Presently I'm reading the book: A Crack in Creation: Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution by authors Jennifer A Doudna and Samuel A Sternberg. It speaks to a remarkable discovery known as CRISPR. This allows for the ability for scientists to edit the genes of humans and other animals alike. The bioethical questions surrounding this discovery ranges from the fear of creating deformed human beings used for testing, to the merits of potentially finding cures for genetic diseases. On the most fundamental level the question is asked: Don't we have a responsibility and an obligation to use scientific advancement for curing the ailments of living human beings?
 | Think about the following. Earlier today I was eating eggs. They weren’t well cooked, and the yoke was all over my plate. I’m not a big fan of eating the yoke. I get the feeling that it’s the same watery thing that chicken’s offspring swim in – which it is. Then the thought came to me. It’s effectively, that human beings eat the offspring of other creatures to stay alive - literally. |
Two main factors come to mind as the justification for his, which most of us rationalize in our heads – without even consciously thinking about it too much; that effectively make us eat the offspring of other creatures: (1) Survival & (2) Distance.
HUMAN SURVIVAL
 | 1) Survival – The reality that the human survival instinct and the survival instinct in general embedded biologically in almost any and every creature on the face of the earth is the driving force and certainly a justification for almost any end. Eating another creature, another life form essentially, in pieces or whole is very much justified if our survival depends on it - as it does. Even a plant breathes – so there it goes for you vegetarians. |
DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE ACT
2) Distance - In the sense that we rarely ever see someone killing a chicken or a horse or a pig. For most of us that may be a stunning sight. Imagine if before your breakfast every morning you had to pull a chicken’s head out of its body. It’s possible that you may become accustomed to it after some time and that would alleviate the traumatic stress after the first couple times, but the mere thought of it can be revolting. Being some distance away from such a reality can make it much more palatable. The same distance is applicable to something like the drug trade for example. For all the millionaires and billionaires, politicians and entertainers ie. elites, who sniff through a line of cocaine, it certainly equates (in cost) to the deaths of civilians, drug traffickers, and maybe even law enforcement officers. The ‘war on drugs’ which still continues to this day leads to a chain reaction of deaths and murders: from overdoses to civilian casualties, in the process of trafficking, law enforcement and narco deaths. Having distance from some harsh realities allows for a degree of acceptance. Could this sort of necessity to survive and the creation of distance between the necessity and the difficult acts necessary to provide for this necessity, be attached to the use of human embryos for testing? It's a question worth asking. And are the potential benefits of curing the ailments which affect our specie worth meddling with unborn human life?
THE FIELD OF BIOETHICS
| Human beings may very well be on the cusp of possibly creating beings infused with artificial intelligence while also being the subjects of gene editing technology. A combination of biology’s greatest advancements and technology’s newest frontier. Pushing the boundaries of human knowledge, that which we've never thought of being possible always brings a sense of fear. Is potentially altering the very being of what a human being is worth the risk for the discoveries to be made? Maybe if we ask those who've suffered losses of loved ones from incurable diseases the general perspective on 'messing with God's handy work' may change. |  |
RSS Feed
