Though it’s probably the most obvious answer to this question I honestly think that the prospect of human gene editing is the most exciting and ethically challenging use of CRISPR Technology. I think one of the reasons that it’s so exciting is because in a broad sense even beyond deadly and debilitating genetic disorders it could fix a lot of things for humanity. One of the most frightening things about our current society is the number of people who wear glasses. As we became more societal and developed better medical technologies people who previously would have died because they couldn’t function are able to live and thrive and pass on these flawed genes which could eventually cripple us. However, this doesn’t mean that the whole idea of human gene editing isn’t very ethically challenging, considering that richer people could have the ability to promote designer jeans if they wanted to. Your child could be far more athletic and smarter just because you have more money, which is an undue advantage that would have to be regulated.
Regardless of the ethical challenges that face us in the time of CRISPR, I think we have to use Gene editing technology on humans. In the Harris article, it makes a point to say that by gene editing a next generation you are doing it without their consent. (Harris, 1) In all honesty that seems a rather ludicrous argument to make the next generation healthier, considering they’re already being born into a society that they had no impact over and are going to have to deal with large problems such as climate change. Even on a less daunting level people born in the next generation are facing a lot of social strife especially in America, they’re going to have to deal with corporate dictatorship and increased rates of mental illness because of the type of society we live in. Gene editing could only make the struggles of tomorrow easier to be death with if mortality isn’t so daunting.