The idea that a happiness gene can be artificially put into
a child before birth to assure their happiness is a scary idea to me. This
teeters on a thin line potentially opening the door for more genetically
modified emotions and feelings that would create a huge disconnect between
being a human and synthetic. I don’t believe there should be a place for the
genetic engineering and mutation of a gene that’s sole purpose is providing
what seems to be “artificial happiness.”
Happiness may have some attributing
biological factors, but in my overall opinion, happiness is relative to your
surroundings and the logic and morality you have as a human. You develop your
own morals and enter different scenarios with your ideals and morals. If you have
created a happy atmosphere then you can enter and exit these scenarios with an
optimistic attitude and understanding that does not affect your happiness.
There is also no need to be constantly happy, if that is what this modified
gene would aim to do. This would seem
like a fake, or as I said before, synthetic happiness. There are times and
opportunities to be sad, happy and all different emotions. It’s how you use
these situations and handle your emotions within and after they are over. Happiness
is so much more than a gene to me, it’s what creates, molds and establishes a
person, so why would we want the shortcut of a genetically modified molecule as
opposed to the natural way of living and learning?
Spontaneous happiness is a gift, but what about a humanly-engineered capacity for happiness? Would it still be, or feel, spontaneous? The fictional treatment of these questions in Richard Powers' "Generosity: An Enhancement" is still the best I've seen.
ReplyDelete