Designer Babies: Who are they?

Preface: "Designer babies is the term being used by the media to describe the future of modifying or selecting our children's genes for desirable characteristics (medical and cosmetic). Are things getting out of hand with our research into genetic processes? In this blog investigate social and ethical implications of this research and technologies that have been developed from it.
In 2004,the term "designer baby" made its way from sci-fi movies and web blogs into the Oxford English Dictionary. For this bioblog, it'll be doing the exact opposite. Basically, a designer baby is a kid whose genes have been selected or altered using genetic engineering and In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) to make sure they have or lack certain features or characteristics. Throughout history we've seen the effects of eugenics - the study and belief of improving the human population through selective breeding - on a society to be only genocide and war. So maybe we should really think about the moral and ethical limits before we give people the ability to determine what their kids look like. This involves answering three big questions:

1. How are designer babies created?
2. Is there a moral or ethical difference between using genetic technology to prevent disease or enhance human capability?
3. What effects could human genetic modification have on the individual as well as society and the world?

DESIGNER BABIES: HOW ?

A new process called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows scientists to screen embryos for any genetic diseases and only the disease free embryos are implanted into the mother's womb. However PGD isn't limited to only hereditary disorders but can be used for cosmetic reasons. This is because at the pre-implantation stage, scientists can choose what type of sperm goes into the egg to determine the gender as well as eye, hair and skin colour. According to Dr. Jeff Steinburg - director of the LA fertility institute - they're now finding genes that affect other physical and personality traits like the NR2B gene that plays a crucial role in brain development or the VMAT2 gene that affects a child's ability to see beyond themselves; and everything as part of one greater totality. This is where the discussion between gene therapy and enhancement begins.

THERAPY VS. ENHANCEMENT: THE GENETIC DILEMMA

More or less, we find motivation for gene modification to fall in between two categories:

• Therapeutic - involves the adding/removal of a gene or selection of an embryo to ensure that the offspring's functionality doesn't fall below normal human capability.
• Cosmetic - involves the adding/removal of a gene or selection of an embryo to ensure that the offspring in some areas, functions beyond a level considered normal for human beings.

The dispute lies in whether there is a moral distinction between the two. Should there be different moral guidelines between treating or preventing disease and enhancing certain traits. Take for example parents who have the gene that causes stomach cancer removed from an embryo. Would it be any different from two parents who really struggled through school because of dyslexia getting an extra NR2B gene added to an embryo to ensure greater development of their child's brain. It would seem that both parents are trying to prevent their children from different types of physical and emotional suffering. Who is entitled to say what types of pain people must endure to be considered "normal"?

EFFECTS ON THE INDIVIDUAL

When I think about the effects gene modification might have on the individual, I remember the movie "My Sister's Keeper". In the movie, the main character Anna was born as a genetic match to her older sister Kate to save her life. Anna loves her sister, but realizes if she donates a kidney to Kate who has acute promyelocytic leukemia, she'll be unable to have play sports, or be a cheerleader, or a mom. She'll be unable to live the life she wants. In many cases, genetic modification stands to save lives; that is a definite positive. When the purpose of one's existence becomes to save someone else's life is where we see negative impacts. This bis because at this point, we take away some one's choice about the kind of life they want to life. Human beings should never be thought of as a spare parts box. But let's say a child was born with cosmetic enhancements in mind. For example, a 6'4 skinny boy with light skin, blond hair and blue eyes was born because his parents wanted him to play sports. What if he had no interest in sports whatsoever, would it be fair that he was only physically capable of playing sports? It seems unfair that parents are choosing what kind of person the child will be physically without considering the personality traits of the child.

EFFECTS ON SOCIETY

Due to human nature, genetic engineering if accepted can only affect society negatively. Humans cultures tend to create a cookie-cutter definition of beauty that doesn't stand today because it's rarely achievable. Now what if this standard of beauty became achievable? The result could only be the solidifying of this general standard as well as social failure to recognize the beauty in originality. It will increase fear and hatred towards foreigners and all those who look different because now they don't belong. Genetic modification is relatively expensive so only I foresee the creation of two classes, those who are gen-rich and those gen-poor. Just imagine a genetic aristocracy, and being discriminated against because your parents could have chosen to make you a size 2, but they gave you flawless skin instead. All of it seems so surreal, but with the kind of world we live in, it could be very real, like when we have kids real.

EFFECTS ON THE GLOBE

I find impacts on the global society to be summarized perfectly in the 1999 movie GATTACA. In this "not-too-distant future" liberal eugenics is common and actually plays a role in determining social class. People are deemed Valid or Invalid based on whether their genetic structure has been modified or not. Parents love their genetically modified children more than those that haven't been modified. People are given jobs based on their genotypes rather than skill or ability. It seems cool if you're a Valid, because you only have to pee in a cup to get professional employment after schooling, but what about the invalids? No matter how hard an Invalid works, they'll never be able to achieve their dreams because of their genetic make-up. This may seem like genetic modification at an extreme level, but it's already begun happening today. Transhumanism is and intellectual and cultural movement that supports the use of science and technology to improve the mental and physical capacities and characteristics of human beings. The goal of transhumanists is to achieve posthumanism; to surpass the limits of certain genes. They believe accidental posthumans like Albert Einstein and Ray Charles to be superior to regular humans. Therefore with the purposeful creation of future posthumans, it'll be our fault we can't identify with their genius because we are inferior.

CONCLUSION

"Sometimes we strive so hard for perfection that we forget that imperfection is happiness" - Gunnar Biornstrand

Though it would be wonderful to live in a world where superstring theory was solved and everyone wrote symphonies better than Beethoven's Ninth, I thank God every day we don't. If everyone possessed the ability to see everything as part of one greater totality, who then would find importance in the little things in life. Designer babies are great in the sense that they give children a fairer start on life by eliminating circumstances that may cause the children to struggle through life. Then again, isn't the most inmportant part of life the struggle? The never-ending battle against situations out of our control that produces cancer survivor, great leaders, and decent human beings. I believe that it is this struggle defines humanity. Furthermore it is the likes and dislikes about ourselves and the human condition that drive our physical and emotional evolution. I cling to my imperfection as the very essence of my being.

Environmental Psychology

Preface: Many scientists consider humans as the most invasive species, as humans can greatly change an environment and impact living things that reside there. Are we being stewards of the world? Take a look at an issue in which human intervention has positively or negatively affected the biodiversity of our ecosystems.

Stewardship is the theological belief that humans are responsible for the world and should take care of it. From a Christian point of view it means to maintain, wisely use and give back to the gifts that God has bestowed us with. From all points of view, its results are the increase in environmental conservation and the improvement of the environmental state. It stems from the beliefs that humans have basic connections to all living organisms and the respect for all organisms in that they are valuable in their own respects. For that reason human beings do not act solely but rather interact with nature as every action has an environmental reaction or consequence. The good steward is someone who does the best they can with what they have been given. So NO, humans have not been stewards of the world as our psychological complexes are contrary to the foundations of stewardship.

INTRODUCTION

The results of a 2009 survey conducted by Canon Canada on behalf of Ipsos Reid (Canada’s largest market research company) showed that:

• 71% of Canadian teens prioritize the environment as their top issue.
• 68% of teens feel the government is not doing enough about the current state of the environment of the environment regardless of the economic downturn.
• Only 58% of Canadians remain confident in the government’s ability to continue efforts to prevent climate change.

Psychology is defined as the study of behavior and mental life; emotion, cognition, behavior and how they interact. Although psychology in having increasing impacts on the modernized world, it still has yet to be seen as an environmental science. What we can draw from the facts above is that the majority of Canadians worry about the state of the environment, while very few have faith in our ability to fix it. With these mind blowing truths staring painfully at us, we entrust the many physical scientists of the world with the arduous task of finding environmental solutions.

The physical problems threatening the survival of life on the planet are simply too massive and convoluted to be entrusted to a small group of people. We will certainly require scientific breakthroughs to reverse our plight, just as we required it to produce it. We cannot however leave our problems solely to physical scientists to create merely physical solutions, because environmental problems are also psychological in origin. Human behavior is ultimately responsible for the deteriorating biodiversity and health of ecosystems. Take for example some of the major issues regarding our environment today:

· Deforestation – Since the development of agriculture over 10000 years ago, nearly a quarter of the earth’s tree cover has disappeared. Deforestation did not just happen; HUMANS cut down trees! We also introduce new species of insects and chemicals harmful to trees!

· The Ozone Layer – Since the discovery of the first hole in the ozone layer in 1976 at Halley Bay on the Antarctic coast, the hole has only gotten bigger as ozone depletion increased. Ozone holes are not just natural phenomenon! Over the last 50 years HUMANS have manufactured and released numerous amounts of dangerous chemicals into the stratosphere. CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons), Halons (Bromofluorocarbons) and methyl bromide are just some of these.

When we eat meat products or things not grown organically; crumple up paper balls; terraform (shape the earth) to fulfill our needs, we rarely consider the effect our lone actions have on the planet, not to talk of billions of similar ones. Human behavior is accompanied by beliefs and rituals that make business as usual seem sensible even though it jeopardizes our planet. Take for example a trip to the other side of the world for vacation. Purchasing airline tickets is financially affordable because of large government subsidies to airlines, an international trade system that makes purchasing fuel and planes inexpensive, and frequent flyer miles that make the trip seem practically free. We don’t however consider the great environmental costs required to ensure that every trip goes smoothly. Therefore I write this blog in hopes of providing greater understanding through Freudian psychology as to why humans negatively affect our surrounding environment.



















NARCISSISM
Narcissism is a personality disorder in which the subject more or less falls in love with themselves. The typical narcissist strives for attention, has an inflated sense of self worth, is driven by success, lives for glorification and lacks empathy. It has been proven that if a child suffers in a prolonged state of unmet needs they may become fixated on need gratification, producing a chronic state of narcissism. In this instance, the child learns that he/she cannot depend on the world to satisfy their desires and develop difficulty respecting objects and people that do not alleviate their needs.

From this perspective, it seems that humans really find it difficult to be stewards because of a kind of massive narcissism, in which we have assumed that nature exists primarily for our need gratification. Our inability to see the beauty and complexity of nature suggests that our narcissism has become deeply seated in human culture. It also suggests that we only see other organisms as natural resources to be extracted for the comfort and well being of human beings. If we look at some of the causes of modern extinction we find this holds true:

· The disruption and or destruction of habitats are usually due to increases in human agriculture, business or population.

· The introduction of new species into an environment usually occurs during attempts to exploit other species or natural resources.

· Humans also hunt species to extinction for their genetic traits e.g. fur, meat, blubber, or fun.

In summary it appears that the safest species on the planet today are the ones considered irrelevant. The well-being of all other organisms are jeopardized because they are useful for our purposes – like the sea otter – or noxious to our comfort e.g. smallpox or polio. In picturing themselves as on top of the biological spectrum, human beings display our narcissism. Human beings are consumers by nature; we are a massive link in the global food chain. But, looking at the rest of the world as our natural storehouse, maltreating the environment and wasting our resources are both irresponsible and narcissistic.

DEPRESSION

A lesser known cause for the human approach to environmentalism is depression and the misinterpretation of it. Most human beings define depression as suicidal feelings, and melancholic sadness; most human beings are wrong. Accurately defined, Depression is an individual’s loss of confidence in the outside world and their ability to affect it. Though chronic feelings of loss, hopelessness and grief don’t pervade our personalities when it comes to the environment, there is no reason to think that they will not in the near future. These symptoms are merely just depression at the highest level.
On a basic level, depression very much drives how we continue to react to our environmental difficulties. As the size and complexity of our issues become clearer to us, we often face feelings of despair which we don’t necessarily deal with appropriately. This is because the human psyche is made up of three parts: the id, the ego, and the superego.

Of the conscious and subconscious minds, the superego is the most influential. It ensures the limitations of satisfaction on the id (the chaotic, impulsive, pleasure-seeking aspect of the mind). Going back to the example of taking an airplane on vacation, the id is what makes us want this vacation regardless of its environmental impacts. The superego is the part that makes us consider the consequences of our actions. Thus we are caught in a conflict between having fun and doing that which is morally right. In this fight however, the superego wins out because it simply is larger than the id. This is where the ego comes in. The human ego acts like a referee between the id and superego to kind of make things fair. Pleasure-seeking is a natural part of human behavior so we usually rationalize an alternative such as taking a cruise rather than an airplane trip.

When we don’t find this compromise between our id and superego we are then forced to make a huge lifestyle choice. We have to choose between being environmentally rigid or not environmentally conscious at all; the easier being the latter. This explains why environmental issues have been ignored in the past. People often felt these issues were too big to possibly handle so they gave up on being environmentally responsible. This therefore stresses the need for change in the human mindset. We should not try to choose one or the other, but should rather try to find active and creative solutions to our deteriorating physical world.


CONCLUSIONS

“The environmental crisis is an outward manifestation of a crisis of mind and spirit. There could be no greater misconception of its meaning than to believe it is concerned only with endangered wildlife, human-made ugliness, and pollution. These are part of it, but more importantly, the crisis is concerned with the kind of creatures we are and what we must become in order to survive.”
-Lynton K. Caldwell

It is my belief that problems cannot be solved in the same mindset that created them. For that reason human beings cannot take the same thoughtless approach to solving the world’s environmental crises as we took in creating them. Through environmental psychology we can acquire greater understanding as to the way we interpret, evaluate and respond to the environment. In doing that we can tackle the massive narcissism and depression tied to our past interaction with the environment and use psychology to sustain the physical world technological breakthroughs will help us create.

As a global community, we should be willing to experience our own despair, anger, anxiety and sadness over the faltering physical world. In doing this, we stop internal conflicts between parts of our psyche and allow for the creation of solutions that are both pleasing and responsible. We need to redefine the way humans see themselves to reinforce the connections we have to all other organisms. This should lead to the reform of global objectives when speaking about the environment to the point where we see environmental responsibility as benefitting all other organisms, not just human beings. We need to lastly find our own individual projects or methods of helping to create a sustainable world unique to our own personalities and psyches. These methods and projects should allow us to at times make mistakes, be inefficient, even inconsistent and anxious as we complete them because then we never have reason to give up. The day we give up on saving the earth is the day we give up on saving ourselves.

COMMENTS ON OTHER BLOGS

http://caseyabasiscool.blogspot.com/2009/10/sbi3u1-u2.html?showComment=1255884730169#c7237366597521121636

http://procrastinatorblogs.blogspot.com/

WORKS CITED

Du Nann Winter, Deborah, and Susan M. Koger. The Psychology of Environmental Problems. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, 2004.

Eldridge, Niles. “The Sixth Extinction.” ActionBioscience.org. Web. 17 Oct 2009 http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html#primer.

“Meaning of Christian Stewardship.” Christianet-The World Christian Marketplace. Web. 17 Oct. 2009. http://www.christianet.com/cardonations/meaningofstewardship.htm.

“Narcissistic Personality Disorder.” The Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Web. 17 Oct. 2009. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652.

“The Ozone Layer Fact Sheet.” The Ozone Hole. Web. 17 Oct. 2009. http://www.theozonehole.com/fact.htm.

Turgano R. “Survey reveals seven in 10 Canadian teens want more action taken on environment.” The Green Pages. Web. 17 Oct. 2009. http://thegreenpages.ca/portal/ca/2009/04/survey_reveals_seven_in_10_can.html.