Purity of essence

I hope our posthuman future includes genetically modified cliche-production modules.

Case in point: Nicholas Kristof confesses that genetic technology weirds him out:

Genetic tinkering gives me the willies. My concern is not so much the details of blocking myostatin, although Belgian Blue calves are so muscled that their mothers are at high risk of dying while giving birth, as with the possibility that we will irreversibly change what it is to be human. Geneticists have tried to improve apples over the last 50 years, producing larger, prettier species that just aren't as tasty or as interesting as they used to be; it would be a tragedy if we did to humans what we've done to apples.

Kristof is obviously a big thinker. He's not one to get bogged down in the technical details of safety, efficacy, equity, or affordability. Technology is boring. Ontology is sexy. It's fun to pronounce about what it is, or what it might someday be to be human.

Pronouncements about human essence crop up with depressing regularity in discussions of genetic engineering. Writers seldom think it necessary to elaborate on how or why genetic engineering might "irreversibly change what it is to be human." Someone concerned about purity of essence might reason as follows: Being human used to mean being stuck with whatever the genetic lottery dolled out. We were all in this arbitrary predicament together. Soon, technology may allow some people to alter themselves according to their preferences. Hence, this opt-out clause will alter some significant feature of the human condition, perhaps to our detriment.

For my part, I don't see how any of this impinges on what it is to be human. The beneficiaries of genetic engineering will be people who have chosen to alter themselves according to human values and preferences in pursuit of human goals.

I think Kristof is more concerned with the details than he lets on. Consider his apple farming analogy. What he is really worried about is whether we will alter our genes wisely and competently. This is a question about the costs and benefits of various new technologies, not a question about human essence. Your view of modern apple husbandry depends on what you like in an apple. Do you prize year-round availability, affordability, and worth dearth? Or do you prefer the delicate aroma and texture of varietal fruits? These are legitimate aesthetic and economic questions. Neither farmers, nor grocers, nor pundits worry about whether these alterations have undermined what it means to be an apple.