The case for progress and reason

The essay "The Case Against Perfection" by Michael J. Sandel (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200404/sandel) encapsulates well the establishment argument against Genetic Engineering.

His case is groundless.

The title implies that genetic engineering is a "quest for perfection" but this idea is of course a canard. We engineer cars, airplanes, roads, buildings and all sorts of other things and such engineering is neither a "quest for perfection" nor is it denounced as such. It's problem solving and it's what we do.

Sandel further states that "the moral quandary arises when people use such therapy not to cure disease but to reach beyond health, to enhance their physical or cognitive capacities, to lift themselves above the norm."

But wait, I drove a car to my office and that car traveled at times faster than any human has ever physically run. The computer that I am using now is providing me with a very real cognitive boost, checking the spelling as I type and allowing me to look up just about anything I want in another browser window. Many people in this world do not have cars nor computers hence I have have a clear advantage and have been thusly lifted "above the norm". Is it incumbent on me to ditch my car and computer for these reasons? If so where do we draw the line?

An important difference between genetic engineering vs. engineering cars, computers and the like is that engineering cars and computers do not change us from the "inside", they do not change who we are, they do not change our "character".

Or maybe they do.

Human beings have been changing physically since our ancestors left Africa and much of those changes have been driven by technology. We have little body hair yet live successfully in cold climates because we figured out how to make clothing. We can throw an object with deliberate aim (we are the only animal that can do that!) and have been perfecting things to throw for a long time (spears, stones, bows and arrows etc.) Clearly we have already been changing ourselves and this did not begin yesterday.

We have already been changing our character via technology, genetic engineering would only make the changes more exact and deliberate. If you look at the arc of human history you see that more exact and deliberate methods of change are the rule as time goes on. Sandel does claim to be favorably inclined towards this "conventional" technological progress but he (and like minded people) want to make an exception in the case of genetic engineering. Everything else is be under one framework (go for progress, progress, progress) but an exception is to be made in the case of genetic engineering where we should eschew progress. This is inconsistent and will not hold up. In the long run exceptions cannot and will not be made.

Sandel claims that genetic engineering would usher in a world "inhospitable to the unbidden." (things not asked for). This is not the case. The unbidden will still lurk around every other corner. Genetic engineering could *in theory* only eliminate the unbidden in the realm of biological reproduction - a tiny slice of the physical universe. But even here it's elimination is questionable - just watch "Prototype This".

And much of modern civilization has been about changing the unbidden into the bidden! Boil that concept down and what you are talking about is progress. Hunting and gathering were dependent on the the vagaries of wild animals and plants. The "unbidden" Wolly Mammoth could be the difference between starvation and living. With agriculture, cows and sheep are deliberately raised for sustenance. Big change from the unbidden to the deliberate. How about government. Prior to democracy we had monarchies - kings and queens. The people did not ask for their king, he was given: he was unbidden. Democracy has made government what the people deliberately ask for. Is this a bad thing?

I would suggest that moving the unbidden and unknown "away" is part and parcel of progress - and it's generally a good thing (think democracy). I would also suggest that there will be no way to entirely eliminate the unbidden - ever. Worrying about that is kind of like worrying that engineering will eliminate entropy.

Sandel correctly notes that we do not really have a meritocracy because much of success is based on inherited genetic talent and that inherited genetic talent is not earned - it's given. Then Sandel goes on to make the absurd claim that "genetic control" would erode the "actual solidarity that arises when men and women reflect on the contingency of their talents and fortunes." This "solidarity" is a fantasy. Kind of like the "solidarity" that kings and queens had with the people they ruled. The prevailing mindset throughout history is "things are the way they are for a reason", or "it's part god's plan". Inherited gifts (like royal blood) inevitably lead to feelings of superiority and entitlement - not solidarity. Royal blood is really just another form of generic gift.

Sandel would have us give up the possibility of an actual *real* meritocracy in order to maintain fantasy "solidarity" that clearly does not exist.

There is of course a class warfare element here. Sandel and his cohorts in the elite of this world have generally inherited a relatively superior genetic profile and their relative position in the genetic lottery would of course be threatened by the introduction of genetic engineering.

What is going on is that Sandel and his fellow "Genetic royals" are peddling fear in an attempt to frighten the majority into rejecting what would be for them positive change. This is similar to the scare tactics Royal monarchs used against democracy in the 1600's and 1700's. They and their apologists (who included much of the elite of the time) had dire warnings about democracy. Democracy, it was said would lead to chaos, "mob rule" and ultimately starvation. Equally important, democracy violated god's divine order, his master plan: the divine right of Kings and it's associated order. Messing with that order would result in all sorts of trouble and chaos.

Does that argument sound familiar?

Genetic engineering is really genetic democracy - and it too will ultimately emerge and win the day.