Philosophical Questions: Genetics
Mar. 22nd, 2025 12:05 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithPeople have expressed interest in deep topics, so this list focuses on philosophical questions.
If it was discovered that personality traits were partly genetic and could be removed with gene therapy, would it be ethical to edit out negative character traits that harm others like extreme aggression, compulsive lying, or cruelty?
Personality traits are partly genetic. It belongs to the whole "nature vs. nurture" debate. Neither personality, genes, nor environmental factors are simple; they all interact.
Modern science is developing more ways of manipulating genes, before and after birth. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily possible to change just one thing at a time. Genes don't do just one thing. For instance, MC1R causes red hair (with 2 copies) but also lightens skin, thus improving vitamin D production, and redheads are widely considered to have fiery tempers. So no, you can't really edit human personality in this manner.
As for ethics, well, humans are historically horrible at eugenics. We might manage to identify genes that cause specific disorders and try to eliminate those. But be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Remember how genes have multiple functions? A gene conveys resistance to malaria when heterozygous but causes sickle-cell anemia when homozygous. We don't have to ask about whether or not it's worth having that trait in the gene pool, because evolution already answered that question: the prevalence of the sickle variant correlates very closely with the prevalence of malaria on the map. So the answer is that a gene which can have problematic side effects is justified to the extent that it improves the ability of the population to survive and reproduce.
So when you look at character traits, consider that most of them exist on a spectrum where too much or too little is bad, and you get the best results somewhere in the middle. Some aggression is needed for defense of self and others, but too much will shred social connections. A pathological liar will often find it difficult to maintain relationships, but look how neurotypicals hate the autistic tendency to say the exact truth even when it is rude. And so on. Thus, even if it were possible to edit out such traits, which it is not, the result would be disastrous.
Changing personality traits is sometimes possible, but takes a great deal of work and typically happens through self-help or psychological therapy. This most often appears on an individual basis. However, culture also influences personality development, and different cultures can have very different personalities as a group. A culture that values honesty will encourage and reward it, thus tending to produce more honest people and fewer liars, while a country that values warriors will encourage and reward aggression. How ethical this influence is may depend on the outcome of a given culture's choices, but all culture do it.
If it was discovered that personality traits were partly genetic and could be removed with gene therapy, would it be ethical to edit out negative character traits that harm others like extreme aggression, compulsive lying, or cruelty?
Personality traits are partly genetic. It belongs to the whole "nature vs. nurture" debate. Neither personality, genes, nor environmental factors are simple; they all interact.
Modern science is developing more ways of manipulating genes, before and after birth. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily possible to change just one thing at a time. Genes don't do just one thing. For instance, MC1R causes red hair (with 2 copies) but also lightens skin, thus improving vitamin D production, and redheads are widely considered to have fiery tempers. So no, you can't really edit human personality in this manner.
As for ethics, well, humans are historically horrible at eugenics. We might manage to identify genes that cause specific disorders and try to eliminate those. But be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Remember how genes have multiple functions? A gene conveys resistance to malaria when heterozygous but causes sickle-cell anemia when homozygous. We don't have to ask about whether or not it's worth having that trait in the gene pool, because evolution already answered that question: the prevalence of the sickle variant correlates very closely with the prevalence of malaria on the map. So the answer is that a gene which can have problematic side effects is justified to the extent that it improves the ability of the population to survive and reproduce.
So when you look at character traits, consider that most of them exist on a spectrum where too much or too little is bad, and you get the best results somewhere in the middle. Some aggression is needed for defense of self and others, but too much will shred social connections. A pathological liar will often find it difficult to maintain relationships, but look how neurotypicals hate the autistic tendency to say the exact truth even when it is rude. And so on. Thus, even if it were possible to edit out such traits, which it is not, the result would be disastrous.
Changing personality traits is sometimes possible, but takes a great deal of work and typically happens through self-help or psychological therapy. This most often appears on an individual basis. However, culture also influences personality development, and different cultures can have very different personalities as a group. A culture that values honesty will encourage and reward it, thus tending to produce more honest people and fewer liars, while a country that values warriors will encourage and reward aggression. How ethical this influence is may depend on the outcome of a given culture's choices, but all culture do it.
