Should we pursue genetic engineering to enhance human traits?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should we pursue genetic engineering to enhance human traits?". Your opponent's style: A high schooler.

• Human empathy • Vegetables metaphor (counter: most vegetables are modified somehow ei corn) but specifically chemicals • Why are we worrying about modifying ourselves instead of focusing on our dying world? • Every 2000s dystopian movie ever • Wealth/money put into genetic modification = rich people can, poorer people can’t • Average of $20.4 billion into genetic engineering each year • Ethical issues o How do we decide who should be ‘improved?’ (societal standards: what kind of people are valued more?) o In the current state of the world, are we just going to create people who are specifically for hurting other people/used for war? o Should babies/embryos who have zero agency be changed genetically, without being able to choose whether they want to be modified?

Look, you're basically saying "don't modify humans because rich people will hog it and we'll create designer soldiers." But that's arguing against *bad implementation*, not genetic engineering itself. Universal healthcare exists—we can regulate access. And your "babies can't consent" argument kills literally every parental decision, from vaccines to names. The real issue? You're scared of change, so you invented dystopias to justify keeping humans broken. We cure diseases through genetic modification all the time. You just drew a line at "enhancement" because it *feels* wrong, not because it *is* wrong. Why accept preventable suffering just to avoid discomfort?