You mean we didn't agree with you and pointed out plot hols.. Also don't label people you don't know.
I can understand the phenomenon of utopian hope whether it's ever realistic, whether it ever does any good it’s a vast topic. Probably the most known form of utopia is the ideological social utopia, once the world will be run properly, according to the principles of some political "-ism". I think I can accept the possibility, but deny the utopian hope. In principle, there might be a utopianism which is justified. But in practice, what we have are people getting high on hope, emerging fanaticism, or personal dysfunctionality in the present. I have no problem with what’s called modern global society being considered more utopian that all previous societies. Technology might help making things possible in the future. Human Genome Project and cryogenic freezing are only 2 examples. Perhaps that’s why, from time to time, people think it’s necessary to remember what hope is for.
So I didn't catch this thread when it opened but from what I have read with the quotes and such, the OP posed a certain scenario and was expecting everyone to agree with him. However, when people pointed out the cons or fallacies, he got upset and removed his post. (Kinda like the kid on the playground who takes his ball and leaves because he can't win every game). Do I have the gist of this about right? I can't comment on each individual point but I tend to agree with those of you who stated that although the notion of some genetically engineered utopia sounds good, it would not likely turn out the way hopeful people think it would. Some of the points about needing both good and bad are on point. I would argue that most of us learn and succeed more from failure and mistakes than from our successes. I think we also have to realize that the person or people in charge of this endeavor would themselves be human with all the imperfections that go with that. I'm not some brainiac with all the answers but one thing I've learned over the years is that we can't control everything no matter how hard we try. It is hubris to think we can. Not saying the status quo is okay and we shouldn't try to be better. Just that we can't all be the same.
Well I attempted to state something and knew not all would agree just did not know how many on this forum would want to disagree without talking about it I could state the idea in a straightforward manner but would be too radical of a concept best to delete and continue with work
You have a point most can't grasp the topic of removing all DNA faults in humanity so all can have the same start in life. I agree the idea your getting at is a very controversial point many will just sweep it under the rug and have nothing more to do with it and label it in the context they can only see from there own experiences.
