Neither evolution nor human civilization have goals. Both are about survival if that's what meant.
To the contrary, a great many people (myself included) would argue that civilization's primary aim should lie in pushing the boundaries of human ambition and achievement forward.
Unfortunately, in some regards, natural evolution runs counter to that goal.
Take two of the most problematic behaviors of our age, for instance; promiscuity and gluttony. Early in our evolutionary history, these instincts served a legitimately useful purpose. They helped to ensure that our ancestors were able to pass on their genes and find adequate nutrition in environments where mates and food could potentially be quite scarce.
What do they accomplish today, in environments where both are available in abundance?
Out of control STD and illegitimacy rates, and an obesity problem of virtually
epidemic proportions, to name just a few of their more disasterous consequences.
Needless to say, in many regards, the "caveman" instincts fostered by our evolution can actually be shown to cause more harm than good. They don't show signs of going away any time soon either.
Frankly, that's assuming that evolution even necessarily works towards a species' survival in absolute terms anyway. Species go extinct all the time, in case you haven't noticed.
The simple answer is that philosophically, I have issues with it. If it ever comes to the point that it's an option, I won't have anything to say about it, as my reproductive days are long gone, but if I were of the age to still need to consider it, I'd opt not to. Imo, humans are much more than machines, and a part of what makes us human is our flaws and dysfunctions.
That's fair. I may not completely agree with that opinion, but I won't fault you for it.
To be equally fair, however, I wouldn't say that I necessarily view human beings as "machines" anyway. We have free will, and can choose to rise above our baser nature (or not) as such.
I was simply saying that, where the basic functionality of our bodies is concerned, many of the same principles apply. The better the "hardware" and the better it is put together, the better the whole device comes together and is able to accomplish the tasks it is meant to complete.
In that regard, I really don't view inefficiency or flaws as being especially worth preserving. :shrug:
The way I see it, small scale tweaking of genetic traits basically functions of the same principle as vaccination, or any other preventative medical measure. The goal is to nip any potential problem in the bud before it can become a legitimate problem in the first place.
That's human nature. If it can be explored, it will simply because it's there.
True, and we will very likely wind up suffering for it either way regardless. I was merely putting forward my "ideal" position on the matter.
It will be interesting to see where things end up in any eventuality, I'm sure.
Personally, I am much more interested if we can prevent telomere decay without inducing cancer. I would love to have the option to stop aging. With enough time, other problems can be waited out.
Agreed. That'll be a big one if they ever manage to make it workable.
I doubt either of us will live long enough to see it if they do though. Lol
