Caroline Harms

Ms. Stacey Dearing

ENGL 106
24 March, 2015
The Ethics of Living in a Genetically Engineered World
Starting with a riveting, short dystopian story, I have begun to develop new concepts of
the ethics of altering human genes. The author of 2 B R 0 2 B, Kurt Vonnegut, is widely known
for his science fiction and humanist beliefs. Vonnegut was critical of his society and careful to
point out the movements against moral humanity. Kurt Vonneguts work of 2 B R 0 2 B poses a
very complex idea of genetic engineering altering our perception of humanity.
Vonnegut describes a world in which there is perfect peace. There is no crime, no prisons,
no disease nor age. Because of this, deathis an adventure for volunteers (Vonnegut). The
term volunteers is used because persons must volunteer to die in order to allow a baby to be
born into the world. The consequence of this means that if a person never volunteers, they will
never die. This system is in place to keep the population constant in a world where people do not
naturally live and die. The entire setting takes place in a very quiet, empty hospital. This is
important because hospitals are a place of sickness, disease, life, healing and death. Hospitals
today represent a progressive society, where new medicines are implemented every day to better
the people within it. In Vonneguts world, however, hospitals become barren due to the rarity of
birth and death in his dystopian society.

I sought to uncover exactly what Vonnegut has to say about a future dominated by
immortality. The overbearing ideas in todays society is that we should constantly be moving to
cure all humans of disease. That we should never put technological advances above medical
research, simply for the bettering of our own race. I am trying to shed more light this long
growing idea that we should be eradicated of mutations by means of genetic engineering.
Vonnegut points this out as being a very unnatural process, that by moving toward immunity we
are then moving away from humanity. In saying, The world could do with a good deal more
mess, if you ask me Vonnegut is implying we are moving toward a future past our traditional
ideas of humanity (Vonnegut). There is a lot of research on the ethics of genetic engineering
which I will explore in these regards.
Vonnegut taps on the idea that we realize we are heading in this over-progressive future,
and most of us can recognize there is too much of a good thing when it comes to genetic
immortality. Even the officials of his society, those who see to the volunteers having planned,
controlled suicides, are demure about what [they] did (Vonnegut). It is known that there is
debate about the ethics of changing what is biologically a predisposition. Vonneguts work
clearly attacks the idea and gives examples of consequences it may have for our race. While I
cannot simply choose between ethics and medical advancements, I intend to make the stance that
both sides need to be heeded to. I hope to uncover just what scientist really think about the
subject of genetic manipulation and present my own ideas on their research and research of my
own.
Whereas Vonnegut explores the issue of genetic immortality on human morals, genetic
engineering is complicated by its mass support in the scientific field while still being pinned
against modern ideas of ethics.

Genetic engineering is constantly being questioned for its ethical purposes. There are
several strong, well-educated opinions on where ethics fall in the growing field towards possible
human immortality of sorts. A large focus of genetic engineering is simply to diagnose
mutations in an individuals genes and then possibly eradicate the mutation and thus the faulty
phenotype that would have resulted in a disorder. However many scientists recognize the reality
that Vonnegut presents: one in which all disease can be eradicated. This idea of human without
natural disease and genetic roulette determining the mutations that make us so vividly unique
begins to tear apart the exact fathom of what it means to be human. So the question at hand is
where we might draw the line between the ethics and definition of humanity and relieving so
many people of despair and sickness. I have done research to decide where Vonneguts reality
lies in the opinions and ideas of both of scientists and our public opinion. I am not claiming that
genetic mutation is unethical. Rather I am questioning what reversing and preventing the
mutations that make us all human will mean for how we define humanity.
To begin, I will discuss ideas on where definitions of ethics began in the medical
professional world. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, a highly renowned bioethicist, wrote a book regarding
medical ethics and how advances in technology cause us to constantly reform our ideas of these
ethics. Emanuel explains that, advancement in biomedical technology can have a profound
psychological impact on our expectations of what medicine can do-or at least should be able to
do-in the face of illness (Emanuel 13). We treat our medical advances as a safe haven, if we are
smart enough to engineer it, it ought to be done for the bettering of our lives. There is a huge
slice of the pie that nitpicks at what we should control, especially regarding the use of antibiotics
and vaccines, usually in the case where parents have been convinced that the possible negative
side effects strongly outweigh the intended health benefit. Yet these sorts of medicines are mass

produced to the point that medicine companies are making millions of billions of dollars
annually on sales. So even when new technologies arent completely accepted, which is almost a
guaranteed fact of revolutionary ideas, the majority of our society feels the right to access and
benefit from them once it is made clear they will enhance our livelihood to some extent.
Moving forward, the idea of genetic engineering, however, seems to strike a very
sensitive cord in our society. Genetic engineering tampers at our idea of the heart of humanity.
The natural mix match of genes randomly selected to create who we are being replaced with
decided genes for the bettering of our livelihood takes almost all the wild out of our species.
People resist uncovering what is the mystery to the meaning of life. However, ethicist Joseph
Fletcher reveals that we have been exposing lifes mysteries with every step of technological
advancement we take. Why should we not get so close that like other mysteries the secret of life
comes to be no secret at all? (Fletcher 12). I believe this is where the fear starts. In a world so
fueled by religion and mystery, people fear what would happen when you take the biggest
mystery of all away. Especially if genetic engineering is the first step towards an immortal life,
as Vonnegut describes, where will the mystery of death go from there?
Resistance also comes from the idea that our decisions can be irreversible. The
discovery of behavior controls and cellular biologys grasp of how to design or alter the genetic
constitution of human beings might well be not only man shaking but irreversible (Fletcher 3).
This idea is not new. Of course genetic engineering once made feasible and accessible will
forever be an option for patients. For someone to realize they can end their suffering of their
disorder by the simple rearrangement of their genes will be utterly radical. The idea of
orthobiosis setting things right by applying the life science is how most societies feel about
medicine. We feel the right to medicine and good health should be granted to all. So is genetic

engineering even considered good health or is it perhaps surpassing health and humanity all
together?