Fleeting thoughts: Human enhancement "by technics" versus "by genome editing": a philosophical comparison

Prehistory and background:

Human enhancement has been realized by two independent ways: by natural evolution leaded to the contemporary human: homo sapience sapience before the beginning of the human history properly; by technics in a broad sense including all human innovations such as language, religion, science, social organization, and technics in a narrow sense.

The comparison between those two ways demonstrates that human enhancement by technics has been much faster thus replacing natural evolution in the period of human history: evolution has been restricted very much by the alternative evolution by technics because of the following causes:

1. The evolution by technics is much faster and more universal being accomplished even in the lifespan in a single generation. Any evolutionary change is impossible in the same period in principle needing many generations to appear and establish as well as the constancy of a new essential factor of environment.

2. Technics neutralizes the advantages of those individua with relevant mutations and thus prevent their attachment and dissemination, since any one possessing or not a relevant mutation is able to use the corresponding technical device realizing alternatively the same functions.

Now, after decoding human genome, technics is able to intervene human evolution directly by editing human genome. A new distinction between technics and evolution in human enhancement becomes obvious in that background. Technics has been relatively independent of the nature of human being until now. Both ways of human enhancement are able to entangle from now on.

Problem:

Which are the advantages and disadvantages of human enhancement by technics in comparison to genome editing?

A practical dimension of the problem:

Given a certain human enhancement. How to decide which way is better for its realization: whether by technics as until now or by human genome editing?

Those kinds of decisions need a general comparison between the advantages and disadvantages of both methods for human enhancement:

1. The "switch-off" problem: any technical device in both narrow and broad sense can be switched off or not used. It may be switched on only if need be. Will the genome edited enhancements be able to be analogically switched on or off?

2. The "who-decides" problem. Who needs a certain technical device decides to use it or not. If the decision of genome editing is before one's birth, that one is forced to use the corresponding enhancement and that one's free will is deprived of choice.

3. The "unforeseen side effects" problem. The human genome is very, very complex structure. Its decoding does not include yet clearing the interrelations between its different parts. If a part of it is changed, the possible unforeseen side effects seem to be too many and eventually dangerous.

All those problems implies for the human genome edition to start by very, very tiny repayments obviously and immediately threatening the life or normal existence of human babies. Accumulating more and more experience, the application will expand with caution.