>>12003518Sure. But, they should be bounded by biological and logicistical-political considerations. For instance is it advantageous to transition an entire nation's grain production to genetically modified strains? Would this in any way imperil the food supply? Can we adequately manage and represent the interests of modified human populations? Are there inherent health and ecological risks to introducing gene drives like those proposed for pests of various staple crops, disease vectors like biting insects? These are the legitimate constraints to genetic engineering. That and allocating resources for R&D where we have to plan many years in advance for the probable expected benefits and costs of dumping billions into potentially useless or unmanageable dangerous engineering techniques. The "ethics" of genetic engineering are only useful in so far as they properly constrain the management of complex human systems so as not to imperil and destabilize vital infrastructure. It just so happens that some but not all of the currently popular points of contention brought up by the skeptical side of bioethics types are also pertinent to these sorts of logistical and biological concerns. It might very well be dangerous to go forward with engineering more intelligent humans not because of some apocalyptic endgame scenario but merely because managing the health and political ramifications of the existence of such a subpopulation is too costly.
