The genetic engineering question can be answered as just a problem in bioethics. No one in this world would, unless they were an idiotic heartless bastard, say that genetic engineering is the absolute choice, due to the rebuttals of Nazism, Ethics, and other Name-calling that would ensue from the people who would love for
everyone to survive and prosper. The biggest problem with genetic engineering is that it would allow the rift between the rich and the poor to be spread even wider than it is now, and no one wants to say that they are for that. But with genetic engineering, it is possible to create superior humans and improve existing humans (through viruses that would inject dna code to existing cells, even though this would be a very lengthy and expensive process because of the amount of therapy needed and cannot work for all cells), and this is a extremely useful tool that can very well be the next big jump that humanity needs to finally excel.
York wrote...
I sortof agree with Genetic engineering but we don't need to make people live more or longer we need people to die. The world is overpopulated as it is. We're also not returning proper nutrients back into the soil via dead human carcasses. Humans take far more than they give back. We'll destroy this planet before most people will accept we are wrong. We already have long life cycles as it is and people want everyone to live epically long lives. We as humans have time enough on this earth so USE IT!
You don't need to worry about that, human dna is equipped only with a set number of telomeres and TATA segments (segments on the ends of DNA that do nothing but take up space) to protect dna, and every time your dna is replicated due to spliting of cells due to growth, the telomere and TATA segments are decreased, so eventually no matter what you do, unless you replace every single cell's dna, the telomeres and TATA segments will run out and your dna will become altered, which will cause you to die from cancer or just an inability to replicate your cells.