>>11201437>Let's take a concrete example. In-vitro procreation is a technique widely used and we still have no idea if a person created with this method might have higher risk of cancer.Good example. Despite not knowing for sure, we established early on that there was no outstanding risk, and it became a common procedure. And this is not a catastrophe or a disaster.
A few years of observation is enough to avoid grave large-scale issues.
>if you implement this technique on large scale, you will strongly reduce the genetic poolWhat is strongly ? That's an arbitrary judgement on your part.
>But viruses and bacteria might spread more easily.Or less, since we would spread resistant genes
>The population might also be less able to survive to environmental changesOr more, since we would be able to adapt ourselves
>We might even influence the diversity of the population behavior/character, which might impair the social cohesion.Or improve it, since we could spread favorable genes
More generally, your stance could be applied to any and all changes that happen. Industrialization, education of the poor, information technologies, antibiotics, fertilizers and pesticides... everything carries risk, and the end result can never be known in advance, and we go on anyway.
We usually survive.
That's life, get used to it.
