For Both Positive and Negative Engineering

Positive and Negative Engineering

Summary of "For Both Positive and Negative Engineering"

Are we justified in using genetic engineering to create one type of person over another? This is the complex question addressed by the author in the article. The two fundamental issues raised by positive engineering are whether we are justified in attempting to change human nature, and whether genetic engineering is an acceptable means of achieving this change. The author asks, since negative changes are made regarding genes and positive changes are made to environments, why positive changes should not be made at the genetic level. The author aimed to address the different sources and reasons for resistance to the idea of positive engineering, as well as to focus on the justifiable doubts to this concept.

One of the key reasons people may be resistant to the positive engineering is an objection to "playing God." Determining what characteristics humans should have could be viewed as something that should be left to the divine, out of the realm of human control. Others may have a resistance to messing with natural selection, in which humanity contains certain characteristics due to the promotion of genetic survival.

The author suggests that beyond the objections mentioned above, there is a general resistance to a limited and fallible group of people making such consequential decisions, and a general opposition to an extreme concentration of power.

The concept of the "genetic supermarket" challenges the idea that any type of centralized decision making must occur with regards to positive engineering. This type of system would cater to the genetic specifications of prospective parents. Allowing parents to choose characteristics for children would result in more variety than in a centrally controlled system. However the issue arises that some parental decisions would be disturbing. This would create changes that would be unfavourable. The author emphasizes the need for some sort of social control or restrictions over the alterations permitted in positive engineering, and that a genetic supermarket that is modified by some central regulation would be better than a system controlled by centralized decisions. The author calls this a mixed system.

The author proposes a mixed system, which would limit the power of decision-makers to a power of veto. This system would essentially be a combination of parental initiative and central veto, and the author states that this type of system would be the best possible option for the decision-making involved in positive engineering. The mixed system eliminates worries about genetic changes being controlled by a few powerful people with limited scope. However, a general anxiety remains as to the values that would be utilized in making these decisions. Furthermore, the deepest resistance is based in values, and the question of whether parents have the right to create one type of person over another.

The author asks how we can be sure that it is better for one person to be born rather than another?