Give me a designer bag, not a designer baby

Every Sunday afternoon my roommate and I go grocery shopping, and we pretty much have it down except for the cereal aisle. As we walk down the fluorescently lit aisle, eyeing the pretty much infinite number of cereal choices, it takes as awhile to choose what type of breakfast we want. At a certain point it’s kind of like, how many different choices do we need? As humans, and particularly Americans, we love having choices and especially being in power of those choices. White or wheat? Paper or plastic? Coffee or tea? No matter how menial it may be, we love having the ability to choose. As technology is advancing, it seems we may be able to control one more aspect of our life: the genetic makeup of our offspring. According to the FDA, genetic engineering is “a process in which recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology is used to introduce desirable traits into organisms”. In other words, you can choose specific genetic traits of certain organisms such as, blue eyes and blonde hair. While this sort of new age technology can have pros when dealing with genetic diseases, there are huge ethical questions to consider. Although having choices when it comes to certain things is nice, having the choice to map out a child’s genes is wrong.

This relatively new process, called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis was originally created to “screen for disease”, however now according to Dr. .Jeffery Steinberg it can be used to determine sex, hair color, eye color, etc. Steinberg is a supporter and leader of this genetic designing, where parents from all over the globe have already come the United States, because practices like this are outlawed in their home countries, to have operations to choose the sex of their baby. This is especially relevant when clients from countries like China and India, where it is considered culturally beneficial to give birth to a boy, come and use these services. Steinberg’s clientele tend to be wealthy elites, for good reason, the procedure can cost up to $45,000. Many people go to his clinic to get their embryos tested for abnormal chromosome conditions; those clients now have the possibility to cosmetically alter their embryos. One example is that a “couple may want to have a baby with a darker completion to help guard against a skin cancer”. Steinberger is a clear proponent of genetic engineering saying, “I would not say this is a dangerous road. It’s an uncharted one”.

The ability to screen for chromosomal abnormalities and prevent disease and later anguish is one thing, but to choose the cosmetic traits of your child is quite another. This sort of genetic predisposition creates a false reality for parents and puts sorts of expectations on their later children. Morally, it seems like choosing your child’s eye color and skin tone is metaling with the universe. According to Dr. Gillian Lockwood, an expert in the field, this is the equivalent of “turning babies intocommodities that you buy off the shelf”. In the UK, and other countries, sex selection is outlawed; however there is no current legislation in the US banning the practice. There is also the question of deciding which traits are considered the “best”. For example, if a couple is to have a fair-skinned, ginger, and green eyed baby, but they really want blonde hair, blue eyes, and bronze skin, is it ethical to change their future baby’s’ complete genetic makeup? Does the emergence of designer baby culture mean the extinction of some less “desirable” traits? Our cosmetic makeup is unique to each and every person, the emergence of this new technology has the ability to create a more uniform more “perfect” population, somewhat eerie of Hitler’s vision of an Aryan race.

This sort of moral catch-22 will certainly lead to ethical debates in the future. As our society becomes more technology savvy, we are only bringing these ethical dilemmas upon ourselves. In this scientific age we live in, our generation will be forced to make decisions that can change the very definition of human existence. As the possibility of robots and super humans becomes more of a reality we are becoming increasingly aware of the fact that a life quite like one in science fiction movies could become real. Call me “old-fashioned” but I think that the diversity and flaws in people are what make them beautiful and real. A world where I can choose the genetic makeup of my son or daughter is too close to the stuff of science fiction novels. Although science is incredibly important, and it’s nice to know that there is that sort of technology available, there are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed. 

"I'm in Paris and all I Want is a Big Mac, a Starbucks, and some new Nikes"

As my fellow NYU peers and I visited the college months ago with the prospect of entering into this university, we were promised a ‘global’ education. We were told repeatedly that NYU is a ‘global’ university and is unique in its goal to completely submerge its students into a global culture. In this day of age, where with the help of technology and advances in communication the globe has shrunk, being aware of the world globally is something that is valued. To be educated in the cultures of other countries is something that has become more and more important. However, as the world we live in becomes increasingly globalized, there is a simultaneous homogenization of culture. Or rather, as the globe becomes more connected, we can see a loss of unique cultures that is being replaced with more American or western culture.

                With companies like Starbucks, Apple, and most notoriously McDonalds expanding to other countries at an almost exponential rate, it is safe to say that there has been some loss of local culture in places like China and India. In China, a Starbucks even welcomes the “five million Chinese a year [who] visit theForbidden City”, an ancient Chinese palace. This sacred landmark of China, and remnants of some of the most powerful dynasties ever to rule over China, has become yet another casualty in the Americanization of cultures. The expansion of these big name American companies, while profitable for America, is coming at the price of something way more valuable: the true untarnished identity of other countries’ cultures. There was a time where traveling the globe meant experiencing other unadulterated places, getting a new and completely different experience than you have ever had before. However, now ‘traveling the world’ means going to Paris just to get the same Big Mac you can get from the drive-thru three blocks from your house.  It is truly amazing that in our global society today, where an American CEO, a Scandinavian super model, and an Indian computer technician can all be drinking virtually the same cup of coffee at the same time, we still have such pressing issues as malnutrition and high illiteracy rates in some of our most developed countries.

                The United States is practicing “cultural imperialism”, and subjecting less developed countries to its restaurants, clothing companies, and entertainment ventures. In January 2003, “American films accounted for approximately 80percent of global box office revenue”, a true testament to the homogenization of culture, where people all over the globe want to watch and enjoy the same movies. As a global society under one global culture we are not actively creating new and unique ideas and concepts, but rather “old ideas are repeated over and over again, in these media and thus culture is no longer characterized by diversity but is reduced to the repetition of a relatively narrow spectrum of forms and ideas” (Koval). With this Americanization of cultures we’ve seen the disappearance of original ideas, almost as if nothing is truly “new” or “innovative”. Although with a population of over seven billion people, there will never be such thing as “one global culture”, it seems as if we are becoming a sea of sameness- a population who wears the same brands, eats the same food, and likes the same music. That is not to say there aren’t those who are opposed to this Americanization of culture; In many places, especially in western Europe, there has been a movement to oppose the coming of US big name companies and a boycott of places like Starbucks and McDonalds. In Italy, for example, is one country whereStarbucks has yet to expand its global empire of coffeehouses. Many Europeans oppose these big name companies because they recognize them for what they are: a threat to local businesses and yet another sign of an Americanized world.

                I’m going to be honest here; I do not represent a citizen who is rallying for global change. I fully partake and am a cog in our capitalist society, I drink Starbucks every day (sometimes twice a day), I love to go shopping, and I even eat at fast food chains like McDonalds (McFlurrys while they are ticking caloric time bombs are delicious and hard to pass up). While it is easy to point out the flaws of Americanization, it is even harder to fully separate yourself from global imperialism. Although people complain about big name corporations, most of us still wake up every morning craving an egg mcmuffin and a venti-non-fat-extra-whip-pumpkin-spice-expresso-soy latte. We live in an extremely connected global society, where in the future there will be global problems that we, global citizens, will be called upon to answer.