Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome

Scientists Seek Ban on Method of Editing the Human Genome
nytimes.com

In many ways we are already selecting for those traits and have been for countless generations, so assuming we had a well-understood and safe method for artificially selecting for them then there should be no ethical quandaries beyond "but, that's cheating!" There are no scorekeepers of the universe, nobody's going to give us karmic demerits for finding a shortcut. The only risks are scientific, like the obvious potential loss of diversity of the gene pool as we converge on certain universal traits.

From another perspective, what if we could identify genes which bring the value of a trait below the baseline? For example, imagine we could identify the gene which would cause someone's teeth to be so bad as to require braces to correct later in life, but it would still be a largely superficial genetic change largely related to "beauty". Should some people be made to suffer or "earn" straight teeth while others are born with it? Why should this be true of any traits?

Or creating a permanent underclass from those who were unfortunate to have parents who couldn't or wouldn't give them the enhancements - and for that to carry forwards as jobs, and the wealth to advance your children, increasingly go to those who have been modified.

In effect, if you found something and it really worked, you might well lock a large portion of the population out of any realistic chance of meaningfully participating in the future.

(Though I suppose one might argue that this is the case now, with education and good environments going primarily to the wealthy. The difference would be in the degree to which the path was locked in.)

edit: grammar

Hardly permanent, I'd say; eventually they would be outcompeted to extinction by H. s. mutabamus, in the same way H. s. sapiens (is thought to have) outcompeted neanderthalensis.