Scan barcode
A review by kevin_shepherd
Hacking Darwin: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Humanity by Jamie Metzl
4.0
Hacking Darwin is less about the methods of genetic modification than it is about the possibilities and philosophical quandaries of the thing. As a futurist, Jamie Metzl poses some perplexing ethical questions that will need to be addressed as we come to terms with what lies ahead.
BENEFITS vs RISKS
What parent wouldn’t want to save their child from a painful and debilitating condition? As the father of a special needs son, I can tell you without hesitation that I would have chosen a better, easier, happier life for him had the opportunity and technology been available in 1985. Even his mother, who never agreed with me on anything ever, agrees with me on this.
While there is a LOT of promise in the science of gene manipulation for both plants and animals, it is important to note that we are still novices in the field. It is one thing, for instance, to engineer a crop that addresses vitamin A deficiencies for at-risk populations (see Golden Rice) it is quite another thing to engineer a human embryo for blonde hair and shiny eyes that glow in the dark (see Village of the Damned).
It goes without saying that every new technology needs to be vetted. I’m convinced because I’ve seen Jurassic Park at least twelve times. Scientists should not be so preoccupied with the “could” that they don’t stop to think about the “should.”
KEVIN’S OBLIGATORY PET PEEVE
Before we proceed, let’s toss aside the ridiculous argument that genetic engineering is tampering with the “Will of God.” This progress-hampering religious monkey has been on the back of every scientific advancement since before the Catholic Inquisition burned Giordano Bruno at the stake. There has been biblical backlash to blood transfusions, in vitro fertilizations, stem cell therapies, skin grafts, organ transplants, etc. etc. etc.. I got ninety-nine problems (with generic engineering) but this b*tch ain’t one.
A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION
Metzl asks his readers to suppose for a moment that China was producing genetically enhanced soldiers or genetically enhanced astronauts giving them a scientific and militarily threatening advantage in the geopolitical scheme of things. Does anyone think that America and Russia wouldn’t follow suit? It was, after all, a similar scenario that sparked the nuclear arms race. I would venture a guess that our nerdy Dexters, be they Chinese or American or Russian, are already hard at work in their respective laboratories theorizing radiation resistant cosmonauts and logic resistant nationalists.
CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM
While I’m all for Metzl’s idea of implementing DNA technologies to determine who's dog is responsible for the poop on my lawn, I’m fearful of a future where a multitude of sociopaths might be churned out under the guise of handsome aesthetics. What we don’t yet know about genetics will someday fill volumes of textbooks and we would do well to keep in mind that the line between utopia and dystopia is thinner than we might think.
BENEFITS vs RISKS
What parent wouldn’t want to save their child from a painful and debilitating condition? As the father of a special needs son, I can tell you without hesitation that I would have chosen a better, easier, happier life for him had the opportunity and technology been available in 1985. Even his mother, who never agreed with me on anything ever, agrees with me on this.
While there is a LOT of promise in the science of gene manipulation for both plants and animals, it is important to note that we are still novices in the field. It is one thing, for instance, to engineer a crop that addresses vitamin A deficiencies for at-risk populations (see Golden Rice) it is quite another thing to engineer a human embryo for blonde hair and shiny eyes that glow in the dark (see Village of the Damned).
It goes without saying that every new technology needs to be vetted. I’m convinced because I’ve seen Jurassic Park at least twelve times. Scientists should not be so preoccupied with the “could” that they don’t stop to think about the “should.”
KEVIN’S OBLIGATORY PET PEEVE
Before we proceed, let’s toss aside the ridiculous argument that genetic engineering is tampering with the “Will of God.” This progress-hampering religious monkey has been on the back of every scientific advancement since before the Catholic Inquisition burned Giordano Bruno at the stake. There has been biblical backlash to blood transfusions, in vitro fertilizations, stem cell therapies, skin grafts, organ transplants, etc. etc. etc.. I got ninety-nine problems (with generic engineering) but this b*tch ain’t one.
A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION
Metzl asks his readers to suppose for a moment that China was producing genetically enhanced soldiers or genetically enhanced astronauts giving them a scientific and militarily threatening advantage in the geopolitical scheme of things. Does anyone think that America and Russia wouldn’t follow suit? It was, after all, a similar scenario that sparked the nuclear arms race. I would venture a guess that our nerdy Dexters, be they Chinese or American or Russian, are already hard at work in their respective laboratories theorizing radiation resistant cosmonauts and logic resistant nationalists.
CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM
While I’m all for Metzl’s idea of implementing DNA technologies to determine who's dog is responsible for the poop on my lawn, I’m fearful of a future where a multitude of sociopaths might be churned out under the guise of handsome aesthetics. What we don’t yet know about genetics will someday fill volumes of textbooks and we would do well to keep in mind that the line between utopia and dystopia is thinner than we might think.