“Here’s why: Sci-fi genetic fantasies, whether hand-waving or hand-wringing, divert our attention from other, more important determinants of health. Studies by the World Health Organization, the federal Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and academic researchers leave no doubt that the biggest factors in determining health and quality of life are overwhelmingly social. Genetics plays a role in disease, to be sure, but decent, affordable housing; access to real food, education, and transportation; and reducing exposure to crime and violence are far more important. In short, if we really wanted to engineer better, happier, healthier humans, we would focus much more on nurture than on nature.”
I am in general agreement about social
structures being a better, more robust line of attack for helping
almost all people, for changing societies.
I see the fear of genetic changes as
overstated as well. I agree that the cultural zeitgeist of genetic
determinism leads to some current social conservatism. But surely
both flowers can bloom. The genetic knowledge and manipulability that
we are acquiring does not preclude making important social changes.
Quite frankly, better genetic understanding should eventually lead to
the call for greater and more precise social changes (assuming my
understanding is right). Furthermore, there are many reasons for our
rather conservative present, with genetic claims being but a small
fraction of that.
This leads to the next point: Pushes
for massive (but well-intentioned) changes to social structures can
be just as damaging as pushes for genetic changes. Genetic alteration
should not be placed in some anathema category of unacceptable
anymore than social alterations. Perhaps we fear one from past
eugenics movements, while others we fear from “argument from USSR”
or from cult-like entities. The overreaction to both leads to dead
ends, to poor social results and thus to poorer lives lived. Of
course, some people took the failures of socialism to give us lessons
about human nature (thus genes), which were really bad arguments.
I
know I am not making much of an argument strictly for genetic
engineering. But I do have confidence present day Germany or the US
would harbor genetic technologies without reproducing stupidities of the past. Making sure no individual is born blind today or in the
future is not casting aspersions on blind people or putting
roadblocks to their living good lives today. The inequality
argument is powerful, but (read Comfort above) our most pointed
inequalities are happening for social reasons, ones that hopefully we
eventually change. I would hope such changes would ensure more equal
access to genetic technologies.
This all brings me to: I am enjoying Peter
Watts' scifi, very sciency, Blindsight.
No comments:
Post a Comment