Maybe this would be a better post for my own blog, but I wanted to get some feedback on this because I have extraordinarily mixed feelings. In the latest Atlantic Monthly, Michael J. Sandal in the cover piece entitled "The Case Against Perfection" argues that developing the ability to pick and choose characteristics for offspring should be avoided because it takes something away from the experience of parenthood. He likens it to the hyperparenting of today and the striving of parents to make their kids into the perfect athlete, student, etc. with little regard for the child's well-being or interest in said pursuits. The crux of his argument is that parenting today offers a unique opportunity to have to deal with and love a person whose characteristics cannot be predetermined, and therefore cannot be prepared for or tailor-made for the individual parent. It forces a person to relate to someone who may not be like them and to learn from that experience (a lesson for the world at large, the author argues, and I agree). But I see the other side of this issue, put forth by the bioethicists, which seem to be portrayed as little Mengeles throughout the piece. I think that humanity could have an extraordinary opportunity to engineer a version of it's species which is superior to itself and can do much greater things than most humans today can do. Think of what the world would be like if everyone possessed the same intelligence (god, voting would almost be worthwhile in this world). The problem, as with all really powerful things is two-fold: 1. In America, if it CAN be done, it WILL be done (okay, this is true of humanity, we're just more obvious about it). It's not like we're going to start thinking about consequences now. So, in my opinion, regardless of the outcry, it will be possible in the future to determine the height, sex, intelligence, athletic ability, etc. of your offspring. 2. Though it could be used for amazing things, the power will not only be used for such things. Nuclear power is really an amazing energy source (with unbelievably horrible drawbacks) and it never needed to be used to kill people, but it was used that way. I guess my quandry is this. At the brink of an age when the world of humanity can be made more perfect, is it in the interest of humanity to make it so? I'm leaning towards NO, on the grounds of the following mythology: I really should get the source on this, but I know that there is (probably more than) one creation story that says that the first time god created the world it was perfect (this was made more famous by The Matrix: Revolutions, but I'm certain some dogma preceded this context -- if you know, tell me). The world didn't work. Humans couldn't function in a society that was perfect because it was too... boring... for our minds to comprehend. We needed evil to make things interesting. I think there is some truth in this, as I recognize that the things I love about the people around me are not the perfect aspects, but the little unique "flaws" and quirks. If everyone was a great athlete, great thinker, great artist, etc., I think that we would lose one of the things that makes humans incredible -- the motivation we have to strive for something better. Anyway, I'd love to hear thoughts on this.

-Matt  10:21 EST | |