Can one genetically engineer personality? <Vanity>

Just read Enough by leftist environmentalist Bill McKibben. The book delves into germline genetic therapy, wherein a zygote's DNA can be altered. McKibben posits that within 50 years, the technology will exist for parents to select the eye color, hair color, and even personality of their kids (assuming that personality is about 50% nature and 50% nurture). He bemoans the fact that parents will be able to "stack the deck" by making a child more patient or pious. For example, McKibben notes that parents may be able to give a child the charitable outlook of Mother Theresa. Then, however, he questions whether such an outlook is cheapened because it has been "hard-wired" into the child's DNA.

Leaving aside the moral problems inherent with in vitro fertilization, do you FReepers think it is it inherently evil to predispose a child's personality toward being more benevolent, pious, or courageous? Does it make the child any less human if he or she has been genetically altered to have qualities that we admire?

Humans have been doing genetic engineering for personality (among many other traits) for tens of thousands of years...in dogs! Okay, we didn't know anything about genes at the time we started, but we did know the traits we liked (and disliked) and bred like to like generation after generation. As some Russian commercial fox breeders/researchers found out, it doesn't even take that long (about 50 generations of selective breeding) to go from wild, aggressive, unsociable animal (the natural fox) to a docile, friendly animal that is even starting to look dog-like in appearance.

The problem is that while there are many breeds of dog, each breed is hard wired to do the specific tasks intended for that breed (assuming they receive the correct socialization and training to develop those traits). Consequently, the Border Collie has a quick, keen intelligence and a natural herding instinct, the Huskie has the build and temperament to pull sleds as part of a team, and the Pit Bull has...er...well, you get the picture.

IMHO, the basic problem with breeding (or using genetic modification) to impart specific personality traits in human beings (aside from the immorality of such experimentation) is that it would probably undermine the ability of the modified human to adapt their behavior to produce appropriate responses to the variety of situations they must deal with. In the course of a lifetime, a person may be called upon to play many roles (child, parent, spouse, defender, caregiver, citizen, etc.). And just think of your daily routine. There are times when it is appropriate to be cooperative, aggressive, compassionate, or selfish (among others) and perhaps shift between these behaviors all within the space of a few moments. Now imagine being hard wired before birth by your parents to run predominately in one of those behavioral "grooves."

I don't think it is too off the mark to say that those persons who are "successful" in fulfilling the requirements of these varying roles do so through the engagement of their natural intellect with the principle adaptive tool of society; human culture. This combination of culture and intellect is far more responsive to situational demands that genetic manipulation. After all, it has allowed a species that, when compared to other animals, has no fangs or fur, that cannot see or smell well, that is not particularly strong or fleet of foot to completely dominate the planet within a blink of geological time.

While it might not be appropriate to tamper with the genes controlling personality and temperament, it is probably appropriate to consider using it pro-actively to treat genetic diseases and physical limitations. For example, ONCE THE FULL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INTERVENTION ARE UNDERSTOOD, using genetic manipulation to eliminate bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, deafness, or nearsightedness (among many other disorders of mind and body) might be permissible. The danger arises when a transition from "preventive care" to "improvement" is proposed. At that time, it might be well to reread a famous work of science fiction as a cautionary measure. The book, of course, is "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley.

Leaving aside the moral problems inherent with in vitro fertilization, do you FReepers think it is it inherently evil to predispose a child's personality toward being more benevolent, pious, or courageous? Does it make the child any less human if he or she has been genetically altered to have qualities that we admire?

Good question. It goes back to millennia of debate over free will and determinism. When things like piety, benevolence, or courage aren't freely chosen -- when they're genetically implanted -- is one really virtuous? Or is one simply preprogrammed, controlled, and dominated by genetic designers? It looks to be a very bad idea. Parents may well choose to design their children so as to make them passive and submissive to an unhealthy degree. People may be engineered and constructed to fit occupational niches.

I suppose if civilization continues for another century or two we'll have to face this problem, but if you care about human freedom, there's much to be concerned about. It's not a left vs. right issue. It's a conflict of past and future, humane traditions and technology. Take a look at Aldous Huxley's Brave New World or Dostoevsky's "Legend of the Grand Inquisitor" or the movie "Gattaca."

do you FReepers think it is it inherently evil to predispose a child's personality toward being more benevolent, pious, or courageous?

I'm not quite sure about the casuistry of genetic engineering, but I am pretty sure that such specific traits will be nigh impossible to isolate even if they are influenced by genetics.

It seems quite paradoxical to use an impersonal method of genetic alteration to effect a "personal" change. It is far better for both the person and his fellow men to help change his own personal traits through face-to-face play, work, conversation, and other kinds of habituation. Going for the greater good, I say no.

In addition, I note that the virtues are not a mater of applying technology to a person in ovo, but rather they are about inculcating the practices in him. Not techne, but praxis.

An article of interest: Designing our Descendants by Gilbert Meilander. He quotes Alisdair MacIntyre:

If in designing our descendants we succeeded in designing people who possessed just those traits that I have described, . . . what we would have done is to design descendants whose virtues would be such that they would be quite unwilling in turn to design their descendants. We should in fact have brought our own project of designing descendants to an end.
It turns out then that my argument has immediate practical consequences. For if we conclude that the project of designing our descendants would, if successful, result in descendants who would reject that project, then it would clearly be better never to embark on our project at all. Otherwise we shall risk producing descendants who will be deeply ungrateful and aghast at the people—ourselves—who brought them into existence.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.