[jennyp]

So since we've been tinkering with genetics on accident for centuries there could be a good reason to tinker deliberately. The problem is when to say when. Using genetic modification to get rid of things like sickle cell and asthma are probably good. Cosmetic alterations would definitely be bad. Somewhere in between there is the line, not sure where though.

But those kinds of questions pop up with any technological advance. "Who gets the advance & who doesn't?" "How do 'we' decide?"

In general the best answer has always been to let the free market decide. Then people's actual values get to come into play in an organic way to achieve the (presumably) most ideal result that the real world can produce.

In an authoritarian, fascist, overregulated society a new technology such as this could easily turn into a horror. But in the free world? The best (or at least the most benign) scenarios are most likely.

That's why I'm basically an optimist WRT these new technologies. Because I'm basically an optimist WRT the future of freedom generally.

[discostu]

There are some levels of technology it really isn't best to let the market decide on. Advanced weapons systems would be high on the list, and genetic tinkering should be on the list too.