Most of the answers are based on the following logical fallacy: the landslide fallacy
if A occurs, then Z will occur, indicating that A should not happen. Instead of talking about the current (A), you shift the focus of the discussion to the (Z), the extreme thing that comes out of your mind. Because you fail to give any evidence that the occurrence of A is bound to lead to the occurrence of extreme thing Z, this is a fallacy to resort to fear and affects the objectivity of people talking about A.
example: Xiao Hong opposes gay marriage because she thinks that if we allow gay marriage, then someone will want to marry tables and chairs. Xiao Hong committed the fallacy of landslide.
the science fiction with the highest votes is well written. Because it is a novel, it is not critical.
none of the other objections is worth refuting:
1. The power of government and parents will be abused, social ethics will decline-
is bullshit, how a defective child tortures his parents! Parents do not have the ability to solve the suffering of their children, it takes countless extra time, energy and money to maintain his survival, and then they have to worry at any time that he may be afflicted by illness, bullied, ridiculed, unable to play well, go to school, get married, and may face the fate of dying in his teens. You torture the parents of children who die of congenital disease for decades for the so-called ethical system!
the person who wrote this sentence must have never met a relative with a congenital disease. Do you understand how it feels to be a father riding a horse to save a leukemic son?
Father"posing as a horse to save his son has been concerned about receiving more than 300,000 donations in two days
2. Exacerbating social injustice, widening the poles of the rich and the poor, causing unrest
in ancient times, war, the poor died first; sick, the poor died first, and it was more difficult for the poor to choose a mate; to raise children, it was more difficult for the poor; the vast majority of children born by the poor were also vulnerable to the poor, so the disadvantage of genetic competition occurred from generation to generation, and the genes of the poor would soon be eliminated by the genes of the rich. The rich are generally smarter and their spouses are generally more beautiful, so humans slowly become smarter and prettier. This is the cruel law of nature. 99% of our modern people are descended from 1% of the rich 300 years ago.
in modern society, this lens is stretched long enough, this phenomenon still exists, just more hidden. The world is generally a combination of strong and powerful, if you have worked hard to get out of the countryside all your life, you will let your son go to primary school in the city or primary school in the countryside. However, your son has made greater achievements, to build a rural hope primary school, is it even more unfair? Or is it fairer. Social injustice always exists, only to eliminate unsuitable groups for a long time.
does the behavior of helping vulnerable groups violate the survival of the fittest in the theory of evolution?-Wanyi's answer
3. The tragedy or reappearance of racial discrimination, and even the division of human beings into two races
4. The act of self-destructing genetic diversity.
landslide fallacy, not explained. Given the size of the human genome, China can only interpret 1% of this workload. In order to achieve the level at which all human beings can carry out genetic modification, racial discrimination and self-destruct genetic diversity, I estimate that communism may not be possible.
for example: plastic surgery has been around for so long, have you seen a lot of crooked melons and dates on the street? Do you really see a goddess and a loser split into two camps because of their beauty and ugliness?
for example, even smallpox virus, which has been eliminated for a hundred years, still exists in the laboratory, and researchers are much more cautious than we thought.
5. Great men will not appear: Abraham Lincoln (Mars), Emily Dickinson (manic depression 19th famous American poet), Vincent van Gogh (epilepsy), Albert Einstein (dyslexia), John Kennedy (Addison's disease), Rita Hayworth (Alzheimer's), Ray Charles (primary glaucoma), Stephen Hawking (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), Jackie Joyner Kexi (asthma), Of course, the other person who may not be born may be you.
Oh, the logic is a mess. Is it because he is sick that these great men become great men? Or without illness, he is more likely to be a great man and live longer. What's more, genetic modification is not about aborting them or harming their intelligence. Why do you think of genetic modification at the expense of Nazi genocide? This is not equivalent!
all those who oppose genetic modification, ask:
are you willing to take care of a Down's child for half your life?
would you rather have plastic surgery on the lips of your children for generations? Or would you like to modify the gene directly? Thank you for the example of Huang Bowen in the comments!
-the answer to some questions-
was asked if these two rhetorical questions were also landslide fallacies-in fact, they were not. With genetic modification, there is not necessarily racial differentiation or extinction diversity. Without genetic modification, there must be an endless stream of Down syndrome and rabbit lips-that's the difference. My logic is: obesity, short, rabbit lips, Down and other genes, you think it does not matter, you just leave it alone, but some people may suffer, or even suffer for generations, please give people a means to improve. As for whether or not to lose weight and increase weight is a personal will, genetic modification does not specify how much to reduce and how much to increase, but to provide a means by which you can change.
there are people who insist on improving genes, and there is not necessarily a reasonable need that is not necessarily correct.
if surgery to remove a gene now can make people beautiful for generations, millions of people will rush to it right away-you run over and say, Oh, we're going to keep the ugly gene, and it's wrong for you to do it, and make sure your face gets swollen every minute! You love ugliness and illness. Don't use that stupid values to judge whether others are right or not.
some people say that it can be expected that at some point in the future, the resources invested by parents in improving genes at the embryonic stage of their offspring will become a decisive factor in determining the innate quality of their offspring. Many people think of genetic modification as a biotic, thinking that they can transform the immortal body of Wolverine or the goddess of wisdom like Athena, and then those who do not have the money to do so will never rise to the top. It is ridiculous to think of genes as the only criterion for success, and acquired factors such as environmental family timing education have a much greater impact on success than we think. Ma Yun, Ma Huateng, Li Yanhong, Lei Jun, whose merchant gene did Lei Jun inherit? Can a high congenital IQ sweep the world? Isn't that funny?
on the contrary, there are fewer mentally handicapped people in the world, but the resources saved can raise the whole human standard of living to a higher level.