Harvard University professor Michael Sandel has recently tried to make the case for limiting individual reproductive choice. His none-too-subtle agenda is to maintain the advantages of the genetic elites, such as himself, at the expense of the rest of society.
Sandel says he's against allowing parents to choose their children's genes. He assumes (correctly) that many social advantages (energy level, self-confidence, intelligence) are innate, and unevenly distributed. Secretly, he's happy that he can pass along his own traits (ability to focus for long periods, mild charisma) to his children. (I say "his children" to refer to the children of meritocrats generally.) But he dreads that the great unwashed masses will soon be able to alter their own genes to be more like his, since then his children would become less rare and special in their innate traits.
Sandel says "there remains something troubling with the ambition to control the genetic characteristics of the next generation". That's all very well for someone who's already born with the "gifted character of human powers" (i.e. the genes for success). But what if you're born with other genes? You'll never achieve as much social influence or status as Sandel and his kids.
Sandel worries that the "meritocracy, less chastened by chance, would become harder, less forgiving". Yeah, and meritocrats would also become more commonplace, leading to less social disparity in income and status. Today, corporations pay millions in salary and bonues to a rare cadre of super-smart, super-motivated genetic elites, who can in turn afford better lifestyles, better healthcare, and greater social influence (through political donations, ability to launch a national journal, etc).
"Changing our nature to fit the world," argues Sandel, "is actually the deepest form of disempowerment." Really? For you, perhaps.
