to want children who look like them will lead to children being born who are identical to their parents, which will have a very negative impact on humans by drastically reducing genetic diversity. It’s as if this goes against everyone’s morals. Of course, it’s impossible not to think about the problems that come with technological advances. Nuclear weapons were invented in this context, and we can’t say that they won’t cause problems. However, it is humans who have benefited the most from technological advances. This technology also has clear advantages, and we’ll examine whether Hilary Putnam’s claim that it’s a “bad technology” is valid.
There are many advantages and disadvantages to genetic modification. First, let’s look at the advantages. The main purpose of developing this technology would be therapeutic. Most of the labs and companies currently working on genetic modification are doing so for medical purposes. Several technologies are already becoming a reality, such as genetic scissors (crispers). If this technology is used for medical purposes, it could pave the way for the cure of many diseases and genetic disorders that were previously considered incurable or terminal. It is also being developed for use in the dairy industry, and has already begun to be practiced through the development of GMO foods. If food grows better and reproduction is facilitated, it will be a very desirable situation for humans, who are facing resource scarcity due to population growth. Now let’s look at the downside. The main issue we’ll be discussing in this book is human cloning. This is linked to genetic diversity. As with all living things, the first goal of a species is genetic diversity. It’s the normal evolutionary process of a species for individuals with genes that favor survival to survive, and for individuals with successful mutations to increase their survival rate. Human cloning could alter and degrade the meaning of reproduction, which is to achieve genetic diversity and pass on one’s genes through sexual reproduction. It is also argued that this technology violates the moral standards that humans should uphold.
What do the author’s opponents think? The author considers this technology to be solely for human cloning. While human cloning is a step towards fulfilling its original purpose, Hilary Putnam seems to be mistaken. Some readers may be disgusted by the idea of a cloned human walking the earth. But does this technology really exist for the sole purpose of cloning humans? Hilary Putnam describes the societies in which this technology is used as similar to those in which Nazi racism or eugenic sterilization are prevalent. But while these situations are inconsistent with moral standards, it’s not necessarily the case that the impact of technology on us is inconsistent with moral standards. A society where human cloning is so natural is morally aligned with the majority of people today, and I don’t think the end point of genetic modification is as likely to happen as the authors claim. Of course, nuclear weapons are not currently morally acceptable to most people, either. However, when they were created, wars were still being fought, and the moral standards of the time should be taken into account. Nowadays, however, many things that are radical and radicalizing do not fit most people’s moral standards. Also, Hilary Putnam’s hypothetical scenario that parents would want children identical to themselves does not make sense. Parents want individuals with superior genes, so it would be unusual for someone to want an individual identical to themselves unless they are confident that they are superior and worthy of emulation. Of course, there may be cases where parents want an individual that is similar to themselves and have children in the hope that the child will be like them, but this is unlikely to be the case. Also, would parents treat a child that is not like them as a tool and discriminate against their other children, which is generally unreasonable, even for a cloned child?
Some people will agree with the author’s argument. We’ve seen too many cultural products with tragic endings due to technology. Movies like The Terminator and Ireland depict situations in which technology overreaches its limits and humans are unable to keep up with its advances and are eventually dominated by it. Ireland, in particular, is set in a society where cloned humans are commercially available, and it is a realization of the kind of society that Hilary Putnam fears. You might say, “It’s a movie, so why worry about it?” but there are already examples of similar cases in the real world, so we can’t ignore it. For example, 3D movies that resemble the holographic Jaws from Back to the Future, payment methods that resemble fingerprint payments, and so on. Not only in the media, but also in the real world, advanced technologies are having an impact. Weapons of mass destruction, such as biological and nuclear weapons, which the Germans began using in World War I, are the culmination of technology. In fact, Einstein opposed the creation of nuclear weapons, and he also opposed the development of biological weapons. We can’t say for sure that this will happen, but on the other hand, we can’t say for sure that it won’t happen either. If it does happen, it could have a terrible end for humans.
But even taking this into account, Hilary Putnam’s unconditional opposition to human cloning is too extreme. Her arguments are based on an unrealistic hypothetical world, and they’re prejudiced. Being a cloned child doesn’t necessarily lead to a life that contradicts the moral standard that people should be able to make their own life decisions, nor does the idea of parents treating their cloned children as tools. That’s not to say that Hilary Putnam’s hypothetical situation could never happen, but I don’t think it’s realistic enough for the society she posits to ignore and give up on the unlimited potential of genetic modification. The possibilities for human scientific advancement with this technology are endless, and there are people for whom it is a lifeline. In fact, chemical weapons, such as the pathogens used in World War I, were eventually banned by the people who used them, and aside from acts of terrorism, they have been well controlled. While we may not have realized the negative effects because we’ve never used them, genetic modification technology can be controlled in moderation, which shows that it is worth developing and using.
