Gene-editing your children for intelligence and disease resistance will soon be possible. If you DON'T do it — knowing other parents will — are you ethically negligent, or the last line of defense against a two-tier human species?

I asked Claude to give me tough controversial topics to debate in this group. It is not AI related but combines Biotech + Society.

This is the first and it is an interesting one. Here is the argument:

The argument:

CRISPR and germline editing are moving from theoretical to clinical. The WHO has already formed a global oversight committee precisely because the technology is real and imminent. The trap this question sets: if enhancement becomes normalized, opting out means your child competes against cognitively superior, disease-resistant peers — effectively choosing disadvantage for them. Philosophers like Julian Savulescu argue you have a moral obligation to give your child every advantage. Critics like Michael Sandel counter that this destroys the "giftedness" of human life and accelerates inequality into biology itself. There's no neutral position here — both action and inaction carry moral weight.