Replies

How about this:

You don't have to genetically engineer yourself or anyone else in your family. I, however, am totally for the genetic manipulation of my kids, and even possibly myself. I, and many other people, believe that genetic engineering can create "enhanced" people with no side-effects. If you see it differently, I have no problem with that, so long as you do not try to force your will on me or someone else. After all, you would stand to lose nothing from this affair - you can simply opt to not modify the DNA of your children. However, trying to make it totally illegal would be like me trying to make it totally mandatory. Making it optional would be the best solution since those who are opposed to it can remain opposed to it, whereas those who aren't can start preventing diseases in their children.

"so long as you do not try to force your will on me or someone else"

"There must be a line drawn somewhere in which certain boundaries are created to maintain a relatively peaceful society"

These are contradictory statements. What if I want my children to be smarter or faster or have far better eyesight? Then my children would get all of the best jobs for smart, fast or keen-eyed folks. Then everyone else would be forced to enhance their offspring likewise or see their kids stuck working for fast food chains.

I realize that this "natural" selection already goes on to some extent, but peoples' wills and other good points can overcome the relatively slight differences in natural inheritance. If, however, kids can be significantly enhanced to be 10X more smart or 2X as fast as the best natural genius or athlete, then they will quickly form an elite.

At some points nations might require genetic manipulation, or at least strongly encourage it, so that the average American will be able to better compete with the average Chinese, for instance.

But all of this talk about genetic manipulation is really quite silly. If we are going to paint the next generation of "humans" with new brushes, e.g. genetic manipulation, then why not paint on new canvases as well, e.g. silicon? Why limit ourselves to biological beings? Why not become AI robots with infinite lifespans ... or at least lifespans only limited by being obsoleted by the next generation of AI robots?

The knowledge we gain from manipulating DNA, will give us a greater understanding of how the brain works and how we developed abstract thinking, higher brain functions, and even consciousness.

There's no need to tie all of this intellect to a non-bullet-resistant, non-radiation-proof, mortal being that requires 8 hours of sleep each day!

P.S.: For the record, I am anti-transhumanist.

I think you totally missed my point. I said nothing about objecting to DNA manipulation and nothing about making laws about it and not one word about the morality/immorality of it. If you want to believe that man can think himself out of the state of suffering that has existed since the beginning go ahead. If you beleive that science can overcome the state of impermanence that pervades all phenomena I have to wonder just what raw materials the geneticists will have to work with in your line. No need to be defensive though, I'll give some more examples of how man has conquered nature:

"The Oceans Have Been Mastered By An Unsinkable Ship-HMS Titanic"
"Hybrid Plant Strains End Crop Failures"
"The Industrial Revolution Ended Human Toil"
"Modern Agriculture Ends World Hunger"
"Nuclear Energy Solves Worlds Energy Problems"

I have no doubt that genetic science will cure many diseases and lead to many marvelous discoveries but after a century of man made miracles falling far short of their Utopian promises I guess I'm a little jaded. So far the complexity and inevitability of natural laws has confounded every attempt to end impermanence and suffering. But hope is good. Keep hope alive. ; )