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