In this way, socioeconomics would also be affected if genetic modification was available for the public’s use. Procedures will be expensive; in vitro fertilization already costs nearly $20,000 in the USA without any genetic testing (Regalado 31). The application of improved intelligence, spatial reasoning, and other genetic enhancements will exponentiate these expenses, making genetically elite children available only for those who can pay. This will further widen the inequality gap, particularly when considering the species’ evolution. Are certain traits to be forced to extinction while others are selected? The issue, Stephen Baird notes, is that “there is no universally accepted ideal of biological perfection. To make intentional changes
…show more content…
One argument is that genetic engineering based on a uniform idea of biological perfection will lead to generations of genetically identical or similar people, also known as a monoculture. The evolutionary harm argument is built on the notions that a genetically similar population will make the human species more susceptible to disease and inhibit the range of adaptability to respond to biological challenges, leading to human extinction. Russell Powell addresses these issues in his article “The Evolutionary Biological Implications of Human Genetic Engineering.” He focuses on assessing the relationship between genotypic and phenotypic diversity. Individuals behind the evolutionary harm movement incorrectly assume that one gene correlates to one specific phenotype. Powell mentions, “in doing so, they succumb to the ‘gene-for’ fallacy or the idea that each gene codes for a single trait and (conversely) that each trait arises from the operation of a single gene” (207). The connection between genes and phenotypes rather extremely complex. Biological traits rely on interactions between various genes and additional variables both inside and outside of the organism. (Baird 14) Therefore, a human biological monoculture is an unrealistic
One argument is that genetic engineering based on a uniform idea of biological perfection will lead to generations of genetically identical or similar people, also known as a monoculture. The evolutionary harm argument is built on the notions that a genetically similar population will make the human species more susceptible to disease and inhibit the range of adaptability to respond to biological challenges, leading to human extinction. Russell Powell addresses these issues in his article “The Evolutionary Biological Implications of Human Genetic Engineering.” He focuses on assessing the relationship between genotypic and phenotypic diversity. Individuals behind the evolutionary harm movement incorrectly assume that one gene correlates to one specific phenotype. Powell mentions, “in doing so, they succumb to the ‘gene-for’ fallacy or the idea that each gene codes for a single trait and (conversely) that each trait arises from the operation of a single gene” (207). The connection between genes and phenotypes rather extremely complex. Biological traits rely on interactions between various genes and additional variables both inside and outside of the organism. (Baird 14) Therefore, a human biological monoculture is an unrealistic