Let's agree on what we're actually talking about. "Editing human embryos" means making permanent, heritable changes to the genome of a person who cannot consent, and every one of their descendants will carry those changes. That's the definition that matters here. If we're just talking about editing non-viable embryos for research and discarding them, that's a different question. But the debate is about allowing it to create edited humans, and that should be off the table. The engineer might argue that we can fix terrible genetic diseases, and that's a noble goal. But once you open that door, you can't close it. We don't know the long-term effects of these edits across generations, and unlike a drug, you can't recall it. And there's the fairness problem: who decides which edits are "acceptable"? Rich people will get enhancements, the rest of us won't. We'd be designing humans before we even understand what we're doing. That's not cautious science, that's hubris with a pipette. Slow down.

[No submission - Time expired]