https://i.imgur.com/VyNUYOo.gif

There is a root problem with all these worries, that also comes up in most future problems projections (gray goo, human mind uploading etc).

If we come to a point where we can change someone DNA with a injection, and this ejection can continue on in the germ line. We have the technology to change it back again, because it's the same technology we used to cause the problem.

Everyone fear mongers in the idea that the scenario happens now to someone, and everyone else is stuck with our current technology.

TLDR: A book was written by an old British man who is apparently scared of actually USING genetics.

I wonder if he contents with the potential cost in human lives that the pauses in research he wants would cause. Pause research for 5-7 years, those are 5-7 years of extra human suffering that could be avoided. At least from the article it seems he does not answer that question, and just sticks to trotting out the things that scare him.

>Within each topic, Cobb asserts that there are often lower-tech, less expensive, less ethically fraught but less flashy ways to achieve what genetic editing claims to be trying to achieve. Clean air and water could save more lives than gene therapies, to give one example.

"Hey Bob, do you think we should try to cure sick children of horrible and painful degenerative diseases?"

"Nah! let em rot! we could save more lives by improving car safety so we should only do that, no curing sick children because they're meant to die or something and working out how to cure their diseases scares some old guy"

Obvious thing is obvious.

​

I should be a "journalist".

How I damn hate ethics in terms of biotech. Just let me already bioengineer myself.