By "our" genetics, I assume you're referring to altering the genes that are in a zygote.

If the full result of changes could be known, then probably not a problem. The problems are that it would require trial and error to learn that, and the "errors" would be unfortunate victims.

Gotta be careful of that "better."

Who decides what "better" means?

Important, because the decision will always effect someone else.

I agree. The definition of better is tricky-especially with regards to racial differences, then we get historic genetics, which has never led to good outcomes.


Is 'attractive' a necessary trait? As from my experience, the only useful traits that stereotypically attractive people seem to possess is charisma, because humans have a disposition to like and appeal more so to people they find physically attractive-and maybe confidence, coming from the self-awareness of one's own attractiveness and it's effect on others. Other than that, because people who are attractive did not have to work much harder in life to socialize, achieve academically ect. hence you get the 'dumb hot' stereotype, the big buff jock or the dumb blond, both dumb with (usually) unappealing personalities-because they did not need to develop better ones. Trust me when I say I am dating one of the former (and have dated dumb girls as well) and while my current boyfriend is very soft-hearted when he wants to be, he is not very considerate, emotionally dense, or otherwise 'intelligent'-he has never had to be, relying only on his looks and large physique to guarantee a career in football.
Also-what defines intelligence? I am currently writing a book that denies human intelligence-at least, its superiority to other forms of intelligence-questioning, what can intelligence mean if there is no real objective reality to really 'know'. I argue that all varieties of species have a different reality-and that human intelligence has strengths and weaknesses, just like other species. In humans alone there is a whole classification of different intelligences-I happen to fall on the abstract thinking, linguistic side, but I cannot do math very well and I struggle with art. I am also autistic/"gifted" which means I also think and reason in ways different from others and as a child, lacked a lot of key social skills necessary for being successful in school. In school I struggled, not because the classes were necessarily hard, but because teachers taught in a way that I could not understand/did not care for, and in many cases, I just lacked interest. I failed a lot of classes-yet next year I am going to law school, so you can already see how hard it is develop any sort of test that would measure intelligence (ie. like the bullshit curriculum ones) let alone a way to develop and measure higher intelligence in vitro. Unless you're going for some kind of hyper-savant goal, like breeding only high functioning autists like myself? Which, while I'm flattered, I would not condemn another person, let alone my child, to live like I. People of extremely average or moderate intelligence are usually pretty content.


I agree with controlled breeding programs, that do scan for genetics insofar as health ect. I also believe that the 'perfect' genetics would include as diverse a range of genes as possible, so it would include traits from various races, ethnic groups ect. for example, african/black people do not cancer as often as white or eastern asian races do...something to consider. I believe in controlled breeding programs insofar as I believe that the Earth cannot handle an unprecedented amount of human breeding, if we are unwilling to alter our consumption patterns then we must alter the quantity of people consuming. It would be voluntary-not horror movie style, just more along the lines of China's One Child policy-where people would have to apply for child licenses and prove they have good financial standing, good community to raise child in ect.

I think it would be a good idea to use genetic engineering to make ourselves more intelligent. Donald Trump is my main supporting argument. As to making ourselves more attractive, I can't see it. Ideas of attractiveness are too variable.

Should we be able to alter our genetics ... to make our selves smarter, stronger, more attractive, etc.?

I believe we should — SydneyPhilosopher

I don't see any point in making ourselves dumber, weaker, and uglier, so sure. However, breeding smarter, stronger and more attractive humans is not as easy as breeding fancy rats. Humans don't start breeding for quite a few years; It takes at maybe 40 years (might take longer) to fully assess intelligence, strength, health, and attractiveness. Someone kind of homely at 15 might be stunning at 35. And visa versa. There is the problem of matching partners and finding adequate parents. A lot of people that have existed would have been smarter, stronger, and more attractive had they had different care givers or were born in some other society.

Should we be able to alter our genetics not cure diseases but to make our selves smarter, stronger, more attractive, etc.? — SydneyPhilosopher

To avoid accusations (baseless or not) of the higher-ups of society using this kind of tech to advance themselves and close off the opportunity to the lower classes, I think it should only be done if we can afford to do it to everyone. I just don't think the benefits that come with genetic modification justify the potential civil unrest that could come from people disgruntled that their child had to die from cancer and their richer neighbors didn't.

So I do very much support using genetics to modify ourselves how we see fit, but I think it requires a post-scarcity economy to do so peacefully.