On the other hand, I could argue that it is more morally justifiable to genetically modify a person to fix flaws than other methods we currently employ.
Take glasses as an example. Poor eyesight is a severe disadvantage that is all but negated by the simple application of eyeglasses. By doing this we are circumventing natural selection, and what is a trait that would normally be weighed down is allowed to propagate almost equally, and become widespread, polluting the gene pool. This leads to genetic degradation as a race.
However, if you genetically alter someone to remove a flaw, this is passed on to children and the flaw is removed, resulting in a stronger gene pool. Why should being counterproductive with natural selection be morally right and being truly beneficial be morally wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, I could argue that it is more morally justifiable to genetically modify a person to fix flaws than other methods we currently employ. Take glasses as an example. Poor eyesight is a severe disadvantage that is all but negated by the simple application of eyeglasses. By doing this we are circumventing natural selection, and what is a trait that would normally be weighed down is allowed to propagate almost equally, and become widespread, polluting the gene pool. This leads to genetic degradation as a race. However, if you genetically alter someone to remove a flaw, this is passed on to children and the flaw is removed, resulting in a stronger gene pool. Why should being counterproductive with natural selection be morally right and being truly beneficial be morally wrong?