While I was responding to you, internally I was thinking about things like food (flora and fauna), or structural products (wood, hemp, etc.). But thinking about it more broadly, I could make a pretty strong case for things like nicer pets, or faster horses, or stronger oxen, etc. When it comes to humans, it gets a little sticky. I could give a pretty strong case on both sides of that argument.

This is especially the case for things like disease, especially for congenital disease. A former long term girlfriend of mine was (probably is) a special needs teacher. Quite a few of her students had muscular dystrophy. Most of them had autism. A few had trisomy 21 (Downs). I used to think autism almost certainly had a partial genetic component. Now I'm less certain, but it still might be true. In all cases (notwithstanding a potential autism caveat), fixing those issues using genetic modification would be an absolute life changer in a positive way for each and every single one of them, and for their families. It's tough to argue with that. And suggesting that we shouldn't do that, given that we will be able to so eventually (and frankly, almost certainly already do), is tantamount to the greatest evil.

Having said that, those last couple statements are the tag line. That's how it's sold. The people selling us that are the Eugenicists AKA the Rockefellers et al AKA the Cabal.

In addition, assuming there is a genetic component to autism (and it won't just be fixed with removing mercury from vaccines or some other vaccine fuckery), do we really want to fix the autists? I don't know if you've listened to the Telepathy Tapes, but it is quite compelling. It suggests that some (maybe most or all?) autistic people, who don't have the capacity to communicate normally, have developed the ability to communicate telepathically, not just with each other, but with other people as well, even teaching some non-autistic people to do it!

Whether that is true or not, what other "genetic anomalies" might be "fixed" by genetic modification?

I could go on with this debate for days, on both sides, so I will leave it there. But I think it is worth thinking about, no matter who a person is. It is a reasonable consideration, and assuming the GA is what it purports, I suggest it will almost certainly happen, and in a good way. What is the limit to that? Who knows? Maybe there shouldn't be one. As long as it isn't pushed by propaganda, I suggest it should be supported as a personal decision, no matter what a person decides for themselves. From my perspective (or perhaps my personal philosophy): It's your life. As long as you don't harm me and mine, live your life as you choose. I won't fault you for it in the slightest.