Designer Babies: Subscription Database

My next step in exploring my topic of human genetic engineering was to explore the library's subscription databases. Initially, I went to Opposing Viewpoints. On this database, I found the article "Human Genetic Engineering is Risky and Should be Stopped," by David King. King opposes human genetic engineering on the basis that it will inevitably lead to purely cosmetic alterations, which will then lead to a society dictated by market forces and eugenics principles. Eugenics is the idea of selectively controlling a hereditary trait in a human or race. Currently, the science is only available to use gene therapy in one individual. Yet, it will not be long before scientists will be able to engineer a gene to become hereditary. It is a very pressing threat. This source also outlined Silver's concept of the GenRich and Naturals. King highlights that this separation would not be beneficial. The article then outlines the negative aspects of human genetic engineering. One such aspect is the safety side genetic engineering. There will never be a time when the risks are at zero, and these risks involve human life. More specifically, a human unable yet to speak for themselves. King also attacks the notion that genetic engineering is good for medical purposes. He states that there is only a small percentage of people for whom genetic engineering is the only option. Diseases are not always passed on, people scared of passing on diseases can adopt, etc. Therefore, King assumes that genetic engineering will mainly be used for cosmetic purposes. His point of view is interesting because he uses past examples to make his point. In one instance King points to the recent environmental problems as indication that humans should not interfere with nature. He asserts that developing this technology will only lead to greater problems for the human race.

Designer Babies: Web Sources

In order to continue to prepare for this project I explored more sources found when I conducted a basic web search. A website that explores popular issues contained an article about genetic engineering. The article asserted that the biggest risk associated with genetic engineering is intentional germline genetic engineering in which any changes made will be passed on to successive generations. Essentially, this is natural selection as accelerated by science. However, critics state that the use of this science will create an unstable environment in which social, political, and other forces will influence the lives of children. These uncontrollable force will cause an unstable society. This source also suggests that with the widespread use of genetic engineering, society will be split into two social classes. Molecular biologist Lee Silver refers to these classes as the genetically engineered GenRich class and the Naturals class. Silver speculates that these two classes will become so divided that no cross breeding will occur and a way of life will be firmly established. This source also suggests that giving human beings the ability to play G-d, especially human beings without true foresight about what they are doing, is extremely dangerous. Overall, the information presented in this article was interesting as it displayed various risks to genetic engineering. It seems that while some people support genetic engineering for health benefits, many fear the general societal repercussions of creating "super-humans."

The second web source I used is by Mike Adams, editor of the website Natural News. This article, in contrast with the other sources I have explored, voiced solely the benefits to genetic engineering. Adams asserts that men and women are borne with outdated "software" that limit how they interact with the world. He suggests that men are borne with the idea that they are meant to lead and control, while women are borne with "social software" that causes them to innately desire to connect with others. He suggests that men are motivated by power and control, while women are motivated by social desires and a desire to procreate. Consequentially, he says, women are more concerned with the common good than men. Adams sees genetic engineering as a solution to these innate desires and other problems. For example, he suggests that by engineering babies to hate the taste of sugar, America's obesity problems will be solved. Adams does acknowledge that America is not at a level of maturity in which genetic engineering is advisable, but sees it as a problem-solver for the future. He sees genetic engineering as the way to uplift our species and hasten improvement. This article was extremely interesting to me because Adams explored benefits to genetic engineering that are hard to argue with. It seems logical to want to create humans to be the best they can be. Yet, Adams largely ignored some of the risks of genetic engineering that the other articles explored.

Designer Babies: Magazine Source

My topic for the Marketplace of Ideas is human genetic engineering. My first step in becoming an expert on this issue was to conduct a basic web search. The first source I explored was a magazine article in MIT's MURJournal, an undergraduate magazine focused on science. The article, titled "Designer Babies: the Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering," by Yin Ren, was very helpful. Ren discussed both sides of the debate on genetic engineering. Ren first placed the science in its historical context. In 1976, scientists first successfully genetically manipulated mice by placing new genes into the mouse's embryo. In 2001, scientists created ANDi, a baby monkey carrying a jellyfish gene in his genome. One month later, scientists had completed mapping over 97% of the human genome. This was a step towards genetic modifications in humans. In 2003, a scientist reported the first modification of the human genome. This sequence shows that genetic engineering has been of fascination to many scientists over the years and that, ultimately, it is human genetic engineering that is of most interest. Scientists proclaim that one such use for human genetic engineering is the elimination of diseases and disabilities. Currently, there has been progress in the use of genetic engineering to cure muscular dystrophy. Scientists have inserted a synthetic gene into the muscles of mice that prevent their deterioration (a symptom of muscular dystrophy). Obviously, a cure to such a debilitating disease would be amazing. However, there are many concerns with human genetic engineering. There are still many health risks attached to genetic engineering, including death. Also, specifically, genetic engineering that strengthens muscles may become an athletic advantage. This would create an unfair competitive advantage. This criticism leads into the heart of the problem--designer babies. One of the speculated uses for this genetic engineering is to customize babies. Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis gives adults the ability to screen and select specific genetic traits to be implanted in their children. This clearly presents problems. Having traits imposed upon children leads to a decrease in freedom, inappropriate uses, unfair advantages, increasing social divides, economic gaps, etc. It then becomes a society in which babies are viewed as consumer goods. Those with more money have the ability to create "better" babies, while those with limited funds or those who oppose human genetic engineering continue to have babies the natural way. Critics of human genetic engineering suggest that this will lead to a divided society.

In this article, Ren mentions the book by Aldous Huxley, Brave New World. I read this book Freshmen year and it had a profound impact on me. Brave New World details a society of the future in which all people in the world are genetically engineered to fulfill a specific role. There is a drastic division between the alpha leaders and the gamma drones. There are levels of intelligence, athletic ability, artistic ability, etc. Essentially, human beings are mass produced in a lab and have absolutely no freedom over which class they are assigned to. This novel brings up moral implications of human genetic engineering. I think that it relates very closely to this issue as one of the main concerns over genetic engineering regards the social division that is sure to ensue. If interested parents are able to genetically engineer their child to have a higher skill set, than those children will eventually gain higher roles in society. This seems extremely unfair because it gives the child no choice in the matter and raises many moral questions. Overall, connection to this book had a large impact on me because it is easy to imagine a world in which a race of genetically engineered "super humans" creates an even greater contrast to those normal children who are not genetically engineered.

The Forever War Final Post

I chose to read The Forever War because the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were topics that I was interested in. These wars are continually debated in America so I believed that it was an important world issue to learn about. I did not really know a lot about either war before beginning this book. While this book did not really give me a lot of specific and technical information about the logistics of the wars, I think it allowed me to understand something even more important. Filkins’s novel explores the human aspects of these wars. It delves deep into the psyches of the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. Filkins explores the relationships between the people themselves, between the people and the Americans, and essentially is able to create an accurate and lively portrait of the citizens of these countries. Filkins specifically focuses on Iraq (his exploration of Afghanistan is mainly used for comparison) as that is the more complex issue. I think that Filkins’s novel is an extremely valuable one as it presents the Iraqi people in an unbiased light. Sentiment in America, mainly due to 9/11, is extremely anti-Muslim. Any and all Muslims are persecuted solely for their appearance and religion. The Forever War presents the Iraqi people as individuals with personalities, dreams, and goals. Whether we support their aims or not is irrelevant in Filkins’s book, his goal seems solely to open our eyes to a culture that we do not understand. With understanding of their culture comes compassion and sympathy for a country full of people that ultimately want the same freedoms that we, as Americans, enjoy.

The Forever War taught me that the Iraqi people are complex. Their loyalties can change instantly as they perceive another side will bring them more benefits. Ultimately, however, they all want the same freedom. No matter what side they are on all of the Iraqi people constantly fear for their lives due to the extreme instability of their country. The daily bombings and the violence of the insurgents are random and swift. There are so many reasons for which any individual may be killed, whether it is purposeful or accidental. I think that the root of the problem in Iraq is this perpetual fear and the constant state of mistrust. The Americans are unable to create any strong foothold in Iraq because they cannot communicate their goals effectively. Therefore, the Iraqi people are easily swayed by members of their own population. This has created an atmosphere in which the majority of the Iraqi people hate Americans. They all agree that they want the American occupation to end, but beyond that the Sunnis and Shiites descend into civil war. Even members of the same group attack each other as there are varying degrees of belief. This state of instability reveals the problems that the Iraqi people will have even after the American troops have been completely withdrawn.

Filkins’s account of the Iraq war was mostly grim but it was the moments of hope that were the most beautiful. The moments in which strong Iraqi individuals were portrayed or generous American commanders formed relationships with civilians revealed the bright spots in a country ravaged by war. However, The Forever War left me, ultimately, with a sense of despair. Filkins was able to leave Iraq eventually to return home. The Iraqi people are unable to leave their country. They continue to face threats to their lives every day. It will be interesting to see what happens once American troops are withdrawn and the Iraqi people are left with a country that they helped destroy.

The Forever War Post 5

Initially, the American backed democratic parliament in Iraq had a plausible structure. Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, the supreme Shiite religious authority, was at the center of this parliament. It was through his influence that the Shiite majority would gain dominance in Iraq and lead the country. With Sistani’s support of the American political project, the Shiite Iraqis would be able to become legitimate leaders of the country. Then, Muqtada al-Sadr, an Iraqi who had wanted to join the Shiite exiled leaders and the Americans but was refused, called for an uprising against the new government. A year after the Americans had arrived and only a short time after the new government had been installed, Muqtada was able to gain control of key places in the country. With his attack, the new Iraqi police and army (the backbone of the new state) melted away. The country disintegrated into civil war as Iraqis began to fight their own people.

The Americans were essentially powerless to stop the fighting. It was impossible to separate the insurgents from the ordinary civilians as they were now essentially the same thing. Additionally, the nature of the Iraqi people hindered the Americans. The Iraqi people discovered that they could fool the Americans into thinking that the supported their political aims while still maintaining their own agenda. Chalabi, a powerful exiled Iraqi, had played a significant role in encouraging the United States to go to war with Iraq. It was Chalabi who had initially assured the Americans that Saddam Hussein was building nuclear weapons in Iraq. As the situation in Iraq imploded and no nuclear weapons showed up the United States disregarded Chalabi. Chalabi then returned to Iraq to run for a seat on the parliament. In his campaign he stated that Americans, while getting rid of Saddam, did not liberate Iraq. He continued on to state that it is now up to the Iraqi people to take control of their own country. As Filkins referred to him, Chalabi was a gamesman, exile, idealist, and fraud. Essentially, “Chalabi was Iraq” (257). Chalabi represents a specific example that stands for all of the citizens of Iraq. It was easy for them to gain support and trust from the Americans while still maintaining their own goals.

The American soldiers were authorized to give money to Iraqi civilians for projects such as schools, roads, and irrigation citizens. Filkins details how ordinary civilians understood that to get money from the American soldiers the needed to act in a certain way around them. However, once Filkins was able to talk to these people alone they revealed their anti-American tendencies. Even Filkins was taken advantage of by some of the Iraqi people he hired to bring him information. The language barrier alone contributed to an ability to trick Americans, as Iraqi people could say one thing in English and another in Arabic. What was most interesting to me was that some of the Americans were aware that the Iraqi people were double-crossing them, but there was essentially nothing they could do about it. The Americans had to do something to show that they were making a difference in the country and this included building new projects. The Americans essentially chose to ignore the duplicity of the Iraqi people and considered only that which supported their democratic aims.

The Forever War Post 4

In Afghanistan, Filkins had enjoyed the protection that his reporter status gave him. He was able to talk to just about anyone he wanted to and gain insight into the lives of the people without a major threat to his well-being. In the beginning, Filkins enjoyed this same experience in Iraq. Filkins was able to take nightly runs around the city and talk with the guards. They would let him pass with laughter and smiles. However, as conditions in Iraq deteriorated even Filkins’s status as a reporter would not be able to save his life.

Filkins was easily identifiable as an American and as the Iraqi mindset became increasingly hostile towards America, people became increasingly aggressive towards Filkins. Filkins was one of the few Americans that would listen to the people, as the soldiers were prone to violence, and the people unburdened hateful comments about America. They saw Filkins as a representative of America and assumed that he embodied everything they hated about American occupation in their country. When Filkins went to one of the kebab stands that he had been to multiple times without any trouble, the other customers became silent and started to whisper about killing him. Filkins translator, Jaff, rescued him from many situations in which angry Iraqis intended to kill Filkins or take him to the insurgents. Truthfully, this did not surprise me as I read the threats against Filkins life. As a reporter in an unstable country he was bound to face dangers every day. It was especially dangerous because Filkins did not live and work inside the Green Zone, the heavily protected American base. What did surprise me was how long Filkins was able to survive in Iraq without any real instances of torture or attack. Part of this is due to the security team that Filkins was able to assemble. However, most of it was due to Filkins friendliness and Jaff’s skill as a translator.

Another focus of these chapters was the election and democracy that America was trying to promote in Iraq. Filkins attended a meeting in which some of the 7,400 candidates gave short speeches to legitimize their claim to a seat on the parliament. The area was surrounded by armed guards and many of the candidates did not speak up for fear of punishment. However, Filkins saw hope in the meeting. As Iraqi people began to speak up and ask questions of the candidates the meeting began to resemble a real democracy. On the day of the voting, Filkins was astonished at the number of people that braved the bombs of the insurgents to cast their ballot. As one voter said, “We all have to die… to die for this, well, at least I will be dying for something” (243). The Iraqi people saw hope for their future in these elections and wanted to take part in creating a better, safer country. Not all of them had hope for Americanized democracy, but they understood the strength in the power of the people and voted to let their own citizens have a voice.

The Forever War Post 3

A large aspect of Part Two is the violence that Filkins sees while he is in Iraq. Filkins only writes about his own personal hope for the country's future in one chapter, The View from the Air. In this chapter, as he looks down at the country of Iraq from a plane, he can encompass the country in one look. He can imagine the Iraq people uniting together through a time of struggle in order to emerge victorious. However, when Filkins lands he confronts the brutal reality of the war. The Iraqi people are not uniting. Rather, they live in a state of perpetual fear and mistrust due to the nature of the insurgents.

The Iraqi insurgency began shortly after Americans entered Iraq in 2003. The insurgency encompasses all militia groups, foreign fighters, or rebels that are fighting to get Americans out of the country. The insurgents fight against not only American soldiers, but their own people as well. The insurgents punish any Iraq people they believe to be remotely associated with America or the American soldiers. It almost seems to be an elaborate cycle. The insurgents inflict violence on Americans and their own people, while the American soldiers attempt to counteract the insurgents’ murders but kill many innocent civilians in the process. It is this daily violence that characterizes the landscape of Iraq as Filkins explains it.

However, the brutality underlying this violence astonished me. The brutality came from both the American soldiers and the Iraq insurgents. The American soldiers, in increasing attempts to end violence with violence, ordered more violent punishments for captured insurgents. In one such instance, two captured insurgents were pushed into the freezing cold Tigris River when they would not reveal information. One of the men did not survive. Since the Army has rules against this type of punishment, the men who carried out the orders were punished. Those higher up who had ordered for it to happen were not. This misplacement of the blame is a whole different problem. However, the punishment in and of itself is a big issue. It is clear that this type of punishment is inhumane and should not occur, however I understand why the American soldiers felt compelled to undertake such punishments. They became consumed by the Iraqi mentality, “an eye for an eye.” The actions of the insurgents were becoming increasingly violent and the American soldiers were powerless to stop it. Those two insurgents they captured represented a small part of a much bigger machine that could not be stopped.

The actions of the insurgents were often hard to read about. Filkins details their acts of a brutality in a calm, reporter style so it almost did not seem real. One of the main branches of the insurgents’ attempted attack on the Americans and their supporters was the suicide branch. As 9/11 was occurring in the United States, hundreds of suicide bombers were wreaking havoc every day in Iraq. The suicide bombers drove trucks filled with gasoline into walls, strapped bombs to their bodies, tossed bombs into crowded marketplaces. Every day there were numerous suicide bombers detonating across the country. The information that struck me the most was where these suicide bombers were detonating bombs. They targeted schools and hospitals. They bombed the lines into the marketplace, the lines into the polling centers for voting. Every single place in which hope for the future rested, the suicide bombers destroyed. Filkins describes a tortured Iraq in which Iraqi extremists were killing their own people. It was terrible to read about the individuals who lost their lives, the Iraqi people and the soldiers, in the bombings.