Something that will stick with me from this interview is the double edged nature of things like gene editing due to the predictability of things. On one hand there is ethical implications to changing one's genetics but more often than not humans are dissatisfied with at least one aspect of their being. In a future sense the easy fix might be simply using crispr to edit out that specific gene however as much as failures can be mitigated, they cannot be completely eliminated. This interview has caused me to think about how humans may retroactively have less satisfaction if they become tied up in an idea of high success gene editing.
This relates because this can cause society to become less diverse if people become obsessed with gene editing. It's clear that while editing our genes might promise quick fixes to our flaws, this could lead to a less unique society and even widen the gap between those who can afford these modifications and those who can't. This realization makes me think carefully about how we, as a society, choose to regulate and implement such powerful technologies. Also alot of the times humans trust science and medicine to be absolute, however this interview helps to prove that, that is not always the case