Genetic Engineering

Today in my ethics class we discussed genetic engineering and it got me wondering. What's your thoughts on the matter? I understand that under capitalism only the wealthy could choose great genes and the divide would be greater, but I was wondering what you thought of it if it was readily available to all to modify themselves in such a manner?

First of all, it would be best to modify plants to be more efficient. Certainly, not under capitalist rule because it is only field for such parasites as Monsanto.

For genetically enhancing humans, that would face so much opposition that it would hardly be possible (religion, ethics, neo-Luddism, etc.); the public would be in turmoil. Besides, even wealthy people would have second thoughts on genetically modifying their OWN sons and daughters as it completely changes the family genetic line. My thoughts on genetic engineering on humans specifically would be to cure diseases related to genetics such as Parkinson's disease. We don't exactly know the "price" of a "great gene," so stating that only the wealthy would have access to such genes may be questionable.
The generation of genetically-superior humans capable of faster thinking, greater physical strength, etc. is in the distant future if it exists.

Arguments against it are either religious or idealistic.

Science and enhancement of human living conditions for the win.

This has been my stance generally. I don't see why it'd be so wrong, so long as it wasn't only in the hands of the wealthy few.

Genetic engineering is wonderful technology, and in a Communist/Anarchist society it could be used to create a veritable Utopia, however in the present world it is almost always used for profit and destruction. An argument could be made that it should be opposed (i.e. the use of it postponed and/or kept in the laboratory) until we have a society that won't abuse it. I don't see anything wrong with modifying humans if the technology is available to everyone. I think we should change the human genome such that we are immune to the various diseases that plague us, like malaria, but modifications to individual people should not be done without their consent. Someday it could be like getting a tattoo.

As someone very much screwed over by my own genes, I feel that genetic engineering and research into it is very necessary (of course, with the disclaimer that it is available to all and that we don't end up with some Gattaca like society). I'm honestly counting on major advancements in the field (hopefully also resulting in price decreases in the present technology) within the next 10-20 years or in all likelihood I will not have children, not that I have any plans to do so atm.

I do believe that genetic engineering has the potential to do a lot of good for the human race. That being said I feel it is being hindered by lack of funding and research and by opposition by moralists and Luddites. I also feel that even if it did advance, that in our current capitalist society, only the privileged bourgeois would be able to afford most of its benefits. In a communist society the benefits of science would be able to be enjoyed by more people than today.

A lot of stuff that gets spilt by applying genetic engineering to humans is in fact largely predicated on science from 30 years ago. Genetic engineering, at least as applied to humans, is going to be obsolete within a century or two.

A major problem is that most people's cells are pretty set in their ways by the time they are capable of making informed decisions about whether to receive such therapy. Stem cell research and increasingly synthetic biology are catching up with and will probably supersede gene therapy as a promising tool to help people deal with genetically based disorders. The tools of genetic engineering are remarkably crude (I think "engineering" is a bit of a misnomer on some level) and the downstream effects of genetic modification so poorly understood, that there is no foreseeable way that it will be practical in a clinical setting in at least the next 50 years. By the time we get to having a reasonably good idea of how genetic engineering can, say, give your children an IQ of 200 or something, other technologies, particularly stem cell research, would almost certainly have long surpassed any need for its use.

The longest and most detailed GMO feeding study has indicated that GMO's cause cancer so I think it could potentially be dangerous to turn yourself into one.

I wonder if "genetic engineering" in humans (essentially, eugenics) can truly be separated from white supremacy and ableism because these are intimately linked to the value hierarchy the concept arises from. Even if it is made available to everyone, unless everyone is a genetic engineer, then who gets to decide what "genetic perfection" is: everyone or just the engineers? How would we know that historic systems of oppression are not influencing their decision-making? What if there are people who want to have genes that are considered "bad" or "inferior" according to the predominant hierarchy of values?

Certain people are considered inferior or made to feel that their traits are inferior not due to their genes but because of oppressive social environments. The goal of genetic upliftment has always been an antagonistic substitute to that of social upliftment because it displaces, mystifies, and obscures the roots of devaluation and feelings of inferiority.

The fuck it has, that study was a terrible piece of shit by a bloody incompetent buffoon who worked on the presumption to begin with, using poor as shit methodology.

And even if that were to happen by virtue of certain mutations in certain modified products, it would not mean that any genetically modified food would have the same result, as genetic modification is no different from the cumulative effect of natural genetic mutations.