In modern society with the rapid development of scientific capabilities, Jurgen Habermas increases our awareness of the development of biotechnology and human genetic engineering. It raises a question regarding not only the morals, but also the ethics of this newly developed technology. In this section of the book Habermas agrees that, although some forms of genetic manipulations are morally acceptable for screening to exclude diseases, some unbalanced influences threaten future humans and the status of authenticity. However, the problematic character is the beliefs and moral norms that are situated in forms of “being”, which are reproduced through the communicative action of the members. First, birthrate is the production or birth of new individuals. Habermas interprets Hannah Arendt that "every single birth, being invested with the hope that something completely different will come and break the chain of eternal return, must be seen in the eschatological light of the biblical promise: 'a child is born to us'" (H 58) . The eternal return, also known as eternal return for Nietzsche, is the life you now live and have lived. The eternal return implies a new life that betrays the morality of his death. Every time a child is born, a new life story is born. Unfortunately, natural destiny is essential for the ability to be oneself and for the body not to lose its value and sense of authenticity. Ultimately, the person changed by a painful socialized fate would see his "ego" slip away and would not be the "author" of the decisions that concern his life (Hos 59.60). It is a false belief that human beings desire good things (Socrates). “To avoid this, we can achieve the continuity of a life story only because we can refer, to establish the difference between what we are and what happens to us beyond socialization” (H 60). Furthermore, the ability to be oneself or authenticity presupposes that we are interchangeable. It is because of this “capacity to be oneself” that “another person's intention” and the trading of our life history through genetic programs could prove disruptive in the first place” (H 57). It does not pass the universalizability test. It's as if science is playing God and humans are disposable. Birth constitutes a beginning that we must and cannot control. “No man could be master of himself, if not of the generosity of God, he was already wise enough to know where the gift came from” (L, Augustine 46).