I’m a serious “not fan” of David Brooks, op ed writer for the New York Times. But his June 15th piece on the future of genetics is actually pretty funny:
At this very moment thousands of people are surfing the Web looking for genetic material so their children will be nothing like me. They are looking through files at sperm bank sites with Jetson-like names such as Xytex, which have become the new eBays for offspring.
Yes, he over dramatizes these future parents who only want children who are tall, brilliant and athletic, (and preferably with slightly more pigmented skin to avoid the bother of slathering a child with increasingly important sun block.) But in addition to being entertaining, he does raise issues that any discussion of designer genes (yeah, I know, too convenient isn’t it?) brings up.
One of my favorite is the creativity factor:
The people who do this will pay no heed to the fact that mediocre looks have always been a great spur to creative achievement and ugliness is the mother of genius.
In a world in which Brad Pitt is average, say farewell to loneliness, sublimation and nerds’ witty bids for attention. In a world in which everyone is smart, good-looking and pleasant, everyone will be fit to perform in hit movies, but no one will be fit to review them.
Who knows where creativity comes from. I don’t subscribe to the tortured childhood theory of art, but I do believe that the private sorrows of exclusion, for whatever reason, can be instructive and a long term resource. Whatever your views, this is one Brooks probably worth the read.
The National Pastime, in the New York Times