{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
11/22/2016 10:46:59 AM
13
Only to make sure genetic illnesses and disabilities are not passed on to the child. I think if it's used to minimise suffering it is a good thing, but I am cautious because of the other potential applications.
English
-
Can using it to improve people not also minimize suffering?
-
What do you mean by "improve people"?
-
Genetic modification for useful purposes. Improving the immune system, bones and skin to prevent injury, nervous system to improve reaction time, organs to improve functionality, ect...
-
That falls under the very present likelihood of abuse, though. The "haves" and the "have-nots", potentially leading to rampant divisions and a new caste system. Now, engineering for a singular purpose or altering a few systems to adjust for specific situations (EG, being able to nullify the bone-density loss caused by zero-g, or improve ultraviolet resistance in regards to atmospheric degradation) is a MAYBE, but other than that...
-
That would be fine. My only objection would be purely aesthetic changes like "hmm, let's give this child blue eyes, because it looks better."
-
I have gray eyes.
-
I don't understand your point?
-
-
-
That seems like a pretty arbitrary and frivolous thing. Why would you care?
-
For the same reason I hate people using plastic surgery to make themselves "prettier", (that's in quotation marks because it's subjective) it is a wasted use for medical procedures. Wasted money, time and attention from staff who could be doing more beneficial things. Wasted money from taxes, government etc. that could be better spent elsewhere.
-
Who said the government should fund it? Sure as hell not me.
-
I didn't either. I suggested it may be where it comes from.
