[songco]

It's ok and good thing if the results is only positive like "Bigger, faster, stronger, and MUCH smarter". (Maybe not include Bigger?)

The worst part of this is that it may not safe. If this introduced some flaws in the babies gene, how to control this, don't allow them have babies?

[rmellow]

Please rethink that it's a good world where positive genetic traits can be added to babies - in a world where this is common, you or your kids would be in unfair competition with genetically superior people simply because their parents are rich. And the poor would be, for the first time in history, objectively inferior.

Yes, kids with rich parents are already at advantage - just wait to see what genetic superiority does to that divide.

[joesb]

On one hand, I kinda agree with you.

On the other hand, I usually stop and inspect myself whenever my reasoning that something is bad is not because it hurts me, but because I can't accept to see others improve.

Good rule of thumb is that people should have the freedom to do anything as long as it doesn't violate other people's right. How does a rich family violate poor family's right by making their rich baby better?

[dallashoxton]

Thing is that any society that hesitates on adopting genetic engineering out of some fear of exacerbating income inequality or whatever is going to lose out in the long run to any civilization that has no such ethical hangups about genetic engineering. It's a prisoner's dilemma.

[tekproxy]

Dna is just information. Can you point me in the direction of the universe where information is easy to hide and control?

Look how easy information spreads now. Github, Wikipedia, music, YouTube, etc. You think dna is easy to drm?

[ddnb]

I'd suppose governments with a socialised healthcare system would push and invest heavily if it means to lower the cost. Just like most (?) push for affordable medicine in one form or another.