podcast

Parents have started exploring genetic modification to make their future children happier. Some believe happiness should be pre-programmed, but others think it should be a natural occurrence. High school students have different opinions, with some considering it for advantages and removing illnesses, while others believe it goes against God's plan. The benefits and consequences of genetic modification are evident in cases like Louise Brown who was born through IVF and Jesse Gelsinger who died from gene therapy. Modifications can help fit in society and get better jobs, potentially improving a child's life. However, the costs and consequences currently outweigh the benefits. There is hope that genetic modification can create better lives in the future by eliminating diseases. The use of widespread modification in society is uncertain, but the pursuit of happiness and a better life for children remains constant. All children want to be happy, and all parents want their children to be happy. But what determines happiness for a child? Increasing numbers of parents have begun to explore the world of genetic modification, or changing the genetic makeup of their future children to gain some desired trait or to lose an unwanted one. Most parents, even those who oppose genetic modification, would likely say that they would take measures to maximize their children's happiness. In the context of genetic modification, should happiness be pre-programmed into a person, or should it be a natural occurrence? I think it can be pre-programmed into a person, but it should be a natural occurrence that someone finds on their own. I think it should be a natural occurrence because happiness is something that everyone should be able to experience in their life without being forced to experience it. I think it should be a natural occurrence. Pre-programming something like that just seems wrong. It doesn't seem like the right thing to do. It takes away from real human emotions. These high school students may not have children of their own, but thinking about genetic modification could be an issue that arises within the next few years. Would they modify their own children? If I can, I want to give them any advantage against people. If it was to remove an illness that they had, such as autism or Down syndrome, that would affect them, then I would. But other than that, no, not really. No, I would not genetically modify my own child because I believe that everything is a part of God's plan. It's interesting to think about. Modification has undeniable benefits and undeniable consequences. Louise Brown was the first baby to be born from in vitro fertilization, or, less formally, in the lab. The medical breakthrough was amazing, having allowed her parents, Leslie and John Brown, to have a child, despite Leslie suffering from blocked fallopian tubes, rendering her unable to have a child naturally. Seems like a win for genetic technology and modification. Jesse Gelsinger tragically died from gene therapy at the age of 18. He suffered from an X-linked genetic disease in his liver, causing him to have a restricted diet and intense medication intake for all of his life. The University of Pennsylvania was doing work at treating this disease, and Gelsinger volunteered. Four days after being injected with a virus carrying the corrected gene, he passed. All gene therapy trials in the United States came to a halt. Between Louise and Jesse, it can be easy to say that Louise had the better life. The benefits of modification could possibly outweigh the costs, if it means creating new life and helping infertile couples to have children. But is there correlation between modification and a better life? Because society is the way society is, certain modifications can help them fit in more or get better jobs. I think so, if they're helpful. Like, at the end of the day, they're not going to know. I think it definitely can give a child a better life, if it's morally right, that's a different question, but yeah, it can definitely improve a child's life. I don't think that, because a child wouldn't know their life with genetically modified or without. A better life fundamentally means a safe one. That was the ultimate motive behind modern science movements and the genetic revolution. We all want better lives for our kids, but it looks like the current costs and consequences rule out genetic engineering as a viable producer of happiness and a better life. On the other hand, is there hope for genetic modification creating better lives in the future? Yes, I do hope that genetic modification will make lives better, such as maybe through the elimination of common diseases. I think when it comes to the health of children, yes, but when it comes to changing looks and identities, then no. Whether society utilizes widespread modification remains to be seen, but in the meantime, undoubtedly, society will continue to chase happiness and the elusive idea of a better life for us and for our children.