ineering would “undermine the right of every person to be valued for his or her uniqueness” (Baker, 2001). The argument is that upon entering this life, a person is given certain qualities and inequalities that make him/her unique to each other. These qualities shape experiences, which in turn shape lives. Even the obstacles a person faces are meant to mold him/her and add character. Genetic engineering, however, removes some of these obstacles. Like in Gattaca, people would conceivably become an unthinking mass following the world’s plan of their lives, not their own. Today, however, people are not an unthinking mass, and we live in a society where everyone can become involved in social and political issues. With genetic engineering on the horizon, society needs to take a firm grasp on this ethics and ask what it truly wants. Ethical questions are constantly being asked, yet no one wants to face the issues at hand. People are so concerned with pleasing the majority that no one wants to take responsibility. If no one speaks up, though, scientists will continue blindly down an uncertain path. The problem here is that technology is so preoccupied with whether it can, that it never even considers whether it should.Take, for example, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Greg Egan’s The Extra. In Frankenstein, the narrator, Robert Walton, believes that “one man’s life or death were but a small price to pay for the acquirement of the knowledge which [he] sought” (Shelley, 1991, 13). Victor Frankenstein reminds Walton that he was once nave in this statement and proceeds to tell him how his own actions had led to a “hell within [him] which nothing could extinguish” (Shelley, 1991, p. 72). Genetic engineering has acquired this same navet and society could be blinded to the possible consequences if something is not done. The risks alone are too overpowering to ignore. As in th...
