There are two viewpoints regarding this subject, one of then is that bioengineering is bad and will have negative consequences, viewpoint shared by Francis Fukuyama. The second viewpoint is that bioengineering will bring good results to all humans and will have positive consequences, viewpoint shared by Gregory Stock.
Francis Fukuyama does not support the bioengineering of humans because he thinks that we should respect natural selection. Natural selection is so perfect that have created connections between our genes that we cant even start to realize. This connections reflects also in our functioning within the ecosystems. How can we start bioengineering humans if we still not fully understand the functioning of mother nature?
Though we are cultural individuals, bioengineering would alter one way or another who we are. This would create strong social, and governmental changes. The risks are unpredictable. For Fukuyama bioengineering can even be co-related to the Germans Nazi activity.
For Gregory Stock bioengineering cant be stopped because people will demand to have the advantages of such technology. For Stocks it can not be banned because someone somewhere will develop it, so it should be done in the U.S. because it is a country with good ethics.
For Stocks the development of this technology will reduce the incidence of diseases, retard the aging effect, bring the possibility for the parents to “design” their childs physical and mental characteristics like the color of the eyes or the degree of intelligence of the child for example. The works of nature by trial and error can be very cruel, so, of course everyone will see bioengineering of humans as a beneficial technology that everyone will what to have access to.
He disagrees with Stock about the parents being able to take such decision about their childes, and if theres anyone to regulate such choices it should be the state. Fukuyama gives two utilitarian reasons on why the ...Show more