It seems that many thinkers commit the naturalistic fallacy in thinking about human engineering and enhancement. That is, when thinking about human engineering (e.g., germline engineering) many have claimed that it is "unnatural" to pursue such options or that we "ought" not do such things because it would damage the human race. My question is this: if we take evolutionary theory seriously (with constant change, adaptation, etc.), why ought we not pursue human engineering, especially if larger issues of justice can be adjudicated?

Comments

Some people surely do commit the naturalistic fallacy here: Simply to say it's "unnatural" isn't an argument. Couches are unnatural.

The worry that genetic enginerring might "damage the human race" is quite different, however, and I for one take it seriously. The worry, very simply, is that we don't know what we're doing and that the costs of mistakes could be horrific. I'm not sure what evolutionary theory has to do with it. Perhaps the idea is that evoution could somehow correct the mistakes over time. But (i) that could take a very long time indeed; (ii) human reproductive success isn't driven by the same kinds of things now that it used to be; and (iii) evolution isn't going to resolve the problems from which the actual people born as the products of misbegotten engineering suffer.

Read another response by Richard Heck

Read another response about Biology, Ethics