> but I think the solution is to talk about them and work them out. Hey you're right, and I appreciate that you're open about your thoughts. But my position di

> but I think the solution is to talk about them and work them out. Hey you're right, and I appreciate that you're open about your thoughts. But my position differs in that I think there isn't anything to "work out", because it's a non-essential technology. Sure it might eradicate diseases, it might. But there are other ways to tackle them that have far less controversial impact. > But I don't think that getting it wrong is inevitable, nor do I think that inaction is better. With tools that have greater potential to be massively destructive, they inevitably end up like that. Look how we shot ourselves in the foot with the inventions of dynamite and nuclear fission. Yes they did open doors, but arguably we've upped our own risk of self-destruction too. "Inactive" here just means rejecting this path and taking up another instead. And, the latter may well open doors more beneficial to us. Look, I have to say that I dislike looking at society and social issues from the Darwinian perspective. It's just too cynical, and kinda missing the point of living. We're not just here to survive. Whatever age we live to, every one has a chance to witness the wonder of just existing. We keep passing the torch of enlightenment, but we're not supposed to fall in the trap that we have control and therefore power. Trust me, Nature will laugh right back at us. And you can't compare this issue with our rich history of wit and innovation. For a start, the generations before were trying to change the world, and this is radically different to creating a new "breed" of humans, where going down this path is not only superficial, it's most likely very painful for a lot of us. Let's shift perspective a bit here: with this new "species", ours can get wiped out.