Neo-Evolution and You

http://www.ted.com/talks/harvey_fineberg_are_we_ready_for_neo_evolution.html

The video basically goes into the three different possibilities for human evolution. The first is that we have ceased to evolve by forcing our environments to adapt to us and removed the isolation necessary for it to occur. The second is that evolution is impossible to stop and is always working behind the scenes (isolation necessary for it to occur will definitely be present if we colonize planets). Lastly there is neo-evolution, which is essentially when we take our evolution into our own hands.

Fineberg doesn't impose an opinion as far as answering the question posed, however delivers enough background information to come to our own conclusions. What might occur in society should neo-evolution take root?

Ask and you shall receive.

The name of the film is Gattaca and it's easily one of the most inspirational movies I've ever seen. More than that though, the protagonist (Vincent) lives in precisely the world illustrated by neo-evolution. In his world, "natural conception" is replaced with a screened procedure to ensure the best possible genes are given to your child. It's still a product of the two parents, just the "best" combination. You can determine everything about your child (gender, eye colour, no inheritable diseases, etc.) before impregnation. Your estimated age of death is determined seconds after your birth. In this society, genes are so important that they are your resume, your status, your very identity. Nature is everything.

Aww, what pretty brown eyes.

There's a ton of different things to look at from a Nature vs. Nurture perspective, but, relating back to what we discussed in class, I'd like to focus on the society. Just before concluding the Ted Talk, Fineberg expanded the possible traits to improve from memory and fitness to characteristics like empathy and how competitive you are. As he says, we could use this to make society "better", but what precisely does that constitute? Would we conform to one set of characteristics or choose to diversify (some traits for one group of people and some for others)?

In Vincent's reality there was a great deal of choice offered to the parents in the creation of their child in virtually every aspect of their character. They could be mold them however they wished, but that ultimately "success" seemed to be the end many strove for. So much so that society was diversified by the collection of certain genes making one person superior to another. They were the Elite. Work ethic or personal dreams didn't matter if you didn't have the right genes to back it up. Although an apparently optional process, it became a mandatory procedure if the parents wanted their child to amount to anything.

I think the scariest thing is that this line of thought isn't science fiction anymore, but becoming our reality. Although not guaranteed, we currently have methods in place for individuals to choose the gender of their future child (a vital option for areas with a one-child policy). If this concept were in the same extent as Vincent's world, it wouldn't take much for the government to manipulate the process slightly to silence genes capable of say, potential criminal conduct (tendency towards violence or depression for instance). The potential to shape a society of peaceful minded individuals is a possibility, but merely a single optimistic outcome. How much should be allowed to change? Where do we draw the line?

With genetic manipulation of a potential life, we're really playing God. Moral issues aside, we just aren't capable of seeing the long term effects of our actions. How could a society function if everyone was incredibly driven for instance? Would the society thrive or fall apart as these individuals were competing for success? Or how would one try to force genetic diversity? There isn't one right answer, but the important thing to take out of this is that we have to begin drawing lines now. Although preventing genetic disease is fantastic, I believe that tinkering with personality is too far. There are just too many unknowns to map an entire society around. More importantly, a government should be created to best suit its people, not the other way around.

On an individual level, I think nurture plays a greater role than nature, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to choose the ink for my son or daughter to write their story with. We each have our blank pages to fill and what makes life so interesting is the fact that the authors aren't built, but simply phase into existence. Each to weave their own unique tale.

Never stop questioning.