• kartonrealista@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think it’s dumb because such power (CRISPR) should be treated with great care. Curing a disease? Go for it. But be careful. Now, to make a better product? I dunno, it just rubs me the wrong way.

    Why? Is this a religious statement? If it betters the world then that’s it, it should be used. CRISPR is just a technology for editing genes, it’s not some sacred tool that should have arbitrary restrictions, or a nuclear weapon. If the utility of using it is positive why not?

    Most of our crops, that we rely to feed the world today would be barely usable for consumption before we domesticated them. Same with fruits and plenty of other food sources, like cattle.

    You mentioned little dogs in another comment, and while some will have more issues, others have rather long lifespans for dogs (chihuahuas). Important thing is, this is what happened when we had no idea or precise control of what we were doing, which we have now with gene editing. Can’t get more precise than that. I also think this objection is moot since trees don’t think and therefore don’t experience suffering in the way animals do, unless you think your flowers scream in terror whenever you forget to water them, this isn’t even a moral conundrum.

    Edit: leaving this in to clarify what I’m responding to.

    without caring about what happens to the thing modified?