- 87,735
- 50,128
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
They were focusing on trying to get rid of diabetes and something else.This is different, but I don't even necessarily agree with this. I took a bio-ethics course that discussed a lot of these topics in college, it's a good discussion but I tend to stay on the conservative side with these things especially when it comes to cosmetic genetics.There's a lot of advancements coming and I think it was on Vice or something else I saw they're getting in to choosing all types of stuff and soon they'll be able to eliminate likelihood of diseases and other illnesses.
I get what you're saying though. This is something that can be corrupted but I don't think it'll be allowed to get that far.
With diseases that's another story.....it would be nice to be able to get rid of the sickle cell, but some seemingly negative genes are actually beneficial. Eg. people with the sickle trait have immunity to malaria.
But what I gathered is it's a package deal. You can't fool ppl in to thinking you can block HIV but can't make them 7ft tall
There's pitfalls to it on the cosmetic side the question is just where do you stop. The way we've already gone with surface to invasive solutions from tanning and hair extensions to butt and breast implants, they'll be a lot of arguments for why it should be done and the slippery slope argument won't be a good enough defense.
If humanity is really ******* up the ecosystem to the point we're not dying enough and what not I'm sure mother nature will provide a swift solution until we learn how to control the weather.
Last edited: