Issue link: http://cp.revolio.com/i/1161
The advocates of trait selection using PGD, at least in the Western world, appear to be small in number. But as the NYu Langone medical Center survey showed, there are at least a few. On his blog sentient Developments, George Dvorsky, a prominent transhumanist bioethicist, pointed out that "some demand is still demand". Commenting on the survey, Dvorsky said, "An anti-enhancement bias is most certainly embedded in our society. It's very likely that many of the respondents were answering the survey in accordance to their social conditioning and what they thought was expected of them from an 'ethical' perspective." supporting the idea of trait selection, Dvorsky wrote, "What we're talking about here is endowing our children with all the tools we can give them so that they may live an enriched, open-ended and fulfi lling life. By denying them these benefi ts we are closing doors and potentially reducing the quality of their lives." Another advocate of cautious trait selection is ramez Naam, author of the 2005 book more Than Human. In a chapter on genetic engineering, he writes, "A regulatory regime consistent with family choice would focus on safety, education, and equality rather than prohibition". Looking past the immediate future, Naam also writes, "ultimately, whatever choices we make for our children will be subject to change, at their choice, when they reach adulthood. In the coming years, pharmaceuticals, adult gene therapy, and the integration of computers into the brain will give people far more control over their own minds and bodies than we enjoy today." In a march 9, 2009 WIreD online interview, James Hughes registered support for trait selection, and also railed against the "designer baby" terminology altogether. responding to the future of trait selection, he said, "It's inevitable, in the broad context of freedom and choice. And the term 'designer babies' is an insult to parents, because it basically says parents don't have their kids' best interests at heart." He said, "If I've got a dozen embryos I could implant, and the ones I want to implant are the green-eyed ones, or the blond-haired ones, that's an extension of choices we think are perfectly acceptable — and restricting them a violation of our procreative autonomy." PGD and other reproductive technologies are commonly rejected as "unnatural". The transhumanists and technoprogressive response is summarized well in the Transhumanist FAQ, which says, "In many particular cases, of course, there are sound practical reasons for relying on "natural" processes. The point is that we cannot decide whether something is good or bad simply by asking whether it is natural or not. some natural things are bad, such as starvation, polio, and being eaten alive by intestinal parasites. some artifi cial things are bad, such as DDT- poisoning, car accidents, and nuclear war." The legal and ethical future of trait selection based on PGD is still unknown. What is known is that parents will always want the best for their children. When push comes to shove, they will probably take advantage of whatever technologies are available that will give them the best lives possible. michael Anissimov is a writer and futurist in san Francisco. He writes a blog, Accelerating Future, on artifi cial intelligence, transhumanism, extinction risk, and other areas. resOurCes Fertility Institutes http://www.gender-selection.com sentient Developments http://www.sentientdevelopments.com James Hughes said, "the term 'designer babies' is an insult to parents, because it basically says parents don't have their kids' best interests at heart.