<doc.id=1528.b2>
<title> Genetic Engineering - Develop or Stop? </title>
There has been a great progress in the science of molecular biology during the late 20th century that has brought us closer to the secret of life. The most important question today is if this is a desired development and we should let it continue without hindrance or if we need to slow down the pace or perhaps even stop it. Torbjörn Tännsjö argues that there are no convincing arguments for why we should do anything to stop the progress while I am of the opposite opinion. In this essay I shall present three objections to Tännsjö's article, starting with criticism of the main assumption for his whole reasoning.
The main assumption for Tännsjö's discussion is that there must be something wrong with the biological nature of the human being. He has drawn this conclusion after considering all the malice that man has made himself guilty of during the last century. But there can not be something generally wrong with our genes that makes us cause malice, since not all human beings are evil. Anyone would not be capable of starting a war or dropping a bomb over Hiroshima. I believe that a majority of all people would object to most of the horrific deeds performed during the 20th century. This means that if malice can be in your genes it is not in all people's genes. Accordingly, it is not justifiable to argue that "It is no catastrophe if humanity is ruined in the long run, provided that humanity is replaced by a species with better prospects of living a happy and peaceful life"2 as Tännsjö does.
 There is also a possibility that evil is something you acquire from society but this is something that Tännsjö not once considers in his article. Neither in this case would it be possible to use the evil deeds performed by some people as an argument in favour of changing the whole human race genetically. Since if malice is something you acquire, not inherit, a change of society is needed to extinguish it, not a manipulation of our genes. Next I will discuss what the creation of a better human being could involve.
Tännsjö writes in his article that genetic engineering might be dangerous for the development of society and that this is the most important argument against the science. He tries to refute this argument by saying that as long as there are no politiclly established ideals for humans there is no danger that the society becomes elitist. But this arguing is not convincing. There will always be people who choose or are forced to avoid the manipulation of their children's genes for different reasons. One reason is poverty. 
A majority of the world's population lives in poverty and they would not be able to utilise the science for economic reasons. There will also be people who object to genetic engineering, at least from the beginning. Tännsjö argues that we should follow our instinct considering this question and there are many people whose instinct would tell them to be careful and think twice about this. People with no manipulated genes will form a second class of the human race and we will get an elitist society.
My third, main argument against Tännsjö's article also deals with the individual choice. There is a problem with his arguing and we are reminded of it when reading the headline: "Let genetic engineering create better human beings". The problem lies within the word better. Who should decide what good qualities in a human being are? Tännsjö argues that every individual should decide what qualities their children should have. He has a belief in the individual and argues that no parent would choose to give their child bad qualities. But this is contradictory to his assumption that we have malice in our genes. If it were true, would it not be possible that we gave our children evil genes? We all perceive the world in different ways and would consider good qualities diversely. The only way to stop people from making monsters would be to decide what the ideal is or at least is not, and who should do that? Not the state according to Tännsjö since then there is a risk of an elitist society. 
Finally I want to answer the question Tännsjö asked in his article: "Should we not let genetic engineering create a better human being?". The answer is no and the arguments in favour of this is what I have presented in my essay. There is no proof that malice is in our genes, there is a risk that we would get an elitist society and the individual choice of what are good qualities in a person can result in the making of monsters and then even more malice in our world. "Should we not create a better human being?" The answer is yes, but not through changes of our genes but instead through changes of our society.

Summary of "Let Genetic Engineering Create Better Human Beings"
Torbjörn Tännsjö claims that there must be something wrong with the biological nature of the human race, since human beings have caused so much evil during the 20th century. Therefore, he argues, we should create a better human being by using genetic engineering. The natural development from today will start with genetic vaccines for common diseases and then continue with using the science in a greater extent. Parents will for instant have the possibility to choose what aptitudes and personality qualities their children should develop. Furthermore Tännsjö argues that we should not try to stop this development since there are no convincing argument to do so. As long as all individuals are free to decide what they want for their children there will be no problems. 

Reference:
Tännsjö, Torbjörn. "Låt gentekniken skapa bättre människor". Dagens Nyheter 01/26/00. P. A4
1 Torbjörn Tännsjö, "Låt gentekniken skapa bättre människor" Dagens Nyheter 01/26/00, p. A4 (my translation)
2 Tännsjö, p. A4 (my translation)
</doc>