Homework for Silentio

Now, I know I've done this before and not followed through, but I'm going to assign myself a little posting project. Inspired by the extract in today's Guardian from Bill McKibben's new book Enough: Genetic Engineering And The End Of Human Nature, I think it's time I come clean about the topic that's been concerning most, if not all, of Silentio's readers -- genetic reductionism. I don't know who wrote the extract's byline, but it speaks volume:

Almost without our noticing, scientists have reached a point where they can not only clone human beings, they can fine-tune genes in embryos to produce a super race. If we let it happen, argues Bill McKibben, the consequences will be terrifying: the end of meaning, the end of what makes us human. Time to say enough.

Scary, huh? It's got all the stuff of good dystopian fiction and forecasting -- humanity threated by its own ingenuity and, importantly, a prophetic declaration that we can still change course. Occasionally I'll come across something like this that gives me pause, because I simultaneously agree and disagree with it -- and not in the romantic, paradoxical sense in which too many literary critics making a living by avoiding saying anything at all. Rather, and this is just a tease for some thoughts I've not yet totally fleshed out coherently, McKibben manages to completely miss the surprisingly trenchant, though perhaps far less provocative, point that seems to underlie what I find to be a woefully misguided premise about genetic engineering. [Hopefully that's vague enough to leave you guessing.]

I'll try to get around to writing a few coherent paragraphs about it all this week, but in the meantime check out the extract for yourself -- I'm actually more curious about what some of you make of McKibben's vision of this world-to-come. Is it maybe not so bad to have 'souped up' children? [By the way, I saw X-Men-2 on Friday, and I've decided that if I could mutanize myself or my nonexistent child, I'd go the way of Magneto. The badass potential is rife!] Is he right about the array of dangers? Does he miss the point, entirely or partially? If you find yourself bored this week, let me know.