Lately I have been reading more about genetic engineering and related developments in biomedical technology. After Finishing “More Than Human” by Ramez Naam, I decided to pick up a book by an author on the other side of the debate.

McKibbens is a notable environmentalist, who has written numerous books and has served as a leader for blocking the Keystone-XL pipeline. While most of his books are about environmental issues, in “Enough” he advocates for the protection of human nature. My response and analysis to his book will be broken down by chapter, with this post primarily aimed at the first chapter “Too Much”.

Too Much

McKibbens’ primary arguments against the development of genetically modified humans because it will:

Lead to identity crises

Eliminate opportunities for satisfaction (via flow)

Lead to Identity Crises

This is the most interesting of McKibbens’ arguments, because I find that it is something that I can relate to. Here is an example of what he means:

“What will you have done to your newborn when you have installed into the nucleus of every one of her billions of cells a purchased code that will pump out proteins designed to change her? You will have robbed her of the last possible chance of understanding her life. She finds herself, at the age of sixteen, unaccountably happy. Is it her being happy–finding, perhaps, the boy she will first love– or is it the corporate product inserted within her…?”



The crisis this girl is having is whether or not her feelings are legitimate or whether they are the byproduct of some artificial process. McKibbens’ suggests that by selecting certain genetic traits for your children, you are depriving them of autonomy through an internal-conflict that will always drive them to question the legitimacy of their actions and feelings.

I do not find this argument particularly compelling because what he is referring to is a conflict that many of us have to deal with on a daily basis. Am I obese because my parents passed on bad genes to me? Do I have acne because my parents have poor skin? Am I distant because my family was shy and introverted? Etc…

I was born with a minor case of cerebral palsy. As a fetus, my umbilical cord wrapped around my neck, and for a short period of time I was deprived of oxygen. The brain damage i suffered was minor, but as a child it led to very real consequences. I had a club foot and had to wear a leg brace. Eventually I was able to get a leg brace, which allowed me to walk without fear of tripping, however – the doctors were never able to repair the damage that had been done; to this day I still have reduced motor control in half of my body.

It has been a constant battle since childhood to identify which limitations and dispositions were mine, and which of those were imposed by this damage at birth. How unbalanced does my reduced motor control make me? How much weaker am I in the right side of my body because of the damage?

I even questioned whether or not my personality and interests developed out of a response to this limitation. I wondered whether I read and played video games because it was something I could do without fear of being held back by disability. The truth is, I will never know. I can never know just how much my genetics affected me, only that they have had some effect.

McKibbens’ draws a very arbitrary distinction between artificial attributes and those present in natural birth. Every individual has to come to terms with who they are and the hand they have been dealt, whether they were genetically modified or born via natural birth. While this may add some extra complexity to the process, I do not think that it will be as significantly different as he suggests.

The child of two musical prodigies must come to accept or reject the musical talent they are born with. That is the autonomy that is ever present in the individual. Take the hand you are dealt and play them how you see fit.

Eliminate Opportunities for Satisfaction

McKibbens’ second argument rests primarily on a narrow understanding of the potentialities of mankind. I agree with his first premise,

“Joy comes not from excelling against some arbitrary standard, but from excelling against whatever your limits happen to be.”



He goes on to argue that by increasing a person’s abilities, you are limiting their potential for achieving a state of joy, because what would previously prove to be a challenge is now trivial. McKibbens’ refers repeatedly to his love of running. He says that the joy is not in the completion of the race, but the challenge. He suggests that if he were genetically enhanced running could be so easy that it was not a challenge.

To an extent, he is correct. But the conclusion that we should ban genetic engineering for this reason alone is not. Many people face this very same issue with their natural born abilities. Students struggle when their courses are too hard and are bored when they are too easy. Athletes can train to the point where a five mile run isn’t challenging, but that does not mean there is no longer anything that is challenging. The bar simply moves, and we have to adapt.

The challenge is something again that we have to find on our own, and for each one of us it is different. What is easy for me may be challenging for you, and vice versa. There is nothing particularly damning about moving the bar, except for specific situations (such as in sports). Yes, sports would become less of a fair game if there were superhumans, but that’s a very narrow view of a potentially earth-shattering development. Just think of all the good that could be done if future generations were all born with increased social awareness, empathy, and intelligence.

Yes, there are many kinks to work out in the viability and dangers of genetic engineering. I am not advocating for the immediate start of human trials. However, these arguments are not enough to set me against it.