0

Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................................2
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................2
Challenges...................................................................................................................................................3
Preservation Of Human Identity..............................................................................................................3
Efficacy Of The Non-Biological Experience...........................................................................................4
Parental Preferences Towards Genetic Coding........................................................................................6
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................8
Works Cited.................................................................................................................................................9
 1

Abstract
This paper examines the obstacles that humanity faces in its pursuit of evolving into a
genetically superior race. The arguments included in this paper are quite speculative but have
mostly been contrived by extending the views of notable scientists as well as existing papers.
The paper is broken down into three separate challenges. These being the preservation of human
identity, the efficacy of the non-biological experience, and parental preference towards genetic
coding. The goal of the paper is to highlight the challenges to genetic advancements which may
cause people to refrain from use of such procedures.

Introduction
Like other advancements in medical sciences which allow humans to interfere with the
natural process of birth, gene editing is also a source of mass conflict among civilians and
scientists alike. Notable scientists such as Stephen Hawking and Raymond Kurzweil have
backed the idea of pursuing this branch of study, believing that humans can and should look to
reshape their biological composition. On the other hand, several notable figures in the field of
genetic engineering, such as Feng Zhang and William Debinski have been just as vocal in
stressing that it is too premature to consider widespread applications of genome editing in
humans. Such conflicting opinions are present among parents as well. While some parents
believe they have to help their child overcome traits which are considered disadvantageous,
others are daunted by the idea of humans playing god.
Personally, I feel genome modification should be used to provide children with a better
future. To justify my choice I will be presenting my views on the idea of using genetic coding in
the future as well as in present-day circumstances.
Gene editing is the process of replacing certain genes within the DNA of an organism.
The purpose of such changes is to suppress or enhance particular qualities by manipulating the
way the organism is coded. A branch of gene editing, which has been widely discussed in recent
years, is germ line modification which implies genome modifications being done to newly
formed embryos or gametes. Such alterations result in irreversible changes to not only the
resulting offspring but to future generations as well since the corrections are retained perpetually.
 2

Challenges
Preservation Of Human Identity
The foremost challenge to widespread human genome modification is the idea that
human identity needs to be preserved. Certain aspects of human life such as aging, dying as well
as being a unique individual are what give meaning to our lives as they have for those who came
before. By tampering permanently with our genetic code, we stand to lose these aspects and thus
our identity as a race. Kurzweil argues against this notion by stating that humans dignify certain
aspects of life due to their inevitability. Our mind rationalizes the idea of death as it has been
ingrained with the belief that death is but the next great adventure. However, through what
Kurzweil describes as the singularity, humans will be able to transcend into a more evolved race
(Kurzweil, 2006). At this point, humans will no longer require meaning through death and will
hence be able to overcome the boundaries of their current identity. Rather humans will seek to
preserve their identity by eliminating aging and pestilence altogether and by storing their
knowledge.
Stephen Hawking also ponders over the idea of preserving human identity, although in a
very different manner than Kurzweil. Hawking criticizes the idea of a conventional afterlife by
arguing life after death is a fairy tale. Humans simply feel the need to remedy their fear of death
and therefore look to the heavens as being their ultimate, promised land. In truth, the human
mind is simply a biologically aware computer program that ceases to exist once broken. Only by
researching ways of uploading our minds into a human-constructed software can we preserve our
identity.
Notable theorist William Dembski argues against the idea that humans can even preserve
their identity on two grounds. Firstly, he argues that gene coding can never be sufficient to allow
humans to transcend into a more superior state as genes do not account for all human
characteristics. Accumulating more sought-after genes may not lead to a significant change in
intellect or otherwise because the actual variables which affect human characteristics are either
beyond our control or simply unbeknownst to us. Secondly, Dembski argues that actual
superiority is determined by natural selection which is something we cannot mold to our will
(Dembski, 2005). Superiority is not a universal concept, rather it is relative to the region where
one resides in. This makes the possibility of a single superior form of humans simply absurd.
 3

Efficacy Of The Non-Biological Experience

Most of the debate on transcendence and singularity is based on the assumption that
genome modifications can lead us towards the creation of advanced humans or even humanoids.
Thus, before highlighting further challenges we must question if this assumption is warranted or
if it is simply a consequence of Hollywood producing too many science fiction movies over the
last decade. Since 2015, there have been significant advances in genetic editing through CRISPR
(Foht, 2016). This is a procedure that uses bacterial enzymes to cut certain gene fragments and
has considerably greater accuracy than other gene therapy procedures. This procedure has
already been used in China several times over the past 3 years (Kozubek, 2017). Even though
regulations prohibit the use of this technique in most human genome associated applications, it
does bring into light the idea that humans with advanced capabilities and actual computational
powers may be a possible outcome of gene editing (Straiton, 2019).
It must also be highlighted that there is great opposition to gene editing within humans
which may lead to a complete ban on the use of such procedures for non-life-saving reasons
(Cohenmar, 2019). Feng Zhang is one of the scientists who are part of such movements. Despite
working with CRISPR in some capacity himself, Zhang argues that it is too premature for us to
consider applications of gene coding in humans on a widespread scale. The biological knowledge
on the subject is lagging behind technological advancements meaning that we are dealing with
substances beyond our comprehension (Lepiarz, and Jolicoeur 2020). Because of this, there is no
single person, government, or organization that can be placed in charge of leading humanities
initiatives of gene modification. Nor is there any entity that can regulate organizations. Similarly,
a free for all is also undesirable as gene coding is a very intricate procedure and any error in
coding would lead to permanent changes within generations of humans. What all this entails is
that we might be much further from large scale gene editing than we think.
While humans are currently in no position to create artificial images of themselves it is
worth considering the ontological questions which widespread genetic sequencing will give rise
to. The next challenge to genetic sequencing is the idea that possessing advanced capabilities
will result in humans questioning their non-biological experience. At this point, our knowledge
regarding the non-biological experience is speculative at best. Still, we can use conjecture to
presume that this experience will lack the emotional sensations brought about by life’s
unpredictable nature and human flaws. Moreover, Kurzweil would argue that these humans will
 4

differ in terms of memory capacity more than any other thing. According to Kurzweil, these
humans will have the brainpower and mental capacity equivalent to thousands of exabytes. And
unlike us these memories will not simply be forgotten, rather they will be archived until they are
required to be processed by our mind. Humans will also possess a much deeper understanding of
the content stored in their brains to complement their mental capacity.  
Stephen Hawking has also discussed the possibility of humans uploading their brains
onto computer-based programs to live on forever. Although Stephen Hawking has never
explicitly expressed that this program may then be run inside a humanoid, it certainly isn’t
inconceivable that this might be the case. After all, Russian billionaire Dmitry Iskov has already
begun work on uploading his brain into a lifelike robot. This procedure aims to extract and store
a person’s memories as well as their emotions and consciousness to accurately portray them. The
brain inside the lifelike robot is being constructed with the same structure as that of a normal
human brain to ensure compatibility.
This brings us to the scenario where existing as a non-biological entity may cause the
human race in its entirety to question if they truly exist as a species or are simply equivalent to a
network of operating systems, coded into living their lives as organic creatures. One thing that
being genetically superior would not cure is an existential crisis. A non-biological humanoid may
be programmed to never question its existence to remove this concern, but the resulting creature
would then not be a perfect human. Moreover, this creature could not be considered as being
“aware” either as it does not possess the necessary capacity to question its existence. Similarly,
those who criticize the idea of non-biological humans argue that you can never program a lifelike
robot to have the same consciousness as a human as this robot would never be able to seek a
spiritual presence. Hence, these creatures would never be able to ponder over the ultimate
question which has kept humans engaged throughout history i.e. the existence of god.
Kurzweil refutes the claims against non-biological creatures and goes a step further by
arguing that spirituality in its essence is to seek patterns that decipher the existence of the
universe and are therefore comprehendible to these creatures. Even more so, Kurzweil believes
that the singularity will deepen our understanding of spirituality as we will be able to observe
patterns beyond art, the fabric of the earth, or even the cosmos. We will be able to grasp the
design and impressions embedded within biological processes such as evolution. Understanding
 5

evolution on a deeper level will enable us to conceive patterns that then help us grasp the concept
of god.
Kurzweil also argues that non-biological creatures can be just as conscious as current
humans (Kurzweil, 2006). This is because being conscious is only ever apparent to a person if it
is his consciousness being considered. Therefore, the only person who can decide a human is
conscious is themselves. To paraphrase René Descartes, I think I am conscious therefore I am
conscious. There is no metric for a person to measure another person’s consciousness. So, in
essence, non-biological humans can be just as conscious if they are simply engineered to believe
that they are conscious.
In this manner, Kurzweil attempts to refute the idea that non-biological creatures are any
more likely to face an existential crisis than human beings in general. In fact, by not rationalizing
death they are less likely to question their alien nature and more likely to seek a more objective
purpose of life, thus making them all the more human.
Parental Preferences Towards Genetic Coding
Another challenge to consider is if parents or guardians will opt to put their children
through gene modification knowing the potential consequences of their choice. This challenge
cannot be speculated upon using the eyes of a scientist since it is based on individualistic
decisions. The best possible way to determine if parents will go through with this is to
determine should they opt to genetically engineer their child. In my opinion, parents should opt
to pursue genetic engineering for a multitude of reasons. 
Firstly, genetic engineering has great potential to become a cure for a range of diseases
such as diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and even cancer. Moreover, it may be able to eradicate these
diseases by eliminating them from gene pools of families susceptible to these diseases.
Currently, there are over 10000 diseases that originate from mutations in single genes (Folkers,
2018). These monogenic diseases are known to devastate entire bloodlines. By eliminating them
from the genes of just one baby we may be able to liberate an entire lineage. Parents whose
genes have a medium to a high probability of passing on diseases should opt for genetic coding
as it would rid their future offspring of the disease.
Secondly, every parent has an obligation as well as a tendency to make decisions that
benefit their children. This means that even if a fatal disease is not at stake, parents who have the
means should opt for paths that shape the best future for their children. In this regard, choosing
 6

to alter the genetic makeup of a child is no different than any other sacrifice a parent makes for
the sake of his or her child. 
Thirdly, in some cases, genetic coding can help desperate parents avoid the possibility of
abortion. Diseases such as down’s syndrome are often detected before the birth of a baby. In
such scenarios, it is not uncommon for parents to abort their child with the belief that it is a better
alternative than introducing the child into a life of discomfort. For such cases, germline coding
provides a way to intervene at the right time to ensure the child’s DNA does not contain any
chromosomal mutations. 
Such lines of argument are often criticized as being offensive as they imply the lives of
people suffering from severe genetic diseases are not worth living and they might be better off
having never lived. This is a harsh misrepresentation of the reality because genetic coding only
aims to improve the quality of life of an individual by eradicating the disease. It does not
promote the marginalization of people with incurable cases. It helps these people ensure they can
procreate without risk of passing the disease to their children.
One of the points against genetic coding is that it may lead parents to see flaws that do
not exist. Perfectionist parents may be gullible enough to believe that even minor imperfections
are worth removing. This is troubling because even with remarkable accuracy and efficiency
procedures as complex as gene therapy poses a risk of failure. In such cases, the result would be
catastrophic for the parents, the child and any other offspring the altered code is passed down to.
We might be better off by choosing not to march down this path altogether which requires
present-day parents to exercise genetic coding in only extremely severe cases. While it is
perfectly normal to assume some parents will be to keen to have gene-altering operations on their
child, this argument entertains consequences which might arise due to improper use of genetic
coding. There are several ways in which such cases can be avoided altogether. Consulting
doctors for one can intervene and counsel misguided parents. Governing authorities can also
ensure that only cases where the in-charge doctor's consent to treatment go forward. 
One similar argument is that genetic coding might increase stereotyping by promoting
genes that have little to do with health and personality and more to do with demographic
features. This may lead to reprehensible applications of genetic coding. For example, cultures
where one gender is considered to be more desirable than others may witness a high number of
gender altering modifications. Similarly, parents of color may be compelled to give into
 7

discrimination to spare their children from being marginalized. Here, the very existence of an
alternative stimulates racist ideas. While there is no definite solution to this issue, one that does
come close is that modification of genes code for demographic traits can be declared unlawful.
This would certainly help curb stereotypical applications of genome coding. For traits such as
color, ethnicity, and race there might not be a need for intervention at all. These traits are
determined by numerous different genes meaning that it may not even be possible to alter them
in any way. 

Conclusion
In short, as is the case with all ground-breaking medical procedures initially, there are
many reasons for parents not to pursue genetic coding for their children. These obstacles involve
both genuine concerns as well as absurd claims. Fortunately, all these obstacles come with
potential solutions as well which can be perfected over time to ensure genetic coding can be
implemented in the safest, most efficient manner possible. Once this is done, we can gradually
address more long-term concerns as well related to the future of humanity.

Word Count: 2707

 8

Works Cited
Cohenmar, John, “New Call to Ban Gene-Edited Babies Divides
Biologists.” Science, 13 Mar. 2019, www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/03/new-call-ban-
gene-edited-babies-divides-biologists, Accessed 30 July 2020

Dembski, W., 2005. The Problem with Darwinian Solutions. Intelligent Design,

[online] Available at: <https://www.discovery.org/a/2757/> [Accessed 30 July 2020].

Foht, Brendan P. “Gene Editing: New Technology, Old Moral Questions.” The

New Atlantis, no. 48, 2016, pp. 3–15. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43766980. Accessed
30 July 2020.

Folkers, Kelly McBride, GENETIC EDITING: ETHICAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES.

NYU LANGONE HEALTH, New York, 2018, pp. 1-13,
https://med.nyu.edu/highschoolbioethics/sites/default/files/highschoolbioethics/Genetic
%20Editing%20Module.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2020.

Kozubek, James. “Crispr-Cas9 Is Impossible to Stop.” Georgetown Journal of

International Affairs, vol. 18, no. 2, 2017, pp. 112–119. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/26396025. Accessed 31 July 2020.

Kurzweil, Raymond. “The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend

Biology.” Foreign Affairs 85, 2006

Straiton, Jenny. "Genetically Modified Humans: The X-Men Of Scientific

Research". Biotechniques, vol 66, no. 6, 2019, pp. 249-252. Future Science Ltd,
doi:10.2144/btn-2019-0056. Accessed 30 July 2020.