Well I got there late, but someone in the CYS Discord got banned for annoying Mizal on this topic. (Try to guess who!)
In any case, everyone can feel free to rant about the pros and cons of genetically engineered humans here.
Okay well let's start with the pros, we could cure aspies, retards, cripples and the LGBT folks.
Of course the cons are, we wouldn't have any of the above around to make jokes about anymore.
Yep it's a dilemma already.
Although this is somehow an idea people struggle to comprehend, it's good to try genetically enhance babies to not suffer from the same problems that normal humans deal with. The CRISPR program has a lot of issues that need to be dealt with, and this needs to be something with very heavy oversight, though.
To compliment something Coins talked about, this should definitely be done in tandem with free healthcare to avoid the inevitable problem of the rich being able to have genetically superior children to the poor. This should be something to deal with severe cases of risk-prone babies up until the point where it can be done at least relatively universally.
Well, the dwarf in that was kind of just the garbage heap of leftovers, not so much genetically-enhanced.
Gattaca was an interesting movie, but I still thought the scene near the end of the movie when whats-his-name challenges his genetically superior brother to a swimming race and the brother starts drowning was kind of dumb. The brother only starts drowning as proof for some trite argument being made by the screen writer that gene tailoring doesn't make the better person...or some trite Hollywood message movie crap. They already had the thing about Jude Law's genetically engineered character in the wheelchair. The swimming scene just made the movie idiotic. Well, that and the end when they all go to Saturn's moon of Titan while wearing three-piece-suits!
I'll take an order of Neural Feedback, Depth Perception, Adrenal Neurosympathy, Mimetic Skin, and Adaptive Bone Marrow, please. You can put it on my tab.
Yeah, that's the problem. Genome editing is not bad per se, but as it progresses towards frontier decisions there should be more efficient guidelines and committees (possibly worldwide) overseeing this type of research. Another valid point that is brought up in an another article linked there is that these kind of decisions shouldn't be made by scientists alone (who sometimes don't think about the impact on society) but should also be reviewed by ethicists, sociologist, representatives etc.
Oh, that's what you were doing. That wasn't clear to me, didn't know you wanted me to use the debate channel. Admittedly, probably should've, but only saw my ability to post in the Townsquare was prohibited, and didn't check to see if it was active in Debate Hell.
Either way, I did clearly state that genetic engineering had downsides, and that the CRISPR thing was bad and shouldn't have been listened to, and that genetic engineering babies does not necessitate doing work into horse pox.
I also mentioned how the article specifically had a pro-Genetic Engineering dude who was a critic of CRISPR, showing that there is indeed a difference between the science and one scientist.
I haven't seen any critic of CRISPR in that article.
Sorry, He's CRISPR work.