4 ms·
>To me the strongest non-religious argument against doing this is that it will further accelerate wealth benefits, eg if you could make your kids smarter. The
by sasaf5 8y ago
>To me the strongest non-religious argument against doing this is that it will further accelerate wealth benefits, eg if you could make your kids smarter.
The exact same argument could be made against education, or any other human development.
- wz1000 8y agoWhich is why most countries have some sort of public funded compulsory education.
- x220 8y agoYeah, but a moratorium on gene editing is the equivalent of banning all schools.
- mkhalil 8y agoNot even remotely right. Banning all schools will affect all children. Banning gene-editing will effect the children of the wealthy, or those who's parents chose to go that route. A better example will be banning private schools, but even then, that requires the child to at least work hard and the parents to constantly invest for a child to get any value out of it, as oppose to gene editing.
- chr1 8y agoBanning all schools will affect all children now because we have reached a point where schools are common. 200 years ago they were not, and if we decided to not allow any schools until we could provide schools for everyone, we still would not have any schools.