When available through technological progress,
everyone shall have the right to genetic modification (GM) of future offspring,
limited to the prevention of life-threatening diseases,
such as Down's syndrome, Tay-Sachs syndrome, cystic fibrosis, and Gaucher's disease.
However, at this moment of writing,
I do not have a position on genetic engineering to prevent aging,
because it conflicts with my position on the Right to Age.
Balding, wrinkles, arthritis, pain, dementia --- elements of normal aging---
may be found to have specific and easily-modified DNA locations.
But adding 50+ years to the life cycle would re-position life's phases
(childhood, puberty, retirement, etc.) and increase world population,
thus requiring monumental changes to both society's institutions and attitudes.
On the other hand (no pun intended for a GM 3-handed human),
these technologies
"will allow us to escape our human limitations and evolve beyond our dreams."
"will allow us to escape our human limitations and evolve beyond our dreams."
Something about João Pedro's words move me.
Still, ordering offspring
like a burger-to-go-have-it-your-way
like a burger-to-go-have-it-your-way
seems
wrong, odd, destructive, and false.
Is this our evolutionary choice?
wrong, odd, destructive, and false.
Is this our evolutionary choice?
 |
| future offspring |
I'm on the fence, partly, on this one
regarding GM for age prevention or offspring qualities.
regarding GM for age prevention or offspring qualities.
Which side of the fence are you on?
