CNBC reports scientists in the United Kingdom are moving forward with a law change that will permit genetic modification of human DNA, with the goal of permitting mothers with damaged genes to have healthy children. Many view this as massively controversial, even horrifying. If it works poorly, I agree.
However, consider if the process works well. Would you choose to have the present "potluck" random gene combinations in your child? Or would you choose a child you know will be (a) healthy, sane and long-lived, (b) intelligent, (c) attractive, (d) athletic, (e) warm and charming, and (f) have a photographic memory or other unique talent or characteristic (perfect pitch, motion sickness resistance, fast reflexes, etc.)?
Ask yourself, wouldn't you rather be a person with the above traits than who you are now? I would. Should I want less for my child than I'd like for myself? I think I'd opt for the "designer" child.
Imagine if we could design out of our species such problems as diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, high blood pressure, schizophrenia, arthritis, psychopathy and autism. If we could design in disease resistance, straight teeth, good vision.
We have no idea whether a culture of such people would thrive or even survive. Still ... I'd risk it. Evolution is good, helping it along could be even better.
