Page Title: FuturePundit: Hobbyists Could Genetically Engineer Dogs

  • This webpage makes use of the TITLE meta tag - this is good for search engine optimization.

Page Description:

  • This webpage DOES NOT make use of the DESCRIPTION meta tag - this is NOT GOOD for search engine optimization.

Page Keywords:

  • This webpage DOES NOT make use of the KEYWORDS meta tag - whilst search engines nowadays do not put too much emphasis on this meta tag including them in your website does no harm.

Page Text: FuturePundit Future technological trends and their likely effects on human society, politics and evolution. February 19, 2017 Hobbyists Could Genetically Engineer Dogs Check out: The FDA Is Cracking Down On Rogue Genetic Engineers . Apparently the US Food and Drug Administration wants to classify genetically altered dogs as drugs. When this is done to humans will they become drugs too? I think Huey Lewis has foreseen this possibility . A substantial part of the population is going to continue to insist on owning highly inbred genetically messed up dog breeds with serious health issues (e.g. bulldogs and pugs). If you do not want to me like them then avoid the unhealthiest dog breeds . But given that these breeds will continue to exist it certainly makes sense to genetically fix the fixable ones (some are, by breed standard, probably not fixable). So genetic engineers who want to fix dogs shouldn't have to deal with the US Food and Drug Administration classifying fixed dogs as drugs. How about a list of genetic variations that the FDA and similar agencies in Europe agree ought to be eliminated and then approval of any dogs that get fixed to no longer have them. We will find ourselves in a situation in not too many years where there's going to be a regulatory need for preapproved allowable genetic variants for a variety of species, probably including humans. What will be especially interesting about that day: Some already existing genetic variants (or perhaps weighted combination of variants that together cause a trait) will have to be banned. For example, suppose some genetic variants make very homicidal people and that these variants occur naturally. We do not (or at least most of do not want) to see people making babies that are criminally worse than their parents. But smarter regulation (both in terms of making safe stuff easier to do and banning dangerous stuff) would help I do not think it will avoid some pretty dangerous outcomes. My long term worry is that genetic engineering will become so easy to do that a variety of people around the world will twiddle a large assortment of species for a large assortment of goals, some of which will have calamitous effects. Some people could have religious or ideological motivations to cause mayhem among their enemies. Others will just be random people wanting to make themselves famous by, for example, creating a fish that wipe out all other types of fish in a major river or by making a plant that spells out a political message in its leaves. Lots of imaginations will think about it and once it becomes easy to do some will act on it. We already have invasive species spreading around the world with (mostly accidental) human help. Imagine invasive species with really big downsides. Look at the funguses accidentally transported to places where they have devastated banana cultivars and other species. Or consider the bacteria carried by an Asian bug that is wiping out Florida citrus . Picture what happens if it becomes easily to develop carrier insects or bacteria or funguses that can wipe out the most valuable crops in Western countries. Some terrorist groups would probably try it if they could. We might some day live in a world of constant genetic engineering battles to cause and stop disease attacks on humans and species we rely upon.

  • This webpage has 555 words which is between the recommended minimum of 250 words and the recommended maximum of 2500 words - GOOD WORK.

Header tags:

  • It appears that you are NOT using header tags - this is a NOT a good thing!

Spelling errors:

  • This webpage has 1 words which may be misspelt.

Possibly mis-spelt word: FuturePundit

Suggestion: Future Pundit
Suggestion: Future-pundit
Suggestion: Expenditure

Broken links:

  • This webpage has no broken links that we can detect - GOOD WORK.

Broken image links:

  • This webpage has no broken image links that we can detect - GOOD WORK.

CSS over tables for layout?:

  • It appears that this page uses DIVs for layout this is a GOOD thing!

Last modified date:

  • It appears that this page was updated on the Thursday, June 8, 2017 which is NOT within the last thirty days - this is NOT a good thing!

Images that are being re-sized:

  • This webpage has no images that are being re-sized by the browser - GOOD WORK.

Images that are being re-sized:

  • This webpage has no images that are missing their width and height - GOOD WORK.

Mobile friendly:

  • After testing this webpage it appears NOT to be mobile friendly - this is NOT a good thing!

Links with no anchor text:

  • This webpage has no links that are missing anchor text - GOOD WORK.

W3C Validation:

Print friendly?:

  • It appears that the webpage does NOT use CSS stylesheets to provide print functionality - this is a BAD thing.

GZIP Compression enabled?:

  • It appears that the serrver does NOT have GZIP Compression enabled - this is a NOT a good thing!