last blog post

One issue that I have with transgenesis is that there are unknown future implications.  It is unknown how changing genes could affect us as a species evolutionary or even more immediately. Before this is addressed and discovered, transgenesis should not be done.

Full disclosure: I don't necessarily agree with this argument.  Another argument I have against transgenesis is its implications on the planet.  If transgenesis is being used to essentially keep people alive who shouldn't be, as awful as it sounds we are contributing to the overpopulation of this planet.  I do not mean that we should never be keeping people alive I am simply saying that transgenesis could be used to prolong the inevitable.  Even if transgenesis is allowing for people to live long lives, these people will be procreating and possibly passing on their original poor genetic makeup. People who are kept alive in this way are using this planet's resources, which are already depleting at an alarming rate.

An argument I have against genetic enhancement is that we, as people, should not be controlling evolution.  What we are changing now could not be beneficial to our children or grandchildren or could even be detrimental to them.  What we may now consider "positive traits" could be the future's "negative traits."  There could also be a problem with there being different "fads" in terms of genetics.  Obviously this is an exaggeration and it is even committing the slippery slope fallacy, but instead of this weeks new style it could be this weeks new gene.