Death to ambition

Imagine a world where a child's personality is predetermined. A couple looks through a meticulously contrived catalogue of characteristics and determines exactly who their future baby will be. Cystic Fibrosis? No thanks. Cancer? Definitely not. Smart, pretty, blond? No question. While this proposition seems like a slightly primitive sci-fi movie, the reality of genetic engineering in altering the genetic make-up of embryos is rapidly materializing. The pending question now is, if and when we master this technology, should we use it, and to what extent? The prospect of eliminating physical and mental diseases presents an overwhelming positive proponent to such technology. However, with the elimination of what society deems detrimental imperfections, emerges the question: who decides what is an imperfection worthy of elimination? While genetic engineering provides an opportunity to prevent lethal diseases, it grants a power which would inhibit individuality in promotion of mediocrity and creates the potential for prejudice in nearly every aspect of existence.
As Nancy Gibbs describes in her article "Wanted: Someone to Play God," there clearly exists positive arguments supporting genetic engineering. Eliminating incurable diseases, something which society has previously had very little control over, seems an infinitely positive aspect of this technology. Each couple could ensure for their child a long and healthy life, unburdened by the possibility of dying at age 20 of cystic fibrosis, cancer, or hemophilia. Parents could also eliminate fatal addictions such as alcoholism and tendencies toward drug addictions. Many could argue, and probably would face little opposition, that genetic engineering provides an opportunity to provide humanity with what it is entitled to: life.
While on a personal level this prospect seems undeniably desirable, from a global perspective the effects of this ability would be disastrous. Though it is not a pleasant reality, disease unfortunately serves as a natural source of population control. If all of mankind is given the opportunity to live to his/her full potential, overpopulation would inevitably become an even greater problem. In Brave New World this issue is rectified by OneState's control over the number of embryos developed and the mass death of individuals who reach the age of sixty. In part 1, the Director outlines the order and structure obtained through the Bokanovsky process, the process by which embryos are developed. The director calls it '...one of the major instruments of social stability'(Huxley 7). With the population dilemma genetic engineering presents, the government would eventually have to impose restrictions. Whether these restrictions manifest themselves in the form of eliminating mothers and fathers in society(as in Brave New World) or limiting the amount of children each couple is allowed to have, (as China imposed its "one family one child restrictions"), they deny liberty to its citizens, as well as create a large margin for problems. If a couple has the maximum amount of children permitted, but discovers that the traits they selected for these children do not fulfill expectations, conflict is inevitable. In China, due to this restriction, many girl infants were murdered because a family wanted a male as the one child they were permitted. Additionally, while in Brave New World individuals take drastic precaution to prevent pregnancy, unwanted children are discarded, which would inevitably be the case if such restrictions were to be applied to our society.
The elimination of physical disease also prompts the desire to eliminate learning disabilities and mentally challenged traits. Genetic engineering would enable parents to discover and prevent their children from having mental disabilities. But what defines mental disorder? Some individuals define homosexuality as a mental illness. Does this then grant parents the power to "correct" the genes which they deem unsavory? Nancy Gibbs states "This is a moral wilderness, full of hope and traps." While the possibility of eliminating mental disability would enable individuals to live "normal" lives, would something, in turn, be lost? The authority to deem what is in the best interest of these individuals is not ours to possess. My cousin, for example, has autism, but his intelligence exceeds the average child his age. Though I cannot begin to understand the struggle he endures due to his disability, he is an amazing person, and I wouldn’t dare change anything about him. By aiming to eradicate mental disorders, we are making a statement on the lives of these individuals, claiming that they are not worth appreciating. This technology provides an opportunity reminiscent of the work of eugenics groups and societies after World War I, who sterilized mentally disabled individuals and others who carried "unwanted" traits in order to inhibit the proliferation of an "inferior" human race(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dh23eu.html). In utilizing this technology in the name of progress, we'd be repeating the mistakes of the past, devaluing those who are different with the facade of righteousness.
Another issue which negates the positive proponents of genetic engineering is its destruction of individuality and its subsequent deflation of ambition. If parents are allowed to choose the characteristics/personality of their children, the prestige attached to those who possess great intellect or talent in a specific field will no longer be unique. If individuals are "programmed" to excel in certain areas, there can be no merit attached to their achievements. People will no longer obtain goals due to their struggle and hard work. The director questions his eager students "Has any of you ever encountered an insurmountable obstacle?...Has any of you been compelled to live through a long time-interval between the consciousness of a desire and its fulfillment?"(Huxley 45). In the society which Huxley creates, there is no ambition. People are programmed to want to achieve that which they are capable of, therefore they possess no ambition to strive beyond their capabilities. Also, because many parents want similar traits for their children, it is likely that this technology will result in an overabundance of a certain type of individual, for example someone who possesses great intellect in math and science, is attractive, benign, and not overweight. Not only does this limit the amount of creativity of other fields being contributed to society, but it creates a deficient in other fields, such as necessary physical labor. Onestate is organized into a caste system in which individuals are developed(based on either deprivation or application of oxygen in the embryonic state) and conditioned to fulfill a certain station in life in which there is no opportunity to progress to assure that all necessary positions are occupied. With the deficient of workers mentioned above, the government would be forced to institute restrictions on how many individuals could possess certain traits. With these restrictions, a prejudice towards those who do not possess the most favorable traits would form, and thus destroy the very principles which our society are based upon: competition and liberty.
The prospect of genetic engineering technology reconstructing our society, despite the perceived positives, is a frightening potential. It would grant outrageous power to parents, and subsequently the government, in controlling the demographics of society, promoting prejudice and encouraging mediocrity.