Originally Posted by
Carry2
Again, in the short term, I wouldn't disagree with your proposed restrictions on legal use. And I agree that there are very real risks involved in tampering with human genetics. But black market practitioners will not care about those risks, and a sufficiently desperate clientele will accept those risks for a shot at a better life for them or their kids. The category of what is legally permissible needs to keep reasonable pace with what is technically feasible and in commercial demand, or you will likely see worse health outcomes than under total deregulation.
If people want to relax, a certain proportion WILL buy drugs and booze. If people feel horny, a certain proportion WILL pay for sex. If people don't feel safe, a certain proportion WILL own guns. And if people fear their kids won't be able to compete in life, a certain proportion WILL select for advantageous genes. Even when it's dangerous.
We have to consider whether the social consequences of banning a service are worse than the social consequences of that service, whether the ban would actually reduce supply, whether money spent on enforcing the ban couldn't be more efficiently spent on treating the adverse side-effects of the service, whether regulating the industry couldn't reduce those risks to begin with, and whether that service is itself addressing a legitimate need.