The Economist editorial board made clear that its own biases lay firmly with the marketplace. The new commercial eugenics, it argued, is about ensuring greater consumer freedom so that individuals can make of themselves and their heirs whatever they choose. The editorial concluded with a ringing endorsement of the idea. The very language of 'defect,' 'abnormality,' 'disease' and 'risk' presupposes such an image, a kind of prototype of perfection. If every human being is made up of varying degrees of error, then we search in vain for the norm.
Some genetic engineers believe that a future genetocracy is all but inevitable.
They have all been enhanced with specific synthetic genes that allow them to succeed in their fields in ways not conceivable among those born of nature's lottery. While Silver acknowledges that the increasing polarization of society into Gen Rich and Natural classes might be unfair, he points out that wealthy parents have always been able to provide advantages for their children. Few of us, I suspect, could point confidently to any institution or group of individuals. We appear caught between our instinctive distrust of these institutional forces and our desire to increase our personal choices in the biological marketplace. After all, part of the essence of being truly human is the desire to alleviate suffering and enhance human potential.