Edit: yes it's gonna be crazy expensive and 10+ years will pass before the tech is ready for mass use, I realize that.
Not to mention the splitting of humanity into separate species, based on wealth.
It is a whole mess of ethical concerns. I am astonished that you can't see that.
In the jargon of game theory, in the absence of a ban, everyone doping is the only strong Nash equilibrium.
The fear is gene edited babies would trigger the same effect: If I'm in my country's richest 3% and I know parents in the richest 2% are gene-editing their children to be healthier/smarter/prettier, can I afford not to do the same?
And we can't rely on national governments to provide bans - if I'm Country A's leader, can I afford to ban gene editing if our rival, Country B, is making full use of it?
The only similarity I can draw is that both have been restricted internationally.
The (pretty effective) nuclear non-proliferation treaty does beg the question here...
But what's the problem with manipulating people to be healthier, smarter and more attractive? Wouldn't that improve the world? Everyone benefits if humankind becomes less dumb.
But many people have imagined dystopian consequences - creation of a lifelong underclass; negative side-effects that take decades to manifest; having big corporations and government gatekeeping conception; monoculture and loss of genetic diversity; what would become of us pre-editing humans; impact of state control of genetically-predicated personality traits; and so on.
Is their destiny to be out-competed by those groups with the best gene editing technology?
What if a particular highly effective gene editing technique is perfected and patented in country A and they refuse a license to country B because they are rivals?
What if in country Z only ethnic group X is allowed to receive the treatment?
It really just exposes that people in power don't want to make it obvious that they've got an unfair advantage, and that basing society off of competition is what's bad.
Can't you say the same about private school?
To the broader topic, one of the major issues is that genes are nowhere near so cut-and-dried as they are portrayed in science fiction. Rather famously, the mutation that confers sickle-cell anemia also confers resistance to malaria. But for most genes, we don't know what the side-effects of their mutations will be. How can you properly ask for consent to a procedure whose consequences are often unknown and perhaps unknowable? All the more harder when the person on whom the greatest burden is borne is not yet in existence, let alone capable of giving consent.
It’s why I am personally a bit watery on predictions that CRISPR is going to be a miracle cure anytime soon. CRISPR is like having a modern machine shop complete with high precision CNC machines in the Bronze Age. You know there is big potential but do you really know what to do with it, or how? Can you use it to its full potential?
#1: The technology isn't mature enough and has some "mistargetting" that adds or deletes where it shouldn't.
#2: It is a reckless disregard for human life to not do generational animal trials before humans. If we cannot say make mice redfurred or immune to a mouse disease without major side effects like vastly increased cancer risk doing so in humans is unconscionable.*
*Medical ethics has a bit of weirdness in that if someone is certainly doomed otherwise it is more permissible to try something crazy.
If we could accessibly edit DNA mistakes with no more risk or difficulty than say preventing blood type mismatch related miscarriage then it having a few people with "bad traits carried onto offspring" wouldn't be a big deal.
It is often en vogue to complain about it cementing a class divide but under that logic education is unethical because it priveledges those who can afford it over those who cannot.
It is not at all equivalent. In developed countries, education is accessible to most or all. (The USA is not a developed country by this measure)
If you aren't worried about humanity splitting into multiple species along economic lines, I don't know what to tell you. I guess the film Gattaca was just a fun romp for you? I guess you must assume you will be one of the "haves" and to hell with everyone else, if you get yours?
There are also ways in which parental wealth is a disadvantage. It can weaken that grit, ambition, and drive to accomplish things.
While I worry about the implications as much as you do (Gattaca was a great, thought provoking movie) I think the grandparent comment is completely correct that there may be no way to prevent it. If we outlaw it our country, other countries may not. It only takes one group from now until the end of the human race to pursue this for that bifurcation of the human race to be possible.
Maybe it's not such a bad thing. If we don't make ourselves better, whatever the cost, we may find ourselves replaced by artificial life one day.
Ignoring the US for education is silly because it's the place where gene editing is likeliest to be restricted to the richest.
No, unequal access to education is unethical.
While it might be impractical to guarantee absolutely equal education, most people agree access to a basic education is a human right.
I personally don't think it's possible to prevent this kind of thing in the long term, so everything ranging from edited children born with horrible disabilities to deleting some potentially beneficial mutation paths in the human genome from existence is going to happen anyway.
If you have money, you can make your kids AIDS (and Cholera, and Smallpox) resistant.
They see that as "unfair", and conveniently forget money buy high education and network.
Some other people disagree for religious reason - they say it's "playing god", but I do not understand their arguments. Humanity has done selective breeding for centuries, and nobody ever complained.
It's just doing the same with better methods, as the CCR5 mutation discussed in the article was not created by humans, but naturally selected.
Nobody has ever complained about eugenics? About master races vs. inferior breeds of human, or about hereditary caste systems? I think you need to brush up on your history before making such claims.
Edit, to add: the same is likely true for realized intelligence as well.