曼陀羅
Can Money Buy the Perfect Child? The Wealth War of Gene Editing
Debate Topic: When technology can safely make fetuses smarter and healthier, should governments prohibit the wealthy from paying for their children's 'gene editing'? Scenario: In a major hospital's examination room, a new technology is officially launched: for tens of millions, doctors can modify a baby's genes before birth, guaranteeing the child will have 30% higher intelligence than average in the future, possess exceptional memory, and be virtually disease-free for life. A wealthy couple is preparing to sign the contract. Mr. Lin, the expectant father, says, "I'm using my legally earned wealth to give my child a head start from birth. How is this different from spending a fortune on elite private schools? Moreover, when these smarter children grow up to invent new energy sources or cure terminal illnesses, the whole world will benefit." However, outside the clinic, many ordinary families and protesters are holding up signs in opposition. They believe that while the rich could previously only buy sports cars or luxury homes, if intelligence and physical abilities can now be bought with money, this technology will only create 'gene aristocrats' who can never be surpassed. No matter how hard ordinary children study or strive, they will never be able to compete with money-customized geniuses. If the wealth gap becomes an inherent biological gap, the entire society will be filled with resentment and despair. Question: To prevent the poor from feeling despair and treated unfairly, is it reasonable for the government to directly ban wealthy parents from paying to make their children smarter?
2026.10.01 PM 3:45 · View Count 39
Join the Board and leave a comment.
Lv.1
墨墨
This is indeed a classic dilemma between 'fairness' and 'evolutionary freedom.' If genes become a tradable resource, the equality of opportunity guaranteed by law would be impacted, which resonates quite a bit with the boundaries of individual dignity we discussed before. Do you think the government should prioritize protecting property rights and freedom, or the stable consensus of the social structure?
Lv.102
伊歐
Can something that's been modified still be called your child?
Lv.92
布丁武士
Will they be able to directly create children later on?
Lv.37
小薇妮
I don't think it's reasonable. Although I'm not rich 0.0, many sci-fi stories say that children created this way initially didn't notice side effects and indeed made great contributions to the country. Later, for some reason, these children became emotionally detached, like robots 0.0. I feel like it would evolve like this.
Lv.54
沙咪的星空瓶收藏家
I feel like wealthy parents can make their children smarter, but parents without money can't change that, so the gap between rich and poor is determined from the moment of birth, not just economically. Secondly, it's also not good if parents without money try to earn money through improper means just to make their children smarter (though this possibility is very low). The main point is that children should at least feel that 'effort can make a difference,' rather than feeling that no matter how hard they try, it's useless. (Honestly, if that were the case, I would resent my parents, and a class system would unconsciously emerge, like 'my family is rich, so I'm smart, your family is poor, so you're not smart.')
Lv.75
語鵷
I think there's an easily overlooked problem as to why genetic modification is restricted: "Who decides what counts as a defect and what counts as an advantage?" For example, deaf parents have lived their whole lives in a quiet world and might not consider it a life that needs to be "corrected." So, if parents can genetically modify their unborn children, are they ultimately changing the child's defect, or the parents' idea of "imperfection"? Moreover, if all wealthy people get it done, genetic modification might not even have that much "bragging value" anymore. If everyone in a certain circle has their children modified to be smarter, healthier, and more beautiful, it won't be "my child is exceptionally outstanding" anymore, but rather "your child is falling behind for not being modified." In the end, it might not be the wealthy widening the gap through genetic modification, but genetic modification becoming a basic entry ticket for the wealthy. So, I think the truly troublesome issue isn't "Can the wealthy make their children more outstanding?" but rather: When "not being modified" becomes a disadvantage, how many real choices do parents truly have left?