[NYer]

Ping!

[IronJack]

The question of "should we?" is not so easily resolved when it involves technology. So often, those are not questions of moral right and wrong so much as they are questions of Man's poor ability to foresee the consequences of his actions. It might seem "right" at the time for a single unmarried girl to abort her child, and certainly science has given us the means to do it. But in the long term, she will have taken a life, and that has untold impacts on her life, on the lives of perhaps millions of others, and certainly on the life she terminates. We may have the ability to clone beings, but what happens when the first person wants to clone himself? Is that clone a human or simply property? We may have the ability to gene splice pathogens into weapons-grade biological tools. But what happens when an unexpected mutation makes our antidotes ineffective and masses of humanity are wiped out?

Let's never let our hubris override sensible caution and plunge us headlong into a horror of our own making.

[verga]

Well of course we should. Then after that we can begin gene modification. we could tweet things to eliminate diabetes, or heart disease, or color blindness.

Maybe we could work on finding the gene to raise IQ and superior muscle structure.

And once we get this group of really smart strong people we can't have them wasting their time with mundane ordinary work. We could also breed a group with lower IQs to do all the "manual" labor. Yeah that's the ticket... /SARC

[TBP]

Moral? The regime has no idea what that means.