1AC UK Round 1

1AC Technology v1.1

Contention 1 is Technology
The AFF is statistically the best chance of humanitys survival.
Verdoux 2009 [Philippe PhD @ Harvard University, Transhumanism, Progress and the Future,
http://jetpress.org/v20/verdoux.pdf -]

And with these negative appraisals we come to our Conclusion. The futurological program of transhumanism ought to be
implemented rather than the alternative options available, that is, if one wishes to maximally
minimize the inevitable increase in the probability of self-annihilation. There are, I have attempted to
show, dire eschatological consequences to all the possible routes into the future thus far proposed: no matter which is ultimately
implemented, our chances of survival have fallen nontrivially. And, as I have also attempted to establish, technology
constitutes a crucial enabling factor in the network of causes responsible for our existential plight. But what are the practical implications of this thesis
with respect to transhumanism? If absolute progress driven by technology is illusory and our future dismal, then
why not jettison so to speak technology from the ship of humanitys future? My line of reasoning to the
conclusion above follows a simple process of elimination: transhumanism offers (what one might call) the safest
unsafe passage into the future, that is, compared to the alternatives specified. But not only does the
transhumanist program appear to constitute the best option for the future by avoiding the problems
associated with certain forms of relinquishment, but it might actually contribute positively in ways the
alternatives could not to the amelioration of our predicament. I refer here specifically to the creation and use of cognitive
enhancement technologies, including neural implants, tissue grafts and nootropic drugs (Walker 2008b; Bostrom
and Sandberg 2006; Bostrom and Sandberg 2009). After all, who better to grasp, manipulate and control the problems
unique to the GNR revolution than an advanced species of cognitively enhanced posthumans?34 Indeed, as
many authors have noted, the rapid expansion of human knowledge in the past several centuries has entailed a corresponding increase in individual
ignorance (Winner 1977, 283; see also Kelly 2008). No doubt, a major obstacle to effectively guarding against the worse possible scenarios considered
by Bostrom (2002) is epistemic or cognitive in nature. It thus follows that enhancing our ability to think carefully,
comprehensively and deeply about the (impending) problems confronting intelligent life
on Earth will greatly augment our collective ability to survive. Person-engineering must not be
wholly restricted. 61 The general view defended here is, I believe, already implicit in certain corners of the transhumanist literature: one finds in
several authors a recognition of the technogenicity of our worsening situation as well as a sense that the best way to fix this situation now that we
have crossed the Rubicon of technology is more technology, designed and implemented in a strategically prudent manner.35 Walker, for example,
argues that even though creating posthumans may be a very dangerous social experiment, it is even more dangerous not to attempt it:
technological advances mean that there is a high probability that a human-only future will
end in extinction (Walker 2009). And as I have already discussed, Bostrom has not only recently suggested that transhumanists eschew the
term progress, but he continues to be a major intellectual figure in the exploding field of techno-eschatology. In closing, a primary impetus behind
this paper was to make the position that I have termed rational capitulationism explicit. This involved refining and elaborating Walkers incipient
arguments put forth in his 2009 article. In pursuing this end, I have attempted to emphasize that one can be a pessimist about the future, one
can
identify technology as the primary cause of our existential plight, and one can hold an anti-progressionist
conception of history while at the same time advocating the descriptive and normative claims of
transhumanism in particular, the moral assertion that we ought to pursue both worldengineering and person-engineering technologies by
fomenting the GNR revolution. This is, it appears, our best hope of surviving the future.

Earthquakes, volcanos, and asteroids are inevitable and cause extinction

Abandoning tech fails.
Warmflash 2015 [David Astrobiologist, physician and science writer, Tampering with nature is how
humans can avoid extinction, https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/05/25/tampering-with-nature-is-
how-humans-can-avoid-extinction/ -]

In addition to human-induced climate change and nuclear weapons, there are many other dangers to our civilization and species.
Theyre not our fault but part of the environment in which we evolved. Within the Earth, there are techtonic
forces that cause
earthquakes, and from time to time there are massive volcanic eruptions. Just one huge eruption can release enough
dust and chemicals into the atmosphere to put the planet into a severe ice age and set off events
that destroy the food chain. So far, weve been very lucky, but to assure our survival well need to control
earthquakes and volcanic activity, and as long as were doing that it will help if we also learn to tap into the energies that cause
both phenomena. On what scientists and futurists call the Kardashev Scale , such abilities would turn us into a Type I civilizationa species
with enough science and technology to harness and manage energy on a planetary magnitude. Asteroid and comet protection Danger also can come
from space as it did for the dinosaurs. Well need asteroid deflection systems, and, finally, for ultimate species preservation, well have to be living on
multiple planets. Along with harnessing and controlling earthquakes and volcanic activity, the
ability to protect ones world
from asteroid and cometary impacts and to colonize other worlds within ones star system are hallmarks of a Kardashev
Type 1 civilization. From the standpoint of evolutionary and geologic history, if all we do is try to return to nature, put up
solar panels, and sing Kumbaya in the woods, well be extinct fairly quickly. We must not fear
technology; we have to embrace it, and use it in creative, forward thinking ways . Thats how we can
evolve into a Type 1 civilization and stay around for a really long time.

The plan solves death.

Messerly 2016 [John Senior Affiliate Research Fellow in the department of philosophy at the University
of Johannesburg, South Africa; an Affiliate Member of the Evolution, Complexity, and Cognition Group
(localized at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel), and an affiliate scholar of the Institute for Ethics & Emerging
Technologies, Transhumanism Part 1 Immortality, http://reasonandmeaning.com/transhumanism-
part-1-living-forever/ -]

If death is our end, then all we can do is die and hope for the best. But perhaps we dont have to die. Many scientists now believe that humans
can overcome death and achieve immortality through the use of future technologies. But how
will we do this? The first way we might achieve physical immortality is by conquering our biological limitations we age, become
diseased, and suffer trauma. Aging research, while woefully underfunded, has yielded positive results. Average life expectancies have tripled since
ancient times, increasing by more than fifty percent in the industrial world in the last hundred years, and most scientists think we will continue to
extend our life-spans. We know that some jellyfish and bacteria are essentially immortal, and the bristlecone pine may be too. There is no
thermodynamic necessity for senescenceaging is a presumed byproduct of evolution although why mortality was selected for remains a mystery. Yet
some scientists believe we can conquer aging altogetherin the next few decades with sufficient investmentmost notably the Cambridge researcher
Aubrey de Grey. If we do unlock the secrets of aging, we will simultaneously defeat other diseases as well, since many of them are symptoms of aging.
Many researchers now consider aging itself to be a disease which progresses as you age. There are a number of strategies that could render disease
mostly inconsequential. Nanotechnology may give us nanobot cell-repair machines and robotic blood cells; biotechnology
may supply
replacement tissues and organs; genetics may offer genetic medicine and engineering; and
full-fledge genetic engineering could make us impervious to disease. Trauma is a more intransigent
problem from the biological perspective, although it too could be defeated through some combination of cloning, regenerative medicine, and genetic
engineering. We can even imagine that your physicality could be recreated from a bit of your DNA, and other technologies
could then fast
forward your regenerated body to the age of your traumatic death, where a backup file containing your
experiences and memories would be implanted in your brain. Even the dead may be resuscitated if they have undergone the
process of cryonicspreserving organisms at very low temperatures in glass-like states. Ideally these clinically dead would be brought back to life when
technology is sufficiently advanced. This may now be science fiction, but if nanotechnology fulfills its promise, there is a good chance that cryonics will
succeed. In addition to biological strategies for eliminating death, there are a number of technological scenarios for immortality which utilize advanced
brain scanning techniques, artificial intelligence, and robotics. The most prominent scenarios have been advanced by the futurist Ray Kurzweil, who
argues that the exponential
growth of computing power, combined with advances in other technologies, will
make it possible to upload the contents of ones consciousness into a virtual reality. This could be accomplished by
cybernetics, whereby hardware would be gradually installed in the brain until the entire brain was running on that hardware, or via scanning the brain
and simulating or transferring its contents to a sufficiently advanced computer. Either way we
would no longer be living in a
physical world. In fact we may already be living in a computer simulation. The Oxford philosopher and futurist Nick Bostrom argues that
advanced civilizations may have created computer simulations containing individuals with artificial intelligence and, if they have, we might
unknowingly be in such a simulation. Bostrom concludes that one of the following must be the case: civilizations never have the technology to run
simulations; they have the technology but decided not to use it; or we almost certainly live in a simulation. If we dont like the idea of being immortal in
a virtual realityor we dont like the idea that we may already be in onewe could upload our brain to a genetically engineered body if we like the feel
of flesh, or to a robotic body if we like the feel of silicon or whatever materials comprised the robotic body. Along these lines MITs Rodney Brooks
envisions the merger of human flesh and machines, whereby humans slowly incorporate technology into their bodies, thus becoming more machine-
like and indestructible. So a cyborg future may await us. An evolutionary perspective underlies all these speculative scenarios. Once we
embrace that perspective, it is easy to imagine that our descendants will resemble us about as much as we do the amino acids from which we sprang.
Our knowledge is growing exponentially and, given eons of time for future innovation, it is easy to
envisage that humans will defeat death and evolve in unimaginable ways . Remember that our evolution is no longer
moved by the painstakingly slow process of Darwinian evolutionwhere bodies exchange information through genesbut by cultural evolutionwhere
brains exchange information through memes. The most prominent feature of cultural evolution is the exponentially increasing pace of technological
evolutionan evolution that may soon culminate in a technological singularity. The technological singularity, an idea first proposed by the
mathematician Vernor Vinge, refers to the hypothetical future emergence of greater than human intelligence. Since
the capabilities of such intelligences are difficult for our minds to comprehend, the singularity is seen as an event horizon beyond which the future
becomes impossible to understand or predict. Nevertheless, we may surmise that this intelligence explosion will lead to increasingly powerful minds
that will solve the problem of death. But why
conquer death? Why is death bad? It is bad because it ends something
which at its best is good; because it puts an end to our projects; because the wisdom and knowledge of a
person is lost at death; because it harms the living; because it causes apathy about the future beyond our
short life-span; because it renders fully meaningful lives impossible; and because we know that if we had the
choice, and if our lives were going well, we would choose to live on. That death is generally badespecially for the
physically and intellectually vigorousis nearly self-evident. Yes, there are indeed fates worse than death, and in some circumstances death may be
welcomed. Nevertheless for most of us most of the time, death is one of the worst fates that can befall us. That is why we
think that suicide and murder and starvation and cancer are bad things. That is why we cry at funerals.

Thats the only internal link to individual value.

Bostrom 2003 [Nick Director of Future of Humanity Institute Professor of Philosophy @ Oxford Martin
School University, Transhumanism FAQ, https://nickbostrom.com/views/transhumanist.pdf -]

This is a personal matter, a matter of the heart. Have you ever been so happy that you felt like melting into tears? Has
there been a moment in your life of such depth and sublimity that the rest of existence seemed like dull,
gray slumber from which you had only just woken up? It is so easy to forget how good things can be when
they are at their best. But on those occasions when we do remember whether it comes from the total fulfillment of
being immersed in creative work or from the tender ecstasy of reciprocated love then we realize just
how valuable every single minute of existence can be, when it is this good. And you might have thought to yourself,
It ought to be like this always. Why cant this last forever? Well, maybe just maybe it could. When
transhumanists seek to extend human life, they are not trying to add a couple of extra years at a care
home spent drooling at ones shoes. The goal is more healthy, happy, productive years. Ideally, everybody should
have the right to choose when and how to die or not to die. Transhumanists want to live longer because they want to do,
learn, and experience more; have more fun and spend more time with loved ones; continue to grow and
mature beyond the paltry eight decades allotted to us by our evolutionary past; and in order to get to see
for themselves what wonders the future might hold. As the sales pitch for one cryonics organization goes: The conduct of life and
the wisdom of the heart are based upon time; in the last quartets of Beethoven, the last words and works of old men like Sophocles and Russell and
Shaw, we see glimpses of a maturity and substance, an experience and understanding, a grace and a humanity, that isnt present in children or in
teenagers. They
attained it because they lived long; because they had time to experience and develop and
reflect; time that we might all have. Imagine such individuals a Benjamin Franklin, a Lincoln, a Newton,
a Shakespeare, a Goethe, an Einstein [and a Gandhi] enriching our world not for a few decades but for
centuries. Imagine a world made of such individuals. It would truly be what Arthur C. Clarke called Childhoods End the
beginning of the adulthood of humanity. (Cryonics Institute)

Public funding is the only barrier.

Econotimes 2016 [Scientist Say Lack Of Funding Is Biggest Obstacle To Immortality,
https://www.econotimes.com/Scientist-Say-Lack-Of-Funding-Is-Biggest-Obstacle-To-Immortality-
766840 -]

Researchers belonging to the Foundation are conducting studies at the Mountain View, Californias SRF Research Center (SRF-RC). There,
the scientists try to cure the body of aging at the molecular level as well as develop advanced
rejuvenation technology. Although much of their work is still proof of concept, their projects do hold promise. Unfortunately, there are
still many obstacles that the researchers need to overcome, the biggest of which is the lack of funding. As
de Grey said, there are always money shortages that slow the rate of progress. The most difficult aspect [of fighting age-related
diseases] is raising the money to actually fund the research, de Grey told Futurism. Its the age-old quandary that has plagued
the scientific community since the dawn of time. No money equals no advancements. Thats why the most successful societies in
history are those with a thriving scientific and technological industries. With regards to the fight against
aging, the problem is particularly acute. The best example of how skewed research funding distribution is, a recent
report by the National Institutes of Health (NIH)indicates that $5.5 billion went to cancer research
compared to the $52 million allocated for researching amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS ). This kind of
discrepancy is exactly what prevents scientists like de Grey from solving the ultimate illness of humans. Its why immortality is still
so far out of reach.

Superintelligence solves every impact Doing it sooner rather than later prevents
dangerous technology.
Bostrom 2014 [Nick Director of Future of Humanity Institute Professor of Philosophy @ Oxford Martin
School University, Superintelligence, http://subvert.pw/a/Superinteligence.pdf -]

Some technologies have an ambivalent effect on existential risks, increasing some existential risks while decreasing others. Superintelligence is
one such technology. We have seen in earlier chapters that the introduction of machine superintelligence would create a substantial existential risk. But
it wouldreduce many other existential risks. Risks from naturesuch as asteroid impacts, supervolcanoes,
and natural pandemicswould be virtually eliminated, since superintelligence could deploy countermeasures against most such
hazards, or at least demote them to the non-existential category (for instance, via space colonization). These existential risks from nature are
comparatively small over the relevant timescales. But superintelligence would also eliminate or reduce many anthropogenic risks. In particular, it
would reduce risks of accidental destruction, including risk of accidents related to new technologies. Being
generally more capable than humans, a superintelligence would be less likely to make mistakes, and more
likely to recognize when precautions are needed, and to implement precautions
competently. A well-constructed superintelligence might sometimes take a risk, but only when doing so is
wise. Furthermore, at least in scenarios where the superintelligence forms a singleton, many non-accidental anthropogenic existential risks
deriving from global coordination problems would be eliminated. These include risks of wars, technology races,
undesirable forms of competition and evolution, and tragedies of the common

Expanding human enablement markets drives innovation along nano, bio,

infotech and cognitive sciences.
Caon et al 2016 [Maurizio University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland & Vincent
Menuz University of Zurich & Johann Roduit University of Zurich, We Are Super-Humans: Towards a
Democratisation of the Socio-Ethical Debate on Augmented Humanity,
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2875223 -]

Humanity always tended to improve itself and with this purpose created new tools and developed new
technologies. Bostrom and Savulescu state all technology can be viewed as an enhancement of our native
human capacities, enabling us to achieve certain effects that would otherwise require more
effort or be altogether beyond our power [6]. One could argue that using a phone agenda instead of memorising the
numbers is a sort of human memory enhancement. Even mental algorithms to calculate basic mathematics could be considered a kind of enhancement
of our mental capabilities. However, they argued that if the concept of HE is stretched to this extent, it
is not possible to use this concept
as a paradigm in the domain of ethics and it would make impossible to categorise technological inventions
in a proper way to analyse the socio-ethical effects on human society. Therefore, we need to provide a definition of HE in
order to understand which technologies can be classified as HE technologies. A generic definition of HE is the improvement,
amelioration or creation of human capabilities, before or after birth, through the use of various types of
technologies linked to many fields of science [16]. This definition comprises both traditional (or called also natural) and
modern enhancements. The natural methods include all kinds of techniques that humans used during their evolution to boost their capabilities
beyond the speciestypical level or statistically-normal range of functioning for an individual [8]. These
techniques include the
capability to modify the surrounding environment, mental and physical training, the
creation of tools, and the establishment of social structures. Nowadays, these techniques
encompass the use of computers and information technologies. The recent progress of emerging and
converging technologies, such as nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science ( NBICs),
promises unforeseen significant changes to the individuals biologic and psychological characteristics that
will profoundly modify the human society. The NBICs are evolving very rapidly, at an accelerating speed
that is comparable to the exponential integration of transistors mentioned in the previous section . The
Carlson Curve describes the biotechnological equivalent of Moores law and predicts the exponential growth in performance and the decreasing of costs
of a variety of technologies, including DNA sequencing and synthesis [7]. The current main objectives of the NBICs consist in increasing human
lifespan (aiming at immortality), improving mental skills, bringing more happiness, providing stronger bodies, increasing fertility, and choosing genetic
characteristics of future offspring [16]. The aforementioned examples are addressed as modern
enhancements and another
characteristic that makes them different from the traditional ones resides in the progressive integration
in the human body [13]. Lin and Allhof report an example to depict the difference between the concepts of traditional and modern
enhancements: the use of portable devices that enable the access to the Internet are an example of traditional enhancement, while an hypothetical
the rapid access to
chip implanted in a human brain allowing to do the same thing is an example of modern enhancement [13]. In both cases,
infinite knowledge (consisting of the gargantuan amount of information available in the global network) represents the
enhancement of the human capability of storing information; however, integrating the device in the
human body can bring an unprecedented advantage, which consists in the easier, immediate, and
always-on access to the new capability as it were a natural part of the human being [ 13]. The integration of a
technological device in the human body allows the establishment of a more intimate relationship with it, which evolves beyond the simple concept of
ownerships entering in the more intimate notion of personal identity. Moreover, it
avoids problems linked to the physical
availability of external tools (e.g., losing or forgetting a device) and resources (e.g., energy supply).
Ensuring mass distribution maximizes the net social good.
Swindells 2014 [Fox Business information specialist at Salford Royal Foundation Trust, Economic
Inequality and Human Enhancement Technology,
http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue26_Paper_Swindells.pdf -]
Some may object to government dispersion as the solution, arguing that our poor track record of helping the disadvantaged shows that it is likely that
the rich will still have access while the poor will not. Similarly, they may argue that there may be so many HETs that it would be impossible for the
government to fund all of them due to its limited resources. Although this objection is worth considering, it seems plausible that the
main reason
that we have failed to help the disadvantaged in the past is due to wishing to avoid spending money in this
fashion, and, although the economic cost of a policy is important, it is likely that the cost of
enforcing prohibition would be greater than that of providing access to HET (Lamkin, 2012, p. 350).
Beyond this, it is likely that the cost of provision will be outweighed by the benefits of increased economic and
social advantages from providing HET to all. HET has the potential to reduce costs for the
government in other areas, such as health care. It is likely to also be beneficial for our economy by
increasing citizens abilities and national productivity. Public funding is also likely to drive down
prices of HET as large corporations compete for government contracts to be the HET provider for the
nation. The potential distributive problems for HET are not novel, as with other innovations policies can worsen or mitigate inequalities. If HET
is treated as a social good, as education is currently, it is likely that at least basic HET will
be publicly distributed and subsidized, rather than solely available based on an individuals
ability to pay (Buchanan, 2011a, p. 148). Not only does reducing inequality have positive health and social
outcomes for all members of society; but also the benefits of technology are generally greater when more
people have access. For example, cognitive enhancements have network effects, where the benefit increases as
more individuals have the enhancement; to be more precise, being literate or having computer access is
much less valuable if only a few people have those enhancements (Buchanan, 2011a, p.149). Public policies that
increase the distribution of HET would be beneficial for all members of society, rather than just those who
would otherwise lack the ability to pay, and consequently subsidizing access and regulating development
to ensure equal access is the best option for everyone involved . Conclusion HET has the potential to provide many benefits to
both individuals and society provided that it is fairly distributed. This requires public funding and regulations in
order to avoid the worst inequalities. The obvious benefits from HET provide ample evidence for
why HET should not be prohibited, and, rather, governments should fund access for all citizens to
ensure that the benefits are distributed as equally as possible . Based on the expected benefits and harms from
HET, public policies must be developed to ensure the best of all possible outcomes. Neither prohibiting HET or accepting access
through a free-market system are effective or productive solutions as both these approaches will
inevitably increase inequality. The best solution for controlling the consequences from HET is a
compromise between no access and access only based on ability to pay, this option is best not just for the
less well-off but also for the wealthy. Therefore, the government should ensure distribution of HET
through public funding, and regulations on development and patents, that ensure lower
costs and equal access.
 1AC Plan v1.1
The United States federal government should establish national health insurance
for human enablement.
 1AC Overregulation v1.2
Contention 2 is Overregulation
Transhumanism is inevitable Bans fail and the only way to preempt public
backlash is starting conversations about the technology before it hits the market.
Rapid technological development because of Moores Law means any delay
ensures global war.
Metzl 2016 [Jamie American writer, partner in the global investment company Cranemere LLC, and a
senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and former Asia Society's Executive Vice President, Homo Sapiens
2.0? We need a species-wide conversation about the future of human genetic enhancement,
https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/01/homo-sapiens-2-0-we-need-a-species-wide-conversation-about-
the-future-of-human-genetic-enhancement/ -]

Overlapping and mutually reinforcing revolutions in genetics, information technology, artificial intelligence, big data analytics,
and other fields are providing the tools that will make it possible to genetically alter our future offspring should
we choose to do so. For some very good reasons, we will. Nearly everybody wants to have cancers cured and terrible diseases eliminated. Most
of us want to live longer, healthier and more robust lives. Genetic technologies will make that possible. But the very tools we will use to achieve these
goals will also open the door to the selection for and ultimately manipulation of non-disease-related genetic traits and with them a new set of
evolutionary possibilities. As the genetic revolution plays out, it will raise fundamental questions about what it means to be human, unleash deep
divisions within and between groups, and could even lead to destabilizing international conflict. And the revolution has already begun. Todays genetic
moment is not the stuff of science fiction. Its not Jules Vernes fanciful 1865 prediction of a moon landing a century before it occurred. Its more
equivalent to President Kennedys 1962 announcement that America would send men to the moon within a decade. All of the science was in place when
Kennedy gave his Houston speech. The realization was inevitable; only the timing was at issue . Neil Armstrong climbed down the Apollo 11 ladder
seven years later. We have all the tools we need to alter the genetic makeup of our species. The
science is here. The realization is inevitable. Timing is the only variable . Not everyone has heard of
Moores Law, the observation that computer processing power roughly doubles every 18 months, but
weve all internalized its implications. Thats why we expect each new version of our iPhones and laptops to be smaller, do more, and
cost less. But its looking increasingly possible there may be a Moores Law equivalent for genomics. In our world of exponential scientific
advancement, the genetic future will arrive far faster than most people think or are prepared for.
This future is arriving, quite literally, in baby steps. In fact, the first state-authorized genetically altered babies will be
born in the UK later this year. The first state-authorized genetically altered babies will be born in the UK later this year. The British Parliament voted in
February last year to allow clinical trials of Mitochondrial Transfer, a process designed to eliminate the passing of mitochondrial disease from mother
to child. The transfer of mitochondrial DNA from the female donor to the mothers egg or nuclear parents early-stage embryo in this procedure is
small, adding less genetic material than in a blood transfusion. But the third-party donors mitochondrial DNA will pass through the generations
forever. The first of these facetiously called three-person babies are set to be delivered as early as this summer. Mitochondrial Transfer is a first and in
If
many ways relatively small step. But the use of heritable genetic alterations to reduce or eliminate genetic diseases will not and cannot end there.
we can eliminate mitochondrial disease with genetic transfer, wont people with other genetic diseases want us
to spare their future children? They will and we will do it, and our collective comfort level with genetic
manipulation will increase. The birth of Louise Brown, the first test tube baby, in 1978 shows how quickly a new
technology can shift from being revolutionary to normal. Then, her birth shocked the world and was called a moral
abomination. Today more than 5 million babies have been born through IVF and the rate is increasing annually. According to Pew, only 12 percent of
Americans feel IVF is morally wrong, and having an IVF baby doesnt surprise anyone. Enhanced reproduction will follow the same trajectory. As it
does, our genetic future will unfold in three overlapping stages, each already in progress. Preimplantation genetic selection First, we will use the
existing technologies of IVF and preimplantation genetic selection (PGS) to a more focused effect. With PGS, two cells are generally removed from
three- to five-day-old embryos that have been fertilized outside the mother, and then sequenced. The average woman having her eggs extracted
produces 15 viable eggs. Younger women tend to produce more and older ones less. If all of these eggs are fertilized during IVF, the parents would
usually have around the same number of preimplanted embryos from which to choose. Currently, PGS is used primarily to screen for single gene
mutation diseases such as Huntingtons and Sickle Cell Anemia and, in rarer circumstances, for gender selection. With scientists around the world
conducting massive amounts of genetic research and our knowledge of the genome expanding by the day, this process will eventually be used to screen
for more complex diseases such as forms of cystic fibrosis and type 1 diabetes that are influenced by more than one gene. Once we understand how to
spot diseases or disease susceptibilities in the genome, parents using IVF and PGS will have the option of choosing to implant embryos likely to avoid
these outcomes. Given the choice of which of their natural embryos to implant, most will choose ones with the greatest perceived potential for optimal
health. As the prevalence of this spreads, preimplantation embryo screening will begin to eliminate many of the terrible genetic diseases that have
plagued our ancestors for millennia. But as IVF and PGS increasingly become the way people around the world conceive their children to avoid disease,
many will want to know what the already-sequenced genomes of their unimplanted embryos say about other traits. When the Human Genome Project
was completed in 2003, the program had cost a billion dollars and taken 13 years. Today, sequencing a genome takes a day and costs around a $1,000.
By the end of the decade it is projected to cost around $50 and require just a few hours. But most reasonably advantaged people will have their
genomes sequenced as the necessary foundation of personalized care in the coming age of precision medicine even before those costs decline a
process being sped up by President Obamas Precision Medicine Initiative. As the massive amount of raw genomic data is compiled and compared to
peoples life experiences and new tools are utilized to switch genes on and off in animal models, scientists will make even greater progress
understanding complex polygenic traits and the broader ecosystem of the genome. The genetics of intelligence, for example, is influenced by thousands
of genes. Michigan State Professor Stephen Hsu argues convincingly that well be able to predict peoples IQs from their genomes with significant
accuracy within a decade. Height is also the result of hundreds or more genes making different parts of the body a little longer, which is why tall
humans arent just tall because they have necks like giraffes. According to Hsu, well probably be able to predict height within a couple of years. In most
cases, these predictions will not be absolute but mathematical propensities. An embryo might have a disproportionate genetic overlap with Olympic
sprinters or winners of the Fields Medal for math or people who dont get Alzheimers, and parents will be able to make relatively informed decisions on
which embryo to implant based on big data genomic analysis. Because all of the embryos will contain the unadulterated genetic material of the two
parents, we wont need to have a complete understanding of the genome to make this approach appealing. A relatively well-informed guess will do.
Armed with this information about which of their 15 or so embryos has the potential to have the lowest risk for genetic disease, the highest IQ, and the
greatest potential for living a long and healthy life, many parents will choose to have that embryo implanted first if they are in or can get to a
jurisdiction where this is allowed. An increase in eggs The second overlapping phase of the human genetic revolution takes a further step by promising
to bump up the number of eggs available in IVF. The average male ejaculation contains hundreds of millions of sperm, but human females can produce
eggs in the low teens at most in the extraction process. Researchers have already developed technologies to induce unlimited numbers of mouse stem
cells into egg cells and then actual eggs. Although this process is not close to being safe for humans, it is a good bet that one day it will be. If so, women
undergoing IVF would be able to have not just 15 or so of their eggs fertilized, but hundreds. Instead of screening the smaller number of eggs as in
traditional PGS, these parents would be able to review screens for hundreds of their own unadulterated embryos, supercharging the embryo selection
process. Choosing from among hundreds of early-stage preimplanted embryos significantly increases the probability that genetic outliers geniuses in
one form or another, people with extraordinary skills could be selected. It may even someday be possible to breed genetically selected male and
female embryos together to speed up the generational genetic enhancement process. Although embryo selection, empowered by big data analytics, is
the near-term future of assisted reproduction, other technologies are likely to push the process forward even more. Altered genetics In the third phase
of the genetic revolution, many parents will consider the possibility of not just genetic selection but of genetic alterations for their children. The
application of precision gene editing to alter the genetics of early-stage embryos is the farthest away from widespread human adoption but getting the
most attention in the scientific community and popular media today. Gene editing tools have been around for years, but the recent development of the
CRISPR-Cas9 (and lesser known cpf1) tool allows scientists to edit the genomes of all species with far greater precision, speed, flexibility and
affordability than ever before a breathtaking advance with enormous potential for good. CRISPR uses the cells own immune system to target, cut,
and sometimes replace fragments of DNA. Its use is exploding in plant and animal research and applications. Just last year, scientists used CRISPR to
fix defective genes in mice that had caused Duchenne muscular dystrophy and a rare, inherited form of liver disease. Preliminary lab work is underway
exploring alterations of human cells to correct inherited blindness. Many other genetic diseases are in the queue. Preliminary
experiments have recently begun in China and the UK with non-viable human embryos to explore potential ways to prevent
certain blood disorders, miscarriages and HIV. It will be some time before CRISPR will safely be used to alter the heritable traits of humans, but that
day will come because, like embryo selection, precision gene editing will help us fight disease and live healthier and longer. The scientific concepts
behind CRISPR are complicated, but the actual application is not. Gene editing and other genetic technologies are no longer confined to governments,
clinics, and large corporations. The DIYbio, or biohacking, movement is exploding around the world. High school kids can now engineer genes in their
basements, hobbyists in their garages. With CRISPR, it will ultimately be scientifically possible to give embryos new traits and capabilities by inserting
DNA from other humans, animals, or even synthetic sources. If splicing a single gene from a macaque monkey into a human embryo ensured the future
child would not get Alzheimers or from a Naked Mole Rat to eliminate the possibility of cancer, would those crossings of the human-animal barrier be
worth it? Would the answer be different if we were not selecting against disease but for traits like better vision, smell, or hearing? Of course, life
experience will still matter in a genetics age. Being loved and cared for, eating healthy food, and having access to good schools and health care will
always be essential for helping children of all types realize their potential. Theres no way to determine the balance between nature and nurture in
human development. Both are important. But twin studies suggest genetic inheritance determines between 50 percent and 80 percent of who we
become. Within that range, there is really no limit to the traits that can, over time, be better understood and potentially selected for or altered in some
way on a genetic level. Our ever-striving species, which has embraced every technology promising to deliver enormous benefits but also bringing
potential dangers nuclear energy is an example will not be able to resist the genetic revolution. Opposing
it would be more like
opposing agriculture because we have concerns about GMOs. We cannot and should not. We
will want to eliminate genetic diseases in the nearer term, enhance human capabilities in the medium
term and, perhaps, prepare ourselves to live on a hotter Earth, in space, or on other planets in the longer
term. But we should make no mistake. The genie is already out of the bottle. The genetic era has begun. If
ours was an ideologically uniform species, this transformation would be challenging. In a world where differences of opinion and belief are so vast and
levels of development so disparate, it has the potential to be cataclysmic. For starters, not
everyone will be comfortable with genetic
enhancement based on some peoples understandable ideological or religious beliefs or for real or perceived safety concerns. Life is not just about
science and code. It involves mystery and chance and, for some, spirit. The genetic era has begun. For people of faith and many others, we will never
understand what makes a human no matter what we know of genetics or body chemistry. And no matter what we think we know, history is littered with
the corpses of past scientific certainties later proven wrong at best and deadly at worst. As recent advances in understanding the epigenome, virome
concerns are largely intuitive
and microbiome have shown, the human body is always far more complex than we appreciate. These types of
to Americans and others. A January 2016 poll of a thousand American adults conducted by STAT and Harvards Chan School of Public Health
found that although 69 percent of Americans had heard nothing or not much about genetic enhancement, nearly the same number felt that genetically
altering unborn babies to reduce their risk of developing serious diseases should be illegal. Eighty three percent felt that genetic alterations to improve
the intelligence or physical characteristics of unborn babies should be banned. Those
opposing the application of genetic
technologies to their offspring for whatever reasons will always have the ability to opt out. Those choices,
however, on both the individual and societal levels, will have consequences. If the division and violence that has stemmed from the
genetically modified crops and abortion debates is any guide, the coming struggle over genetically selected and modified humans could well become a
defining conflict for future generations. And
just as conflicts over the future of human genetic engineering will likely
emerge within societies, conflicts between states could easily break out as well. In the February 2016
Worldwide Threat Assessment Americas Director of National Intelligence delivered to Congress, genome editing merited its own section for the first
time ever. Although the applications for biological warfare are currently Americas most pressing genetics-related national security concern, the
broader set of genetic challenges are clearly not far behind. Beyond conflicts
between groups and countries, the
potential dangers to the species as a whole are also very real. Our evolution and survival to date have been
based upon random mutation and competition. Might genetic technologies push us toward a dangerous genetic monoculture if we start selecting the
traits of our children based on uniform, narrow, and culturally biased categories like IQ? No matter what the intention of parents, might genetic
selection of children become a form of liberal or not-so-liberal Eugenics that challenges the moral core of
our humanity? Might it encourage us to devalue the critically important and varied contributions everyone makes in a diverse society? Could it
inspire parents to push their specifically-enhanced children toward predetermined destinies that could make them miserable? There are no easy
answers to any of these questions. Recognizing this challenge, the
United Nations General Assembly and other international bodies have
tried to create global frameworks for genetic technologies. Because no global consensus exists, it
should be no surprise they have failed completely. Leading scientists around the world also understand the
implications and challenges of the genetics revolution and have been meeting regularly to discuss how to balance ethical and scientific goals. Whatever
the intentions of diplomats and scientists, the fact remains that the science is surging exponentially, popular understanding of it is advancing linearly at
best, and the regulatory framework surrounding it is only creeping forward glacially. This mismatch between what the science can
do and how poorly people understand and are prepared for it is creating an extremely dangerous public
tinderbox. Absurd numbers of Americans panicked a year ago when four cases of Ebola showed up in the United States. The American
public had not been socialized to the challenge even though Ebola had been plaguing parts of Africa for decades. Because
a rational conversation about the need to build infrastructure in West Africa to stanch the disease was therefore not possible, the American
conversation, when it finally showed up so late in the game, sowed fear and forestalled a
more logical and helpful response. A far more irrational and dangerous panic will likely
emerge when genetically modified humans start appearing among us unless we can have
an informed conversation today about the opportunities and challenges of human genetic
enhancement. A species-wide conversation on our future has never before been carried out. We didnt do it at the dawn of the industrial or
nuclear ages for understandable reasons, even though we might have avoided some terrible outcomes if we had. With a growing percentage of the world
population connected to the information grid in one way or another, we
now have a limited opportunity to avoid making the
same mistake and begin laying a foundation for decisions we will need to collectively make in the future.
Given the political divisiveness of this issue, the window will not stay open long. Such a conversation would involve connecting
individuals and communities around the world with different backgrounds and perspectives and varying degrees of education in an interconnected web
of dialogue. Itwould link people adamantly opposed to human genetic enhancement, those who may see it as
a panacea, and the vast majority of everyone else who has no idea this transformation is already
underway. It would highlight the almost unimaginable potential of these technologies but also raise the danger that opponents could mobilize their
efforts and undermine the most promising work to cure cancers and eliminate disease. But the alternative is far worse. If a
relatively small number of even very well intentioned people unleash a human genetic
revolution that will ultimately touch most everyone and alter our species evolutionary
trajectory without informed, meaningful, and early input from others, the backlash against the
genetic revolution will overwhelm its monumental potential for good.

National health insurance assuages public anxiety and mitigates skepticism over
skewed access.
Hughes 2004 [James American sociologist and bioethicist. He is the Executive Director of the Institute
for Ethics and Emerging Technologies and teaches health policy at Trinity College, Citizen cyborg: Why
democratic societies must respond to the redesigned human of the future, Basic Books -]
Libertarians will also embrace regulation of neurotechnologies because of the threat they pose to our understanding and experience of individual
freedom. Although Fukuyama and Kasss attacks on Prozac and Ritalin are overwrought, the use of future neurotechnology or genetic engineering to
produce obedience in children, soldiers or citizens, even if accomplished through free choices, could be such a threat to the liberty of the next
generation that we would need to stop it by law. Imagine, for instance, that
we achieve the drug legalization that I and most
transhumanists advocate, and then a drug is developed thatunlike current drugsis 100% and permanently
addictive. The drug might rewrite the brain so that all goals and values become secondary to remaining intoxicated .
Suppressing or discouraging such a drug would be an exercise of coercion in the defense of
liberty, keeping people from selling themselves into slavery. Getting serious about risks to the public and
proposing nonmarket solutions for those risks is the only way to fight the bioLuddite
agenda politically. Only believable and effective policies that guarantee technologies are safe and
equitably distributed can reassure skittish publics. Panglossian assurances that all will work itself out in the market or after
the Singularity wont cut it. We will face much more opposition to enhancement and radical life extension if
they are only available to the rich. Without universal health access and economic security, the Democratic
Transhumanism 205 shrinking working-age population, fewer and fewer of whom are able to afford health insurance, will
wage war against the geezers. If we dont promise serious answers to structural unemploymentexpanding the welfare state, a
guaranteed basic income, expanded access to higher education, job retraining, a shorter workweek and worklife then we are likely to see the return of
old-school Luddite machinesmashing by the unemployed. National
health insurance and a basic guaranteed income also provide
more choices, of physician and occupation, than private health insurance or the naked free market.
Public policies can address and ameliorate the publics legitimate concerns, slowing
innovation in the short term but facilitating innovation and choice in the long term. Another
area where libertarians are increasingly sounding like socialists is in the critique of effects of rampant intellectual property claims. People who are
serious about seeing technologies rapidly developed and made widely accessible to the public at reasonable prices have to be concerned that patents are
strong enough to encourage innovation, but not so strong that they suppress competition and make technologies too expensive. Many libertarians are
coming to the conclusion that the current overly expansive intellectual property system is holding technological innovation back.

Other countries are watching Effective international adoption is impossible

without US leadership.
Fukuyama 2002 [Francis Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International
Studies (FSI), and the Mosbacher Director of FSI's Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of
Law. He is professor (by courtesy) of political science, Our Posthuman Future,
http://moellerlit.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/2/4/10248653/fukuyama_--_our_posthuman_future.pdf -]

The argument that regulation cannot work in a globalized world unless it is international in scope is true
enough, but to use this fact to build a case against national-level regulation is to put the cart before the horse .
Regulation seldom starts at an international level: nation-states have to develop rules for their own societies before
they can even begin to think about creating an international regulatory systern.'" This is particularly true in the case of a politically,
economically, and culturally dominant country like the United States: other countries around the world will pay a
great deal of attention to what the United States does in its domestic law. If an international
consensus on the regulation of certain biotechnologies is ever to take shape, it is very difficult to see it
coming about in the absence of American action at a national level. In pointing to other cases where
technology has been regulated with some success, I do not mean to underestimate the difficulty of creating a similar system for human biotechnology.
The international biotech industry is highly competitive, and companies are constantly searching for the
most favorable regulatory climate in which to do their work. Because Germany, with its traumatic history of eugenics, has
been more restrictive of genetic research than many developed countries, most German pharmaceutical and biotech companies have moved their labs
to Britain, the United States, and other less restrictive countries. In 2000, Britain legalized therapeutic or research cloning and will become a haven for
this type of research should the United States join Germany, France, and a number of other countries that do not permit it. Singapore, Israel, and other
countries have indicated an interest in pursuing research in stem cells and other niches if the United States continues to restrict its own efforts out of
ethical concerns.

Only federal investment can provide the capital necessary to fuel an equitable
biotech revolution The alternative is social stratification.
Fuller and Rathi 2016 [Steve The University of Warwick philosopher and sociologist & Akshat PhD in
chemistry from Oxford University and a BTech in chemical engineering from the Institute of Chemical
Technology, To have strong innovation, you need a strong state: How Silicon Valley gets the future
wrong, https://qz.com/787320/steve-fuller-on-how-silicon-valley-gets-the-future-wrong-to-have-strong-
innovation-you-need-a-strong-state/ -]

We tend to underestimate the role of the state. It provides an initial capital investment with a vision of a
future. Even in the cold war, what I was told as a kid to be defense industries turned out to be the seed bed for where Silicon Valley came from.
The cold war was the golden age for science and technology. There was globalization then but it was dominated
by the visions of the future. It wasnt dominated by some nebulous notion of the market, which is the kind of world we live in. Theres no incentive to
have a large vision. Maybe the vision today is about being more inclusive. That would be true, as long as the state has some power. While
its
great to promote science and technology, whats not clear in transhumanism philosophy is the role of
the state and the distribution of resources. So everybody can eventually benefit from it. We tend to underestimate
the role of the state. It provides an initial capital investment with a vision of a future. In order
to have strong innovation, you need a strong state. Thats where these marketeers get it wrong. The more you
weaken the state, the less youre going to have a platform for a big vision that can encompass a lot
of people and drive long-term investment. If you have a bunch of businesses competing against each other, they are all going to
try to find a little bit of advantage over the other. There wont be space to think about this long-term, large-scale shift. What will be the key challenge we
will face in the future? Science and technology is the driver of the long-term trend. This is why I agree with the transhumanism agenda, generally
speaking, namely that it will make the biggest difference to the human condition in the long term. So all my disagreements on ideas such as extending
life indefinitely or uploading the brain will be on timeframe and not on the direction of travel. The problem at the moment is that we are in a politically
unsophisticated environment in dealing with these ideas. By that I mean we
have no regulations. If there is an accelerator to
these ideas, its not going to be because governments are making policies encouraging this to happen so
that people can benefit from it. But rather because there arent any regulations and things can just happen. Consider China. Its basically
an ethics-free zone. Even when things get invented in the West, like with the gene-editing technology CRISPR, they immediately get sandbagged with
ethical issues. This then delays the introduction of the technology. Whereas in China, which has no scruples about this thing, can pick this up
immediately. We dont have a clue about the kind of political regime thats going to manage the future for the maximum benefit of the people. This is
something we will see more of in the way science and technology develops. My view is not that the West ought to be ethics-free like China, but that right
now weshould have our policymakers, lawyers, politicians, and so forth thinking
strategically. They should take it for granted that such situations will come up, rather than treating it as science fiction, and then think what
are the public consequences of such technology. This is the time to start thinking about this stuff. Thats the aspect of forecasting that is completely
lacking at the moment. Its the relevant anticipatory policy management for new technology. I say it as someone who does not want to stop new
technologies. Regulation
is not necessarily about stopping things. Its about channelling them
and making sure that the benefits are distributed properly. Its about holding people who
do harm accountable. Here the EU bears some of the burden, because it has an overly precautionary approach towards science and
technology. You can see the debacle it caused in the case of genetically modified organisms. The EUs handling of it was a nightmare compared to the
US. Here in Europe we need some really smart regulatory thinking that anticipates these things are going to happen. In terms of future of planning, we
already see the contours of it pretty clearly and the transhumanists have got their finger on that. But what we dont have a clue about is the kind of
political regime thats going to be able to manage it for the maximum benefit of the people. How do you think the next 100 years will play out? I think
things like artificial intelligence and biotechnology will be important not just in pushing the economy but how our lives are lead. Thats obvious. The
thing that remains open is whether this is going to lead to class warfare or increasing
inequality. Thats where the relationship between the modes of economic production driven by science
and technology need to relate to the state in a much closer way. Only that can prevent it from
becoming something thats a highly class-stratified and potentially divisive system.

Its reverse causal Federal ambiguity over emerging technology stifles

investment and crushes consumer confidence.
WEF 2017 [World Economic Forum, The Global Risks Report 2017 12th Edition,
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GRR17_Report_web.pdf -]

How to govern emerging technologies is a complex question. Imposing overly strict restrictions on the development of a technology
can delay or prevent potential benefits. But so can continued regulatory uncertainty: investors will
be reluctant to back the development of technologies that they fear may later be banned or
shunned if the absence of effective governance leads to irresponsible use and a loss of public confidence. Ideally, governance regimes
should be stable, predictable and transparent enough to build confidence among investors, companies
and scientists, and should generate a sufficient level of trust and awareness among the general public to
enable users to evaluate the significance of early reports of negative consequences. For example, autonomous
vehicles will inevitably cause some accidents; whether this leads to calls for bans will depend on whether
people trust the mechanisms that have been set up to govern their development. But governance regimes also need to
be agile and adaptive enough to remain relevant in the face of rapid changes in technologies and how they are used. Unexpected new
capabilities can rapidly emerge where technologies intersect, or where one technology provides a platform
to advance technologies in other areas.1 Currently, the governance of emerging technologies is patchy: some are regulated heavily, and
others hardly at all because they do not fit under the remit of any existing regulatory body. Mechanisms often do not exist for those
responsible for governance to interact with people at the cutting edge of research . Even where insights from the
relevant fields can be combined, it can be hard to anticipate what secondor third-order effects might need to be
safeguarded against: history shows that the eventual benefits and risks of a new technology can differ widely
from expert opinion at the outset.2 To the extent that potential trade-offs of a new technology can be anticipated, there is scope for debate
about how to approach them. There may be arguments for allowing a technology to advance even if it is expected to create
some negative consequences at first, if there is also a reasonable expectation that other innovations
will create new ways to mitigate those consequences. Even if there is widespread desire to restrict the progress of a
particular technology such as lethal autonomous weapons systems there may be practical difficulties in getting effective governance mechanisms in
place before the genie is out of the bottle.

The states are too beholden to corporate interests to ensure equitable distribution.
CHOMSKY 1997 (Noam, Interview with David Barsamian, Z Magazine, March)
I dont know if you recall that in a previous interview with you I made some comment about how, in the current circumstances, devolution from the federal government to the
The federal government has all sorts of rotten things about it and is fundamentally illegitimate, but
state level is disastrous.

weakening federal power and moving things to the state level is just a disaster. At the state level even middle-sized
businesses can control what happens. At the federal level only the big guys can push it around. That
means, that if you take, say, aid for hungry children, to the extent that it exists, if its distributed through the federal system, you can resist business

pressure to some extent. It can actually get to poor children. If you move it to the state level in block grants, it will end up in the hands of Raytheon
and Fidelityexactly whats happening here in Massachusetts. They have enough coercive power to force the fiscal structure of the

state to accommodate to their needs, with things as simple as the threat of moving across the border.
These are realities. But people here tend to be so doctrinaire. Obviously there are exceptions, but the tendencies here, both in elite circles
and on the left, are such rigidity and doctrinaire inability to focus on complex issues that the left ends up
removing itself from authentic social struggle and is caught up in its doctrinaire sectarianism . Thats very much
less true there. I think thats parallel to the fact that its less true among elite circles. So just as you can talk openly there about the fact that Brazil and Argentina dont really have
a debt, that its a social construct, not an economic factthey may not agree, but at least they understand what youre talking aboutwhereas here I think it would be extremely
hard to get the point across. Again, I dont want to overdraw the lines. There are plenty of exceptions. But the differences are noticeable, and I think the differences have to do
The more power and privilege you have, the less its necessary to think, because you can do what
with power.

you want anyway. When power and privilege decline, willingness to think becomes part of survival . I know
when excerpts from that interview we did were published in The Progressive, you got raked over the coals for this position. Exactly. When I talked to the anarchist group in
Buenos Aires, we discussed this. Everybody basically had the same recognition. Theres an interesting slogan thats used. We didnt mention this, but quite apart from the
Workers Party and the urban unions, theres also a very lively rural workers organization. Millions of workers have become organized into rural unions which are very rarely
we should "expand the floor of the cage." We know were in a
discussed. One of the slogans that they use which is relevant here, is that

cage. We know were trapped. Were going to expand the floor, meaning we will extend to the limits what
the cage will allow. And we intend to destroy the cage. But not by attacking the cage when were
vulnerable, so theyll murder us. Thats completely correct. You have to protect the cage when its
under attack from even worse predators from outside, like private power. And you have to expand
the floor of the cage, recognizing that its a cage. These are all preliminaries to dismantling it. Unless
people are willing to tolerate that level of complexity, theyre going to be of no use to people who are
suffering and who need help, or, for that matter, to themselves

Congressional regulations leave the US behind The plan prevents dangerous

abuses.
Pearlman 2016 [Alex Digital journalist, Scientists Argue the US Ban on Human Gene Editing Will Leave
It Behind, https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nz7dp8/scientists-argue-the-us-ban-on-human-
gene-editing-will-leave-it-behind -]

As the biotech revolution accelerates globally, the US could be getting left behind on key technological
advances: namely, human genetic modification. A Congressional ban on human germline modification has "drawn new
lines in the sand" on gene editing legislation, argues a paper published today in Scienceby Harvard law and bioethics professor I. Glenn Cohen
and leading biologist Eli Adashi of Brown University. They say that without a course correction, " the United States is ceding its
leadership in this arena to other nations." Germline gene modification is the act of making heritable changes to early stage human embryos or
sex cells that can be passed down to the next generation, and it will be banned in the US. This is different from somatic gene editing, which is editing
cells of humans that have already been born. The ban, added by the House of Representatives as a rider to the fiscal year 2016 budget, could have far-
reaching implications if it continues to be annually renewed, according to the authors. It "undermines ongoing conversations on the possibility of
human germline modification" and also affects "ongoing efforts by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] to review the prevention of
mitochondrial DNA diseases," including some kinds of hearing and vision impairments, among other serious illnesses that tend to develop
in young children. "This latest congressional intervention appears premature in that the germline modification debate is barely getting underway,"
write the authors. "The prospect of a telling a parent that they won't have access to these therapies is morally untenable" And the debate may be paused
indefinitely, should the rider continue to be renewed in the budget in coming years. "We are on the cusp of being able to do [gene editing] safely, and
the prospect of a telling a parent that they won't have access to these therapies is morally untenable," said bioethicist James Hughes, executive director
of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. "A ban doesn't make sense the way a moratorium does." Mitochondrial replacement therapy
(MRT), a controversial procedure known colloquially as "three-parent embryos," is one kind of heritable genetic modification procedure that is
included in the ban. In the UK, which some in the field see as being more liberal than the US in gene editing legislation, MRT was approved by both
houses of Parliament last year, following a robust period of investigation, public debate, and multiple rounds of parliamentary review. Clinical trials of
human embryos that have "three parents" are due to begin, pending a final round of approvals by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
(HFEA), the UK's regulatory agency for reproductive medicine. Despite an independent bioethics committee finding that the FDA should approve
clinical trials for MRT, if only with male embryos (which would not be able to pass on a heritable mitochondrial illness, should something go wrong),
the FDA chose to reject the idea. "The reality is in the United States, nobody was ready to start a human [clinical] trial for MRT," said Alta Charo, one of
the leading minds in American bioethics and medical law and co-chair of a committee studying gene editing at the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering and Medicine. "The more difficult question to answer is how this affects long-term prospects if this position rolls into the next round of
legislation." A spokesperson for the FDA said that the agency can't speculate on future provisions, and reiterated to Motherboard that human subject
research utilizing genetic modification is off the table for now. Charo said any pushback against the Congressional ban wouldn't necessarily come from
the science community, but that legislators may hear displeasure from patient advocacy groups Congress began looking into gene editing last year with
hearings led by House Science, Space and Technology committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX), who believes that the US should proceed with severe
caution when it comes to genetically altering embryos with heritable changes, even if it means putting off curing diseases. Rep. Smith was also in favor
of the voluntary moratorium on use of the gene editing technology CRISPR-Cas9, undertaken by scientists in March 2015. This
year's
Congressional ban takes the cautious moratorium a step further by enacting a law, as opposed to calling on scientists
to self-censor and stop short of the clinic, and supersedes the global conversation around the issue, led by the National
Academies. "Most of the scientific community members have been clear: The science and ethics of
this new technology must be resolved in order to prevent dangerous abuses and
unintended consequences," said Smith, who also insisted that the US should "provide scientific and
moral leadership" when it comes to gene editing.
Failure to act now has disastrous consequences
First The alternative to NHI is blanket bans. That drives innovation underground
Gene editing proves.
Hagermann 2017 [Ryan director of technology policy at the Niskanen Center, THE COMING AGE OF
GENETIC MODIFICATION, PART I, https://niskanencenter.org/blog/coming-age-genetic-modification-
part/ -]

The [United States] can bar clinical trials, but that doesnt mean they wont happen
elsewherenor will it stop the technology from being taken up in other places including,
eventually, for-profit fertility clinics attracting medical tourists from abroad . This is global
innovation arbitrage in a nutshell: what is prohibited by statute or regulations in one country wont be
prohibited in another. Capital investment, research and development, and ultimately the benefits of
innovations will ultimately flow along the path of least resistance. Indeed, Mitalipov himself noted that if the United
States wouldnt permit clinical trials of germline edited embryosthat is, actually transplanting the embryos with the intention of
establishing a pregnancyhe would be supportive of moving this technology to different countries.
It wouldnt be the first time Mitalipov had taken advantage of global innovation arbitrage. He was previously a pioneer in mitochondrial replacement
therapy, which aims to prevent diseased mitochondria from being transmitted to future generations. Unfortunately, the procedure was banned in the
United States, so Mitalipov conducted his clinical trials, which yielded extremely valuable insights and useful information, in Mexico. And of course,
for those more unscrupulous researchers, theres no need to turn to China or Mexico if youre just willing to embrace the black market. This is a key
concern for Dr. Church, who arguesthat perpetuating these bans wont just drive the best medical innovation overseas; it
will drive what remains underground: Banning human-germline editing could put a damper on the
best medical research and instead drive the practice underground to black markets and uncontrolled
medical tourism, which are fraught with much greater risk and misapplication. Instead, the generally
high safety and efficacy standards of regulatory agencies should be encouraged rather than saddled with
pessimistic assumptions about the trajectory of promising approaches. Some governments may ban these procedures, but
others will surely permit them, just as some researchers will call for moratoriums, while others charge ahead at breakneck speed. We stand on
the cusp of possessing the technology and know-how to change humanitys genetic makeup forever, but
there will not be an international plebiscite to guide that future. No referendum has ever dictated the terms of human
evolution; we did not vote on whether to crawl out of the primordial seas or descend from the treetops. And for better or worse, we will not collectively
decide the future of our species genetic code at the ballot box.

Underground experimentation cause civilization ending projects.

WALKER 2009 (Mark, assistant professor at New Mexico State University and holds the Richard L.
Hedden Chair of Advanced Philosophical Studies, Ship of Fools: Why Transhumanism is the Best Bet to
Prevent the Extinction of Civilization , The Global Spiral, Feb 5,
http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/10682/Default.aspx)

The second, and for our purposes, primary problem with the steady-as-she-goes strategy is that it says nothing
about how we are to address the dual-use problem: the development of 21st century technologies for
peaceful purposes necessarily bring with them the prospect that the same technology can
be used for civilization ending purposes. While I dont agree with Joy about what to do about these threats, I am in full
agreement that they exist, and that we would be foolhardy to ignore them. Interestingly, this is where Fukuyama is
weakest: he has almost nothing to say about the destructive capabilities of 21st century world-engineering,
and how the institutions he proposes would control their deadly use. A world where we continue to
develop 21st century technologies means that the knowledge and limited equipment necessary for
individuals to do their own world-engineering, and so potentially their own civilization ending
projects (accidently or purposively), will only increase. So, at worst Fukuyamas proposal is foolhardy, at best it is
radically incomplete.

Second Overregulation causes bioterror and bio-error.

Boyle 2013 [Alan Science Editor, Genomics pioneer Craig Venter warns about biohacker boo-boos,
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/genomics-pioneer-craig-venter-warns-about-biohacker-boo-boos-
8C11454274 -]
As Venter points out in his book, "Life at the Speed of Light," he's not the only one worried about biohacker boo-boos. Almost three years ago, a
presidential commission on bioethics raised concerns about the risk of "low-probability, high-impact events" such as the
creation of a doomsday virus. Bioterror is one aspect of the issue, but Venter says he's also concerned
about bio-error "the fallout that could occur as the result of DNA manipulation by a non-scientifically
trained biohacker or 'biopunk.'" Some have called for more regulation of synthetic biology and home biotech.
Venter, however, says overregulation can be as harmful as laxness . It's possible to add built-in safeguards
such as biological kill switches, suicide genes or molecular brakes and seatbelts to make sure
genetically engineered microbes don't escape from the lab. And law-enforcement agencies like the FBI are
finding it more advantageous to work with the do-it-yourselfers than to work against them. The last thing
Venter wants to do is kill off the curiosity. "We need to find a way to channel that great level of curiosity into places
where people can get proper training, and at the same time exercise their curiosity in a healthy fashion," he
told NBC News. "Every university lab and serious research lab has that training. That's where I'd start. I don't think we need a new
system for it."

Unregulated synthetic biology causes extinction.

Sandberg et al 2008 [Anders , Research Fellow, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University; Jason
G. Matheny, Ph.D. candidate, Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns
Hopkins University, special consultant, Center for Biosecurity, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center;
and Milan M. irkovi, Senior Research Associate, Astronomical Observatory of Belgrade, Assistant
Professor of Physics, University of Novi Sad, Serbia and Montenegro; How can we reduce the risk of
human extinction? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-
edition/features/how-can-we-reduce-the-risk-of-human-extinction]
The risks from anthropogenic hazards appear at present larger than those from natural ones. Although great progress has been made in reducing the
number of nuclear weapons in the world, humanity is still threatened by the possibility of a global thermonuclear war and a resulting nuclear winter.
in synthetic biology might make it possible to
We may face even greater risks from emerging technologies. Advances
engineer pathogens capable of extinction-level pandemics. The knowledge, equipment, and
materials needed to engineer pathogens are more accessible than those needed to build nuclear weapons. And
unlike other weapons, pathogens are self-replicating, allowing a small arsenal to become exponentially
destructive. Pathogens have been implicated in the extinctions of many wild species. Although
most pandemics "fade out" by reducing the density of susceptible populations, pathogens with wide host
ranges in multiple species can reach even isolated individuals. The intentional or unintentional
release of engineered pathogens with high transmissibility, latency, and lethality might be
capable of causing human extinction. While such an event seems unlikely today, the likelihood may increase as
biotechnologies continue to improve at a rate rivaling Moore's Law.
Third Dangerous AI causes extinction Ban fails and the AFF sets important
norms.
Winter-Levy and Trefethen 2016 [Sam Editor at Foreign Affairs, and was the 201415 Von Clemm
Fellow at Harvard University, carrying out research in international relations & Jacob Henry Fellow at
Harvard University, carrying out research in the economics department , Safety First: Entering the Age of
Artificial Intelligence, http://wpj.dukejournals.org/content/33/1/105.full -]

Despite the difficulty of the control problem and the stakes of its successful resolution, misaligned incentives have led to little
private sector investment or government involvement in AI safety research. First, because avoiding
catastrophe is a global public good, the market has underinvested in it. Although the benefits of building the first
superintelligent machine will accrue to the investors of whichever company gets there first , the costs of any resulting catastrophe would be
borne by everyone. As Sam Altman, head of Y Combinator, the most successful start-up accelerator in Silicon Valley, quipped, AI will
probably most likely lead to the end of the world, but in the meantime, therell be great
companies. Second, the pressure of short-term election cycles ensures that politicians have little incentive to
invest in preventative policy for events whose main victims cannot currently votetodays children and future generations. Third, the
apparent irrelevance of the problem today, against a daily backdrop of far more visible and immediate challenges, makes it easy
for policymakers to dismiss the issue and even easier to ignore it. Despite these barriers, interest and investment in AI safety
has picked up in the past year. A year ago, the two largest institutes working explicitly on reducing existential risks associated with AI ran on budgets of
just over $1 million per year. (That same year, $2 billion was spent on research and surgical procedures related to hair loss.) In the past year, however,
two recently launched research institutes at Cambridge University and MIT have helped raise the investments and personnel committed to these
efforts: the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, funded by Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn and others, and the Future of Life Institute, which is
administering an $11 million AI safety grant program funded by Musk and the Open Philanthropy Project. Musk is also one of a group that includes
Altman, Thiel, and LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman that has recently committed $1 billion to OpenAI, a nonprofit organization that plans to make
breakthroughs in AI widely available. Researchers working to develop AI have also become more aware of safety issues. In January 2015, the worlds
leading researchers from academia and industry gathered at a conference in Puerto Rico to identify the most important research areas to ensure that
development of AI remains beneficial. Hundreds of scientists, programmers, and academics, including representatives from DeepMind and the
Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, subsequently endorsed a set of research priorities in an open letter drafted by the Future of
Life Institute. Yet the scale of investment in AI safety still pales in comparison to the sums being spent on the race to reach human-level AI.
Philanthropy alone, however farsighted, cannot bridge this gap, but there are signs that European governments are beginning to engage with the issue.
The British and German governments have started to consult with research institutes on emerging technological risks. On Oct. 7, 2015, Georgia
organized a side event at the U.N. on the challenges of artificial intelligence, drawing on expert testimony from Professor Bostrom and others. As
governments begin to pay increasing attention, more bottom-up leadership from nations around the
world will be crucial to draw attention to what is fundamentally a collaborative issue. Politicians should
start to understand what is at stake, yet they should not rush headlong into overreaction.
Governments should listen carefully, legislate slowly, and study the history of regulation around new
technologies to learn best practices. UNCHARTERED TERRITORY At first, regulating the development of AI will be as futile a task as
regulating the Internet in 1975. The first priority of any country should therefore be understanding the problem, not legislating the solution.
Governments should establish working groups in collaboration with universities and industries to produce a framework for analyzing the possible risks
of AI developmentboth on national and international levels. These working groups should seek to develop and promote best practices among AI
researchers: collaboration and sharing of progress on the control problem and a commitment to increased safety measures once general intelligence
becomes imminent. The sooner a norm that prioritizes safety over speed evolves the better. This need
not conflict with the profit motive: Similar norms have developed over the years through careful collaboration in the fields of nuclear energy and
genetic engineering. At the Asilomar Conference in 1975, researchers voluntarily drew up guidelines on experiments involving recombinant DNA. They
required containment to be a central consideration in the design of experiments involving genetic engineering that could pose an ecological hazard, and
banned the cloning of recombinant DNA from organisms with a high risk of causing disease. Government involvement should also
involve the funding of basic research into machine intelligence safety, as private funding alone will not
be enough. The research priorities identified in Puerto Rico would be a good place for national science boards to begin. On the international
level, governments should consider the history of global efforts to control potentially dangerous technologies and be attuned to the unintended
consequences of past responses. In 1972, countries came together to discuss a moratorium on the development, production, and stockpiling of
biological and toxin weapons. In 1975, the Biological Weapons Convention entered into force, after more than 22 states, including the United States and
the Soviet Union, ratified it; as of 2015, 173 countries are party to the agreement. Upon the deals first signing, however, the Kremlin either doubted
U.S. compliance or realized it had a new comparative advantage in the field, and seized the opportunity to scale up its secret biological weapons
program. Throughout the 1970s, the division of the Soviet government known as the Biopreparat, which produced biological agents and weaponized
pathogens such as smallpox, bubonic plague, and anthrax, employed as many as 65,000 people at numerous sites across the country. This case should
remind us that outright bans on technology by some nations can serve to encourage others to accelerate
their programs. Of course, biological weapons and artificial intelligence are different in many key respects. Most obviously, AI is not a
weapon and hopefully will never become one. Yet the many beneficial applications of AI may make controlling its safe
development more challenging. It is not in the interests of anyone other than a state or rogue actor to build biological weapons, but it is in
the economic interest of a great many people to construct powerful AI systems. Not all of these people will consider
carefully whether they can control what they create.

Centralizing technology through mediated government intervention solves.

Bostrom 2016 [Nick Swedish philosopher at the University of Oxford, Policy Desiderata in the
Development of Machine Superintelligence, https://nickbostrom.com/papers/aipolicy.pdf -]

There are several ways in which a failure could occur. For example, coordination problems could lead to risk-
increasing AI technology racing dynamics, in which developers vying to be the first to
attain superintelligence cut back on safety in order not to forfeit the initiative to some less
cautious competitor (Armstrong, Bostrom and Shulman, 2015). This could lead to reduced investment in safety
research, reduced willingness to accept delays to install and test control methods, and reduced
opportunity to use control methods that incur any significant computational cost or other performance
penalty. Another way in which AI-related coordination problems could produce catastrophic outcomes is if advanced AI makes it possible to
construct some technology that makes it easy to destroy the world, say a doomsday device (maybe using some futuristic form of biotechnology or
nanotechnology) that is cheap to build and whose activation would cause unacceptable devastation, or a weapon system that gives offense a strong
enough dominance over defense to create an overwhelming first-strike advantage. There
could also be various regulatory races
to the bottom in the use of AI that would make failures of global coordination unacceptably costly
(Bostrom, 2004). If the world has some such vulnerabilitythat is, if there is some level of technological development at which a certain kind of global
coordination failure would be catastrophicthen it is important that the world be stabilized when that technology level is reached.
Stabilization may involve centralizing control of the dangerous technology or instituting a
monitoring regime that would enable the timely detection and interception of any move to
deploy the technology for a destructive purpose.

Fourth Population growth makes starvation inevitable.

Borel 2010 (James C, Executive Vice President With Responsibility For Dupont Crop Protection And
Pioneer, Dupont, AGRICULTURAL INNOVATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY: OPTIMISTIC SCIENCE
MEETS GLOBAL DEMAND,
http://corian.hu/Media_Center/en_US/speeches/Agricultural_Innovation_the_Optimistic_Science_JB
orel.pdf)
I. AGRICULTURE: THE OPTIMISTIC SCIENCE Economics is often called the dismal science. Perhaps the most famous example came when the
Reverend Thomas Malthus said that the human race would face horrifying starvation as the growth of population
inevitably exceeded the growth of our food supply. He was wrong. Instead we have produced more food, for more people, and we have
done it with less. Agricultural productivity has increased by almost any measure you care to use. And it was
enabled by science. Science, for example, that led to the creation of hybrid corn by Henry Wallace, the founder of DuPonts
Pioneer Hi-Bred business. Or the science that Norman Borlaug deployed to power the Green Revolution that saved an estimated one
billion lives. Or the science of modern farm equipment that has enabled farmers to cultivate more acres in less
time and with less labor. And all of this science originated from creative people and was then put to use by innovative farmers who recognized that
progress requires the adoption of new approaches. There is, as I will explain in greater detail, more to be done, especially in the developed world. But
we have the tools to be successful in meeting the great global challenge of our time to
essentially double agricultural production to meet the demands of the nine billion people who
will crowd our planet in the year 2050. This is why I think of what we do in agriculture as the optimistic science. The science
in which my company invests over half of our $1.4 billion annual R&D budget toward increasing global food production. This includes
developing better seeds that produce higher yields, discovering better products for controlling crop pests, providing food ingredients that
benefit consumers and applying cutting-edge technology to the food safety challenge. To date, agricultural production has worked hard to keep pace
with population and economic progress in the developing world. But, in the year 2011, our global population will exceed seven billion people. And it
wont stop then. By 2050,
the globe will be home to more than nine billion people .1 The need is great. Increased,
sustainable productivity will become necessary as available arable land and resources shift, remain
unchanged, or in some areas, decrease. The production of food must accompany environmental and economic progress, as sustainable
development integrates social, economic and environmental needs to develop better solutions to todays problems (including climate change), while
also providing good stewardship of the resources needed for the future. Two centuries ago, Malthus was wrong, but he wasnt asking the wrong
question today is how we will feed nine billion people. The answer is clear: only by nearly
question. The
doubling food production in a sustainable way and ensuring that the food is available to the people who
need it. And, of course, we also need agriculture to produce more and more of our energy supply.

The AFF solves.

McIntosh 2008 [Daniel Distinguished Associate Professor of Astronomy & Astrophysics, Human,
transhuman, posthuman: implications of evolution-by-design for human security, Journal of Human
Security. 4.3 (Dec. 2008): p4 -]

Food security may well be improved by breakthroughs in NBIC technologies. Not only will the application of genetic
engineering and nanotechnology raise crop yields, rations developed for the battlefield will have
applications after natural disasters and for communities suffering from malnutrition .
Modifications of the human body, based in 'supersoldier' technology may, if extended to others, permit individuals to
do more with less.

Food insecurity causes extinction.

CRIBB 2010 (Julian Science communicator, journalist and editor of several newspapers and books. His
published work includes over 7,000 newspaper articles, 1,000 broadcasts, and three books and has
received 32 awards for science, medical, agricultural and business journalism. He was Director, National
Awareness, for Australia's science agency, CSIRO, foundation president of the Australian Science
Communicators, and originated the CGIAR's Future Harvest strategy. He has worked as a newspaper
editor, science editor for "The Australian "and head of public affairs for CSIRO, The coming famine: the
global food crisis and what we can do to avoid it)
This is the most likely means by which the
coming famine will affect all citizens of Earth, both through the
the effect on global food prices and the
direct consequences of refugee floods for receiving countries and through
cost to public revenues of redressing the problem. Coupled with this is the risk of wars breaking
out over local disputes about food, land, and water and the dangers that the major military powers may
be sucked into these vortices, that smaller nations newly nuclear-armed may become
embroiled, and that shock waves propagated by these conflicts will jar the global economy
and disrupt trade, sending food prices into a fresh spiral. Indeed, an increasingly credible
scenario for World War III is not so much a confrontation of superpowers and their allies as a festering, self-
perpetuating chain of resource conflicts driven by the widening gap between food and energy
supplies and peoples' need to secure them.