X-Message-Number: 20631
From: 
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:45:23 -0000
Subject: reproductive cloning

> Message #20621
> Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 07:47:52 -0800
> From: James Swayze <>
> Subject: Letter to Christopher Reeve


There are other reasons to support reproductive cloning - it will allow us to 
create 
designer babies. Rather than using theraputic cloning to cure health problems, 

reproductive cloning will allow us to eliminate health problems before they even

manifest. Improving the health of babies is obviously good for them and for 
whoever 

pays for medical costs. Eliminating genetic disorders and improving the 
intelligence 
of babies would be good for everyone generally. 


A possible problem could be a class schism whereby only those rich enough could

afford designed babies. But I'm not greatly concerned by repro. cloning 
resulting in 

separate "races", or rather classes, of genetic "haves" and "havenots". We 
already 

have that situation with regards to food, lifestyle, health care and medicine 
(though 

that is not justification for inequality getting worse, just an observation). 
Also, if new 

generations of uberkinder (for want of a better term!) are healthier, there is 
more 

money to go to the unhealthy, ungenetically modified. If these babies are 
smarter, 

they should speed technological and political progress which should benefit all.

Finally, those who haven't received genetic manipulation prior to birth don't 

permanently lose out. Technological advances in augmentation of the senses (see

here for example: "http://wired.com/news/medtech/0",1286,53298,00.html ), limb,

tissue, bone and organ replacement (using theraputic cloning), medical nanobots
("http://www.kurzweilai.net/news/frame.html?main="/news/news_single.html?id%3D
1053) and genetically tailored drugs 
("http://www.bio.org/events/2001/event2001home.html") could level the field. 

Naturally, if any uberkinder reproduce with genetically unmodified people, their
children will probably get benefits of gene-mod. for free.


There are problems with designing babies for reasons other than health benefits 
-  

there was the case of deaf parents ensuring that their child would also be deaf 
(not 

done through genetic modification, I should observe, but it is clearly a related
topic), 

viewing deafness as being simply indicative of minority group status rather than
an 
impairment. 

This idea of "minority" makes some sense. Many disabled people have never 

experienced life in any other way than as disabled, and that disability has lent
a 

character to their lives that they aren't necessarily willing to change, and 
which they 

find valuable. If you ask someone with a disability whether it would have be 
best 
had they never been born, they'd probably say no. This is the reason why some 

parents of Downs children oppose aborting Downs babies - disabled lives can 
still 
be rich and valuable (IMO, any woman's reason is a good reason for abortion).


Viewing disability as another (political) minority group makes sense in a 
climate of 

minority activism and pressure for rights/recognition. These deaf parents may 
well 

be able to navigate life just as well as we do, viewing it not as a 
disadvantage, but 
as a different way of perceiving. 

This case may also be defensible on the grounds that deaf people will probably 

soon have access to implants which will recover any lost hearing (an beyond 
that, 
we may all have access to implants that augment hearing). Thus the parents 
decision is reversible if the child so wishes (or rather, can afford it!).


Other disabilities need to be viewed case by case. What of the parents who want

their child to have spina-bifoda? How could this be defensible? I'm not sure it 
could. 

Perhaps disabilities can be ranked according to what they affect - the senses, 
the 

intellect etc, how much pain they might cause and whether the disability can be
reversed or provided for...


That said, while I think we should be prepared for a great many similar cases, I
also 
suspect that a possible outcome could be greater social homogenisation. As an 

example, if parents were given the ability to create designer babies then I 
think we 

can be certain that male homosexuality would be eradicated within two 
generations 
maxiumum (prejudiced parents are an obvious case, but I have no doubts that 

liberal parents would be concerned over potential discrimination and do the 
same). 


However,  I am suspicious that there is a "homosexual" gene. Social categories 
like 
sexuality and criminality are historical and ideological concepts, not purely 
biological. Even this counter-observation is problematic because it sets up a 
dichotomy between the social and bioloical that I believe is false. These two 

elements seem indissolubly intertwined, like a spiral, rather than a dualism... 
I doubt 

if homosexuality or criminality could be removed as easily as a gene can be. 
We'd 
have no Jean Genet without these "bad" genes! :-)

The same problem of homogenisation could be applied to those countries where 

paler, whiter skin is seen as a status symbol. Also consider how the biological 
sex 

ratio could be unbalanced (not that this matters for reproduction, or for love, 
or for 
sex, but rather as a political issue regarding gender).

Some parents in the American South begin grooming their children for beauty 

contests from a very early age and I can certainly see the prospect of 
genetically 

engineered Barbie dolls. Beauty is likely to be a major demand, perhaps more so
than intelligence and certainly more likely to be a female's "gift".


Similarly, as genes associated with intelligence have been identified I can see

disturbing possibilities; I recall John Wyndham noting that parents tend to have
dual 

views on this; they want bright children but tend to feel alienated by children 
that 

are too bright. I wonder if the results might not be large numbers of children 
bright 
enough to be lawyers and doctors but a cap set above that.


All that said, political minorities may well design their babies as gay or black
to 

ensure that their interests and concerns aren't suppressed by genetic removal. 
But 

what of the parents who want a facially deformed child in protest again the 
Western 

beauty aesthetic? Or the parents who want a hermaphrodite or asexual child so as
to challenge our gender dualism? Can children be designed as a form of 

social/political protest or moulded by ideology/political loyalties? The deaf 
parents 

certainly wanted this. But also so do parents who want to avoid diseases, 
stupidity, 
ugliness etc etc.


Perhaps the decision should be informed by how the children are likely to feel 
about 
their augmentation. But then, children are terrible conformists....


Intuitively, who could have a problem with eliminating diseases, crippling 
disabilities 

and insanities? But what does one consider insanity/disease? Homosexuality once
was considered as such...

Designer babies seem to be a cause celebre for the more gung ho strains of 

American libertarianism, which holds that as parents know what is best for their

children they should make the decisions. Following Larkin, I tend to think that 
most 

parents screw their children up and genetics opens up a whole new way for them 
to 
do that..

But what are our options? The state?


Anton

---------------------------------------
http://www.noumenal.net/exiles

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20631