|
You know, this kind of stuff can be expanded into a more fundamental argument of "is there room for comfort/luxury or should we focus entirely on necessity?"
I mean, the line of thought that argues against "deisgner" or "vanity" or "cosmetic" engineering is that it's not needed and, more importantly takes away from time and energy and capital that could be spent on more necessary things.
I dunno, that lkind of argument, to me, leads inevitably to a luddite/spartan position. Do I really NEED a personal computer, or a fast internet connection? Shouldn't I be trying for a job that's directly beneficial to society rather than trying to get into the computer games industry? Or moreover, what good are artists to society? They just loaf around, not producing more food, or researching better technology, keeping the peace, or saving lives. Those bums should get a real job!
Really, think about that for a second. I assume most of you guys got video game consoles of one type or another, or games for your computers. Do you really NEED them? Couldn't the materials and money spent to produce those games and that game console go towards people who need it? The time you spend playing those games, couldn't you be doing something productive?
It's kind of disquieting when you think about it, and it's easy to get the feeling that everything we do is some form of vanity, pride, gluttony, or slothfulness. However, we as humans aren't soulless robots--robots, ideally, require very basic needs (power and maitenance) and they'll run forever doing thier job. Psychologists realized that we as humans are more complex, organic, intelligent and social creatures, and we have more complex needs--and more of them!
A good example of that is Abraham Maslow's heiarchy of needs, which are layers of needs that form a pyramid of sorts. There's the basic needs at the bottom which are fundamental--physiological stuff, like food and water. If they aren't filled, well, you know the consequenses. If you fill them, you feel nothing. Beyond that you've got other basic needs--safety and security, love and belonging, and self-esteem. Then there's self-actualization at the top. There's also different versions of this needs heiarchy that focus on conative needs, cognitive needs, aesthetic needs and neurotic needs. We've all got them.
Each layer also takes precedence over the layer above it. So if one of the bottom ones is unfufilled you'll think more about that, probably, than ones before it. So lemme go back to the example from before ...
Why DID you buy that console, or those games? Because you want to have time to yourself, to play them and have fun, a break from the pressures of life as it were. Unless you love your work, you can only do so much of it until you burn out, and you need time to do something else stimulating and entertaining until you're ready to hit the deck once more. You're filling needs, as it were.
We can look at a lot of the "luxury" items for improving one's appearance in the same way. Vanity as it were, is an excessively prideful state of mind, in which you think you're so awesome that no one else can compare. The tale of Lucifer is like that--and what happened to him?
But if you're, say, wanting to improve your appearance in whatever means, that's not vanity, that's lack of self-esteem! You're seeking to fufill that lack of esteem about yourself. And if you do get whatever you were wanting done--like, say, you wanted to be taller and you underwent a procedure to grow taller--that doesn't necessarily mean you'll think youorself first among equals, just that you've fufilled a part of that need to feel better about yourself.
That's why I object to the line of thought that genetic engineering for cosmetic purposes is inherently prideful and vainful. If someone wants it done to them, I say let them. We already pursit improving our physical appearance on many other, more basic levels (such as painting one's nails or getting a haircut), why is this any different? Why is this a hallmark of vanity instead of fufilling a need to improve one's self-esteem?
That said, my feelings about cosmetic engineering taking away resources that could be used for medical engineering haven't changed, but now I have an example to demonstrate why I feel that cosmetics won't take away from medical purposes.
Let's take a look at the space industry. NASA's trying to gear up for more scientific missions, and needs to fufill its objectives for completing the ISS and replacing the Shuttle with something newer and better. Many other space agencies (especially Russia) are in the same boat, or an even leakier one.
Surely there's no room for space tourists! These loafers just waste money, rocket fuel, and precious material that could have been put towards resupplying the ISS or launching a beneficial sattelite! But no, we got Dennis Tito wasting capital just so he can play astronaut! How prideful is that?!
That's how the anti-cosmetic engineering argument sounds from a space tourism perspective. Now think about this:
Tito spent 20 million dollars to go into space. That kind of money injected into the space industry by 'pridfeul' or 'wasteful' tourists will only help, not hurt more scientific endeavors.
That's how I view genetic engineering done for cosmetic purposes. People wanting to feel better about themselves, to improve something about their appearance--they're not being vainful. Moreover, they're funding the genetic engineering industry overall!
_________________ 
|
Log in
Wiki
FAQ
Search
