Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The distinction between repairing genes and enhancing genes is a central idea in many moral debates surrounding genetic enhancement because some argue that repairing genes is morally permissible, but that genetic enhancement is not due to its potential to lead to social injustice through discriminatory eugenics initiatives. [5]
[60] [61] [62] For parents, genetic engineering could be seen as another child enhancement technique to add to diet, exercise, education, training, cosmetics, and plastic surgery. [63] [64] Another theorist claims that moral concerns limit but do not prohibit germline engineering. [65]
A 1930s exhibit by the Eugenics Society.Some of the signs read "Healthy and Unhealthy Families", "Heredity as the Basis of Efficiency" and "Marry Wisely".Eugenics (/ j uː ˈ dʒ ɛ n ɪ k s / yoo-JEN-iks; from Ancient Greek εύ̃ (eû) 'good, well' and -γενής (genḗs) 'born, come into being, growing/grown') [1] is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality ...
Fukuyama argues that the moral status of human embryos is higher than that of human cells or human tissues because they possess "the potential to become a full human being." [ 8 ] He concludes that "it is therefore reasonable, on non-religious grounds, to question whether researchers should be free to create, clone, and destroy human embryos at ...
Philosopher Walter Veit has argued that if one accepts both procreative beneficence and consequentialism, then a parental obligation for genetic enhancement logically follows, as there is no intrinsic moral difference between selecting and enhancing embryos for welfare-maximizing traits. [10]
Agar's 2010 book Humanity's End argued against the doctrine of radical enhancement sometimes identified with the transhumanist movement. [4] Agar claims that enhancement is a good thing that it is nevertheless possible to overdo. He advances a species-relativist view about the value of human experiences and achievements.
Life extension is the concept of extending the human lifespan, either modestly through improvements in medicine or dramatically by increasing the maximum lifespan beyond its generally-settled biological limit of around 125 years. [1]
It is argued instead that the obesity comes about because of genetic drift in the genes controlling the upper limit on our body fatness. Such drift may have started because around 2 million years ago ancestral humans effectively removed the risk from predators, which was probably a key factor selecting against fatness.