What is the ideal human?

If we accept Stock's argument that genetic modification, including germline modification, is inevitable, we must look at where this might lead, from the standpoint of justice. We might do this by asking ourselves, if we could design the perfect human being, what might that look like. This seems to be a very slippery slope of choosing ideals. As reflected on in the previous post, germline modification changes the genetic makeup of the following generation in such a way that they have no consent to the changes. What if (this seems to be a common starting point for me) the parents made choices that negatively impacted the child. As an extreme example, consider this. A gay couple chooses to have a child (perhaps through a surrogate) and feel that homosexuality is an ideal to strive for (again, this is an extreme example designed to make a point) and endeavor to have their child's genetic makeup altered such that the child is born homosexual. Was this fair to the child? This was a decision made without the child's consent. This raises the question... What IS the ideal? And who decides what that ideal is? And if this "ideal" is achieved, is the end result a loss of variety? As so aptly stated in the cartoon movie "The Incredibles", "If everyone is super, then no one will be super" Put more clearly, if we "manufacture" every child to meet some ideal, than the uniqueness that made those traits stand out and be seen as "super" mean nothing. In his case against perfection, Michael Sandel seems to share this concern. He writes about the potential self defeating nature "Except in Lake Wobegon, not every child can be above average". (I love the social reference)

That isn't all Sandel has to say about this issue. He explores the current phenomenon of parents who push their children incredibly hard to succeed in some way, be it sports, academics etc. He does this to demonstrate the nature of parents and the danger of genetic tools in the hands of overzealous parents.

There are so many traits that make a person unique, and in many cases there really isn't an ideal. I like redheads, my best friend likes blondes. In other words, we may be borrowing trouble here. Its quite possible that given the wide range of what is considered ideal, there will be no great loss in variety. It is more likely that some traits that are more universally liked or disliked will be, well, more universal. For example, if every parent could choose the height of their own child, I would imagine there would still be some variation (some parents might want basketball star children) but there would probably be very few boys who would grow up to be less than six feet tall. Which leads me to the next potention pitfall.

Another aspect of this issue goes back to the issue of affordability. It is very likely that this technology would be quite expensive, thus not available for those lower on the economic food chain. So, does this result in two races: A super race that has been genetically modified, and a "normal" race? Sandel writes on this as well: "From the standpoint of fairness, enhanced genetic differences would be no worse than natural ones, and made available to all" (emphasis mine) All of these questions of fairness and justice must be addressed long before these things become technical possibilities.