>but when will you (and society) be comfortable with a therapy that goes into your brain cells and edits their DNA?

Seconds after some early adopters have shown that it works and has no side-effects?

No on will disagree with that answer.

Lots of people will argue vehemently about what it takes to be certain that there are no side effects.

>No on will disagree with that answer.

I disagree; there'll probably be a bunch of people who will vehemently disagree with "artificially" altering humans like this, even just to correct a genetic defect. They'll say it's "unnatural", or that it "isn't God's will", or somesuch.

I don't know that they'll be a big portion of the population, but they'll be out there.

Note that I didn't say: "Seconds after some early adopters tried it", but "Seconds after some early adopters have shown that it works and has no side-effects".

Which could be a few decades after some early adopters tried it -- e.g. until they died in their 80s or 90s with perfect brain function...

So, seconds after that...

Right, that was my understanding.

I suppose my point was that kornork seemed to me to be talking about safety and in that context, saying you'd do it after it is shown to be safe isn't saying a lot.

Aha, I took the parent's comments to be about the ethical and/or existential questions.

After all we do various kinds of brain altering operations and take brain altering drugs. DNA is not our personality, just how our body is built.

:) I'll bite. "Seconds" is not nearly long enough for me to be confident there are no adverse effects. Deleterious effects from monkeying with genes can take years or decades to show up (via increased risk to certain cancers, etc.)

When the alternative is your mind falling apart, I'd expect quite a few people will risk the side effects. I certainly would.

I'm ready