The reporter covering this story and the scientests interviewed all seem to be engaged in a very careful balancing act.
On the one hand they downplay the significance of their finding as it's just one of many traits in the human genome that have been identified recently and from a survival standpoint it's a very minor one.
However, the politics of this (assuming manipulation would be possible in the future) are huge.
Manipulation of the human genome is a matter of when, not if (at least if SciFi authors like Peter Hamilton are prophetic as well as entertaining).
I think that once real genetic advantages such as disease resistance, intelligence, and athleticism are programmed into people's DNA from birth, that those paying for the service will want two things in addition, an obvious sign of this status, and the likelihood that these traits would be dominant and therefore readily inheritable (that way you are not only paying for your future infant's competitive advantage, but all of your descendents as well). And you'd want visual evidence of this advantage to help your offspring when it comes time for them to find mates.
I think it will be something spectacular and showy like blue, green or lavender skin. (Maybe that's why Capt. Kirk never had problems, all those green and blue babes he bedded were venereal disease proof).
The scientest interviewed seem to be very careful to suggest that in a small way the rise of light skinned people within two independent population groups in more northerly climes had to do with a confluence of competitive advantage and sexual selection. I think that in the era of real manipulation and not random mutation such a mechanism will be built in (at least if the scientest in charge have any sort of marketing sense)
(I think I abused the phrase 'I think' when commenting on this article, I guess I'm trying to walk a tightrope, also)
No comments:
Post a Comment