- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (3/6)
- Next Post »Free Stuff Fridays
When Technology Outpaces Morality
- 03/06/09
- 29
On Wednesday I posited that endless choice brings us endless discontentment. While marketers may try to assure us that a consumer with more options is a happier consumer, evidence seems to indicate that more options mostly make us increasingly miserable. Speaking personally, I can attest that this is true. I don’t want to disparage choice as if being forced to choose is somehow wrong. But plain experience shows that infinite choice does not bring about greater happiness. If anything, the opposite is true.
I began thinking about this as I read news articles about so-called “designer babies.” An article from the BBC says, “LA Fertility Institutes run by Dr Jeff Steinberg, a pioneer of IVF in the 1970s, expects a trait-selected baby to be born next year.” Using a lab technique called preimplantation genetic diagnosis, his clinic allows parents to choose not only the sex of their child, but also physical traits such as hair color and eye color. Though in the past this technology has been used primarily to screen for inheritable genetic defects, clinics are now beginning to use it to screen for physical traits. By next year we should begin to see the first generation of customized children—children whose parents have ensured that they will be free from genetic disorders and children whose gender, hair color, eye color and even height have been carefully selected.
The ethical dilemmas here are dizzying; they are so plentiful, I hardly know where to begin.
Maybe the best place to begin is with the conscience. I believe any biblically-informed conscience (and even many consciences that know nothing of the Bible) will rebel against this. And rightly so. As Christians we know that God has given conscience as a gift; somehow he has planted within us some knowledge of his law and conscience can steer us away from violating it. And so we ought to listen to conscience. When conscience reacts as strongly as it does when it hears of designer children, we need to take heed.
But I want to look at just a couple of other implications—ones that are related to what I wrote on Wednesday.
Endless choice bring endless regret. When we have fewer options, we are able to have more confidence in the choice we eventually make. If I have only three cell phones available to me, the task of choosing just one of them is relatively straightforward. When I have three hundred phones available to me and each one can be customized with cases, colors, ringtones and nearly everything else, the choice becomes much more difficult. And after I finally make a choice, it is far more likely that I will regret my decision. This is especially so when each of these phones will soon be replaced by something even better; even the latest and greatest is on the verge of utter irrelevance and obsolescence.
How much more so when we think about our children? When we customize our children, we will think of them differently; we will have to think of them differently. Since the dawn of Creation, humans have regarded children as a surprise and mystery. Will he have mom’s hair? Will she have dad’s eyes? Will it be a boy or a girl? We have always had to leave such things in the hands of God. We may wish or hope or dream, but ultimately each child is a gift from God. This is true whether the child is mentally and physically sound with just the physical traits we had hoped for or whether the child is mentally and physically handicapped and with none of the physical traits we may have wished for. Of course genetic testing and widespread abortion have already allowed us to destroy almost every child with mental or physical handicaps. But now this technology is going further so that we are able to choose far more; at the very least we can increase the probability for one or more of the physical traits.
What would cause us to believe that the ability to choose our child’s hair color, eye color and other traits is going to make us happier with the child? Does not the very fact that we can make such choices open the possibility that we will then be able to regret the choice?
Endless customization also leads to discontent because it raises our expectations. If I go to the local car lot and buy a standard model car, my expectations of that vehicle will be far different than if I buy a heavily-customized car. I once saw a television show where a football player was buying a new car. He bought it from a dealer and immediately drove it to a shop where it was heavily customized; the after-market customization cost far more than the original value of the vehicle. And, of course, when the car was ready he looked it over with the utmost care to make sure it had been customized to his exact specifications. He would have been satisfied with nothing less. He had paid for, demanded and now expected perfection.
How could things be any different with children whose importance and impact obviously far eclipse a car? How will a parent react when her customized child turns out to be just as fussy, just as grouchy, just as sinful as any other child? Will this parent not have increased expectations of the child and potentially unrealistically high expectations?
Imagine a mother’s reaction when she pays money (lots of money!) to customize her child—perhaps she has selected a child with blond hair and blue eyes—and finds that the child actually has brown hair with green eyes. Will she demand her money back? Will she still be able to love such a child? After all, this technology offers no guarantees—she may demand a physical trait only to see the technology fail her. Can she live happily with a green-eyed child when all her friends’ children have blue? One British fertility expert warns against “turning babies into commodities that you buy off the shelf.” And this is exactly what we face—children who are commodities who can be carefully customized and personalized. Only if we buy into today’s consumerist mindset could we possibly believe that this will make us any happier or any more content. The reality, I’m convinced, will be just the opposite.
Again, I think the ethical implications go far beyond this, but these are just two implications that grow out of the consumerist mindset so prominent in our culture. Shopping for just one out of hundreds of cell phones may be relatively insignificant, but I think we can see it as just a shadow of the moral dilemmas that we are beginning to face as technology continues to far outpace morality.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (29)
Thank you Tim for a wonderfully insightful post.
“Ummm doctor, why does my designer baby have colic? I want a partial refund.
At what point will a doctor or parent of one of these designer children ask the following question? So we can specify their eye and hair color, tweak their height and weight, and remove potentially deadly hereditary disease genes, but when can I make or order a child that does good? Even if they are successful at getting their perfect design they will still fall short. They cannot cure or design out the sin nature. May their eyes be opened by grace.
I’ve often felt that some people treat children like accessories, and it bothers me. “Designer babies” just seem a natural progression of a trend that has been around a while.
And what about the psychological effect this will have on the children themselves? Think there will be any pressure on these kids? Will their self worth be completely caught up in appearance, or athletic performance, or intelligence? It’s impossible to predict the deleterious effect this will have on everyone.
This is so wicked it’s scary — as in God’s wrath pouring down at any moment…
Eric #2:
Belive it or not, “they” may actually be able to select embryos that lack predilections toward certain types of sin. Anger/rage, addiction, etc. Obviously these kids will still be sinners; I’m not suggesting the contrary. But I do think genetic testing and pre-selection could give rise to some startling behavior effects.
What I find disconcerting about this, besides the fact that it involves destroying embryos, is that, depending on cost, it will likely exacerbate the gulf between the rich and poor. Rich people’s children will be smarter, better looking, and suffer fewer illnesses than poor people’s. Insurance could end up being harder to afford for people who were not genetically pre-selected, since they are likely to suffer a higher incidence of illness. The average lifespans of rich and poor could grow even further apart.
When choosing a spouse, one might be motivated to give preference to someone who was genetically pre-selected, since any children you have with that person are less likely to suffer genetic problems. Etc.
Think Gattaca. (An excellent movie, btw.)
This is a branch of eugenics (lit. “good offspring”) called positive eugenics. The potential consequences include both moral and immoral ends. Genetic therapies are already available for a variety of diseases. We cannot run from it, nor should we blindly submit to it. We must do the work and make the right choices.
Our challenge is that medical and scientific advancements, once commercialized, are checked at only the governmental and personal levels. Let’s face it, the governmental lobby is tough to beat, so our best hope is to raise families and teach communities to make choices in concert with God’s law and love.
This will require hard learning and strong discipline. We must be like the Men of Issachar who understand the times and know what to do. Jeremiah 29 also offers good advice to engage and sanctify culture. God employs his people to inculcate positive difference that perfects future generations for his manifold purposes. Technology is a means of God’s outworking. He leaves it to us to make the right choices.
Great observations Tim but I hope that discussions like this one cause us to remember to preach the gospel, for how will hear without a preacher.(Rom 10:14)I pray that we will not just sit around talking about how bad their sin is and what kind of implications it has. We know that sin brings death(James 1:15) no matter what that sin is. No matter how grevious it is to us the result is the same. Death and separation!May we not allow the sinfullness of sin cause us to be embittered against the sinner. May we all be challenged to share the saving message of Jesus Christ with those in this culture, for He is their only hope!That being said, I would have to agree that this kind of stuff is scarry at best when we consider the implications to a culture and the lives of those “designer” babies. It is good that we have such an awesome, all powerful, all knowing, and all loving God to sort it all out perfectly.
Couldn’t agree more, and Tom S. said it well when he brought out the commercialized angle. You can be sure that we will be inundated with “promises” of designer babies, promises that will not be fulfilled, for which many will pay huge sums.
Having thought it over, I reiterate a comment I made on this site earlier that IVF is so fraught with moral hazards, both potential and actual in practice, that I think it should be avoided completely. For isn’t there something in the above post that pertains to the notion of accepting certain limitations on what God would like for us to do, limitations on choices? We can quibble over what those are, and we are in the case of IVF. But even if IVF is “responsibly” practiced (which I think would need to be rather well defended) its use makes us certain kinds of people, which in turn leads us to be a certain kind of culture and community; one which I believe you are rather decrying above.
Recently my life was most greatly impacted by something quite simple that was shared at a breakaway conference. An Inuit woman comments about our choices “You North Americans can have whatever you want - if you feel like Chinese food you go get Chinese food, if you want pizza, you order one in; if you feel like strawberries, even if they are out of season, you can still get them at the supermarket. We Inuit eat whatever God brings our way - if the caribou come through ,we hunt and eat caribou; if there has been a seal hunt, we will eat seal, sometimes for weeks on end; if there is little of anything, we eat little until the next provision comes. I believe the Lord is saying that you North Americans need to live with what God gives you, what He chooses to provide each day.”In light of the current economic circumstances, it becomes more essential to endeavour the practical meaning of living simply:1. resist hoarding2. downsize by being generous3. whatever God brings … Luke 12:22-314. gleanings - wait5. who needs the latest technology?6. Talk to God lots about it - what do you want me do? go?7 time - being available not scheduling our lives so full
Altogether I agree with you, but I don’t see why greater choice necessarily leads to greater regret. I think maybe it would be more accurate to say that greater choice leads to lower satisfaction. But even that isn’t necessarily true. Just because I have more choices, doesn’t mean I’m not happy with my choice. I’m sure if I lived in the time of the Model T, I would have been happy with just the black. But just because the other companies start introducing more colors doesn’t necessarily mean I have less satisfaction. Maybe I like black better anyway. Maybe I like blue, so I buy a blue car. Consider that. I see that greater choice may leave a potential for a greater regret, but I don’t think it is necessarily so.
Whether it is or not though, designer babies is just another way the medical industry tries to control what ought not be controlled. I think the urge in modern culture to bring all things under the control of sinful individuals is a disturbing trend.
Thank you for these insights. I’d love to see more of your thoughts on the subject. This is one of those topics that it’s hard for me to wrap my mind around.
“you are only free when youu have no choice” Derek Webb
Good post, Tim. If this trend continues, it won’t be long before children will have the same value as an expensive trinket? Or have we already entered this time?
The frustration for me as a Christian is what contribution I can make to help stem the tide. On a human level you feel so insignificant and helpless. I know that no purpose of God’s can be thwarted (Job) and that He is Mighty and Lord of all but coping with that day to day assault on your sensibilities and conscience and the fact that what you see at times seems to represent the opposite. I can in a sense answer my own questions but I would be interested to know what others find best helps them when feeling this way?
Y’all are right to be appalled at the designer baby phenomenon, but I haven’t seen anyone make the “right” argument as to why. Choice is not the problem, neither is greater economic or social stratification.
The problem is that God is sovereign over creating people, just as He is sovereign when it comes to saving them. He has established His plan in the natural order. The designer baby phenomenon is just a natural extension of any and all artificial/in vitro forms of fertilization. If you’re going to make “normal” babies in test tubes, why not make “super” babies. The problem is not with “super,” the problem is making babies in test tubes.
I also feel that this issue can trace it’s way back to the widespread use and acceptance of contraceptives. If we think we know better than God when we should have children and how many, why shouldn’t we know better about how tall our children are or what color their eyes are. Surely God wouldn’t want our children to have chromosomal abnormalities—surely people with Downs Syndrome for example are children of a lesser God.
The argument is really about God’s sovereignty and God’s plan and whether we should submit to both or take matters into our own hands.
Well said, Adam. This issue is idolatry. People may say, “Well it’s easy for you to condemn IVF because you are not infertile.” But we have not sufficiently grappled with the notion of a “grace not given.” I don’t think the use of technology is bad in and of itself, but there’s a lot of misinformation about IVF out there, and I think that as discerning readers, we should do a whole lot more reading on this. It’s amazing to me that as Protestants we may often worry more about people reading the wrong books than we do about them making babies where eggs and sperm have been monkeyed with, where tens of thousands of dollars are spent in a very slim chance of success (stewardship?), and where we add fuel to the fire of the way IVF will inevitably be used in this fallen world.
You also make a great point about contraception and how we have pulled the unitive and procreative purposes of sex apart, and now we are paying the price because we said that birth control was a non-issue. But the issue we must confront again and again is idolatry. As Albert S. Moraczewski has said in his little piece, “Life and Technology as Gifts,”
“Human life, and the means by which new human beings are conceived, is sacred, something set apart.Because human beings have been given the gift of intelligent life and the gift of eternal life, human procreationis radically different from animal reproduction even though there may be many obvious similarities. Humanprocreation involves, or should involve, a free-consent between two persons who are permanently committedone to another in marriage. As Donum vitae insists, human procreation may not take place in a Petri dish, thatis, the husband’s sperm and the wife’s oocyte (egg) must unite in her body as a result of their conjugal union.Technology may assist, but not replace, these essential elements of human procreation.”
Wow Tim, your posts on the issue of choice (endless or otherwise) has really struck a chord here.
I believe that in the full spectrum of “choice”, the avoidance of disappointment, dissatisfaction, and (in the extreme) regret is completely a matter of personal maturity. In the toothpaste example, you grab a box of whatever brand, and if you like it, you stick with it. Hence, there are no more choices to be made here. The next time you need toothpaste, you always have the option of experimentation. But the operative word here is “option”. No regrets, no angst. This is how we should treat all choices that involve “goods”. Whether they be cellphones, iPods, or toothpaste. Make your choice and move on to the truly important stuff like, um, loving your neighbor, helping those in need, supporting your church’s missionary needs, etc.
On the other (extreme) end of the choice spectrum is the subject of IVF genetic tailoring. We’re not talking about “goods” here anymore. At this extreme I would again say that maturity is very important, better yet, Spiritual maturity would be a paramount need in this situation. To realize the shallowness of one’s cosmetically based motives, while causing the destruction of human embryos, requires a Spiritual maturity that comes from a Christ-like world view. To use IVF for fertility problems is heart-wrenching enough and as a father of two I can understand the motives. But to do this only for gender selection or aesthetic reasons? Lord help us!!!
I know a couple who had long-term troubles with miscarriages. A genetic compatibility study detailed that they had a genetic difference that made full term pregnancies more difficult. A drug therapy was used to overcome this issue and finally they had a pregnancy that lasted through the first trimester. At this point their geneticist suggested that they consider having a test done to determine if there were any genetic abnormalities in the 3 month old fetus. The implication was that if a defect was found, there would be time to do something about it. And we all know what that means. The couple’s response was immediate and I think profound in that they simply weren’t interested in doing the test. Faulty or not this baby was a gift!
I site this couple as an example of what I mean by having Spiritual maturity. A maturity that guides one to make choices that are pleasing to God even though we know that the results are completely in His hands regardless.
While I understand someone feeling inundated by the choices we have today, may I suggest the next time you’re feeling over-whelmed, ask yourself if you really need this item. And if the answer is yes then pick the simplest and cheapest item that will meet your needs and then move on.
After all is said and done, isn’t spiritual maturity an integral part of good Christian discernment?
In Christ,
Dan…
If you’re fertilizing and implanting a single embryo at a time, there’s nothing inherently wrong with in vitro fertilization. You can come at it from the “cost and stewardship” angle, but that’s a bit harder to defend. Of course, it’s somewhat moot since rarely is it performed one embryo at a time.
I find Adam’s argument in #15 no different from the idea that God is sovreign over life and death, and so we shouldn’t try to “artificially” extend life. Using, say, antibiotics.
“How will a parent react when her customized child turns out to be just as fussy, just as grouchy, just as sinful as any other child?”
This is precisely what humans keep trying to avoid, but as long as Romans 5 is true…
Great thoughts.
J.P.H.,I think you need to do some more research on the real-world realities of IVF. It’s not as simple as just taking a sperm, fertilizing an egg, and then seeing what happens. Modifications are done to both the sperm and egg, and there seems to be good evidence for a correlation between IVF and higher incidences of birth defects, likely due to it’s unnaturalness. Further, we still have to ask ourselves tough questions, such as, are such drastic measures in an attempt to have my own genetic children justified? What about all the children out there that need adopting?
Somehow I have a feeling that the widespread use of IVF and other technologies have fostered in us an idolatry of having natural children. That’s the point, no medium is neutral. So it’s not so much a question of WHAT we’re doing when we use IVF, but THAT we’re using IVF, and it’s use is making us certain kinds of people, just like widespread use of contraception has made us certain kinds of people, and I would argue, has helped change the definition of marriage. Protestants are finally starting to wak up and realize that the Catholics have been right all along on this particular issue.
I’d encourage people to do a lot more talking with people who work in the bioethics arenas, particularly those who specialize in IVF, so as to get a fuller picture of the unintended consequences.
I am glad following Christ comes down to one of two choices - take up your cross and follow me, or not.
But I like what you said here - ‘Since the dawn of Creation, humans have regarded children as a surprise and mystery. Will he have mom’s hair? Will she have dad’s eyes? Will it be a boy or a girl? We have always had to leave such things in the hands of God.’
And I see this relating to the one who has chosen to follow Christ - we must leave it in the hands of God to see how each believer is specifically shaped in following Christ and how that plays out in their own specific gifting, calling, and personality.
A very good place to start is usually a ‘primer’ and you can find no better one than this great audio resource, produced by Mars Hill Audio. It’s a book-length treatment of the subject of Bioethics by Gilbert Meilander titled, “Bioethics: a Primer for Christians,” and is available for mp3 download for a mere $13, or on cassette (it’s been around for a while, but it is still a very good place to start). The web address is http://www.marshillaudio.org/catalog/otheraud.asp
A couple of other excellent resources, which are FREE online are booklength treatments by the Bush Administration’s Presidents Council on Bioethics.
“Being Human: Readings from the President’s Council on Bioethics”
“Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness”
http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/beyondtherapy/index.html
http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/human_dignity/index.html
Hard copies of these two volumes and several others are available from the Govt. Printing Office free for the asking, including postage. Go here:
http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/
Almost/all the products of the President’s Council are available in pdf format for free download and many are worth the time it takes to engage them. This is YOUR tax dollars at work, and some of the best value you’ll ever see from them. Asking for these is THE simplest, best interaction with your Federal government you will ever experience.
These are all topics that thoughtful Christians should take time to consider, particularly if you are faced, as an American citizen, with a vote on a related issue in your state.
At the very least, plunk down the 13 bucks to Mars Hill Audio for Meilander’s primer. It will do you good and support a great non-profit Christian ministry.
I heartily concur with Bill. Those are great resources. One should also visit “The Center for Bioethics and Culture” (www.thecbc.org). They are putting out great articles on all these issues.
Michael #20:
Thanks. I didn’t know about the higher rate of birth defects.
Still not with you on contraceptives, though. Contraceptives have not “changed the definition of marriage”. The marriage covenant is the same as it has always been. Though, clearly contraceptives have changed the realities of marriage. That, by itself, is a “neutral” thing.
JPH - I’m not Catholic, I’m catholic, but from a Catholic perspective, contraceptives may not have changed the definition of marriage…for Catholics, but they have for pretty much everyone else, and even for some Catholics, albeit ones who do not closely adhere to the official Church teaching on the significance of the “sacrament.” If it’s not to bring children into the world, its meaning has indeed changed, and changed as a direct result of the prevalence of contraceptives.
Just my .02
Bill:
My point is that the definition of marriage is set forth by God, and is therefore immutable. Whether contraceptives do or do not exist, the definition of marriage is the same. The presence of contraceptives may mean, however, that husbands and wives have the ability to behave in marriage in ways that were previously not possible, and which may (or may not) be contrary to what God wants.
Personally, I’m not on board with the idea that God wants everyone to just roll the dice and have however many kids you end up with.
JPH - Fine, I agree that the definition of marriage is immutable, but the fact remains that marriage has come to be seen primarily as a relationship where two people seek mutual emotional fulfillment, rather than a relationship by which we fulfill the Creation Mandate to “be fruitful and multiply.” And people then live like this is true. Behaviors have consequences, as I’m sure you’d agree, and the consequence of widespread contraception has been damaging to what God intends for marriage.
And one can have quite a say in how many kids to have apart from using contraception. The only thing I’m trying to do is get people grappling with the reality that the procreative purpose of sex is inextricably bound up with the “one flesh” purpose. Does it not do damage to the “one flesh” nature of the relationship when one or other of the partners is in effect saying, “I want to sleep with you, but I want to withhold the part of me that comes naturally as a result.” Further, I think many Christians should consider the insidious nature of idolatry and how it affects these choices, and stop believing the lie that children get in the way of “ministry.”
Yes, contraceptives changed marriage, the same way seatbelts changed driving. Tell me again why that’s a bad thing……
Beatrice, I’m not sure I’m following your parallel here with the seatbelt, but if you’re trying to say that contraceptives have made pregnancy safer just as seatbelts have made driving safer, then I’m confused as to how avoiding pregnancy is “safe.” Babies are always and everywhere considered a blessing in Scripture, and yet our culture, and worse, even our church culture, has made them seem to be a curse, an impediment, a nuisance.