Earlier this week, in the Zoom meeting of my atheist discussion group, we talked, again, about the possibilities of CRISPR.  As you may recall, CRISPR is a remarkable technique, still very nascent yet very much in experimentation, which enables people to literally change genes in a human being.  CRISPR means that researchers can, in effect, prevent a person from developing a genetic disease such as sickle cell anemia by merely altering this person's genes.

     That's the good news.  On the other side of the coin, researchers can also use CRISPR to "make" a human being according to a parent's specifications.  By altering genes, researchers can ensure that a baby will be born, say, highly intelligent or extraordinarily good looking.  Or emotionally stable.  Or something else.

      The question we therefore face is this:  where do we draw the line?  And the group had no ready answers.  In the end, it seemed that the group landed on a sort of pragmatism, that is, if it works to human betterment, it is right.  But how do we define human "betterment"?  Or how do we define "what works"?  Or what is "right"?

      The weakness of a morality constructed around itself became immediately apparent:  if all we have is this world to decide, then we will use this world to decide.  And we will be right back to square one.