The following text is excerpted from the reading.

§ A Potential Argument I am now in a position to formulate an argument for the genetic engineering of animals reared in intensive factory farming environments:

1. We should prevent unnecessary suffering when possible.
2. Intensive factory farming is responsible for a considerable amount of unnecessary suffering.
3. Replacing the current animals used in factory farming with genetically engineered animals who lack the affective dimension of pain would decrease the amount of suffering caused by factory farms.
4. Not enough people are willing to become vegetarian to completely eliminate the suffering caused by intensive factory farming.
5. People would be willing to eat genetically engineered food if it meant they were no longer responsible for suffering and if it did not impose too much of a burden on their lives.
6. Animals can be genetically engineered and used in food production in a way that does not impose much of a burden on people’s lives.
7. (7) Given (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6), replacing current livestock with genetically engineered animals who lack the affective dimension of pain would prevent unnecessary suffering.

Conclusion: From (1), and (7), we ought to replace current livestock with genetically engineered animals who lack the affective dimension of pain.

The following text is excerpted from the reading.

§ Introduction

In 1995, the philosopher Bernard Rollin proposed what he called the principle for the conservation of welfare. This principle stated that, “any animals that are genetically engineered for human use should be no worse off, in terms of suffering, after the new traits are introduced into the genome than the parent stock was prior to the insertion of the new genetic material” (Rollin, 1995, p. 169). In what follows, I will argue that the global community ought to adopt a modified version of this principle in regard to all genetic modification of animals performed for nonresearch purposes. Moreover, I suggest that the principle should be enshrined in the law or regulations, and that assuming that the principle will be followed via “self-regulation” would be both morally wrong and likely to permanently damage trust in food producers.

The following text is excerpted from the reading.

§ The Central Problem: Comparative Disadvantages to Other Approaches Though we have argued that using gene editing to improve welfare is preferable to the current status quo, this technique is nevertheless at a serious disadvantage to other possible alternatives, particularly when we consider the ethical challenges raised by a growing population and the effects of modern agriculture on the environment.

Plant-based alternatives to meat, dairy, and eggs have been impressively successful in the marketplace in recent years. In particular, plant-based dairy products have made serious headway in the total purchasing of milk; over a 5-year period between 2011 and 2015, the total milk market shrunk by $1 billion in the United States while sales of almond milk increased by 250% (Neilsen 2016). A massive societal shift towards a primarily plant-based diet would require less land usage, result in dramatically less greenhouse gas emissions, eliminate other environmental problems associated with intensive confinement operations, be more healthy than the typical American diet (and comparably healthy to diets that use small amounts of animal products), and eliminate the potential suffering of billions of animals (McMicheal et al. 2007). Considering that current realistic uses of genetic engineering on animals would address these problems only, at best, in a piecemeal fashion, and seemingly would not overcome the land and resource usage issues, they seem to be at a clear disadvantage when compared to shifting to a plant-based diet.

Another alternative that has recently been gaining momentum is the creation of lab-grown meat, referred to as ‘‘clean meat’’ by its advocates. Though many technical hurdles remain, including the ability to scaffold the grown tissue in a manner that mimics the texture of traditional meat, this technique, if successful, could all but eliminate the use of animals, dramatically reduce the usage of land and resources, and decrease much of the pollution associated with animal agriculture (Datar and Betti 2010). Unlike plant-based approaches, it is currently unclear if lab-grown meat will be successful in overcoming technical challenges, and it might also trigger similar intuitive negative reactions to genetic modification. On the other hand, the last several years have seen a rapid succession of advancements and growing investor interest in the field.

As noted above, though deontological animal rights theorists might concede that welfare enhancement is preferable to the status quo, few animal rights advocates would ever accept gene editing for welfare as an adequate end-point for social change related to animal agriculture. Raising animals for food would still be impermissible on such views. In contrast to this, a massive societal shift towards plant-based foods or in vitro meat products could presumably lead to tolerable conditions for deontological accounts of our duties to animals. This is a further advantage of these alternatives.

When compared with a shift towards plant-based diets or to in vitro meat, genetic engineering could be seen as the least attractive choice. Nevertheless, there are reasons to believe that this approach should still be pursued and, moreover, that it is possible that gene editing could be the approach that actually ends up having the most influence on the future of food despite the ethical advantages of these other options.

The following text is excerpted from the reading.

§ 2. The Problem

Despite unprecedented advances in technology, public health and welfare, we remain shaped by — and thus fundamentally constrained by — biological mechanisms based on evolutionary processes.

Biological systems are naturally mostly inegalitarian. To maintain population adaptability, organisms undergo high mutation rates, high infant mortality and many adversities throughout their lives. Frequent hardships include diseases, exploitation, scarcity and competition for resources, and age-related decay, while ensuring high reproductive output as the basis for selection pressure to form evolutionary success.

Uncontrolled evolutionary processes—particularly natural selection— do not foster widespread wellbeing, but produce vast and recurring forms of suffering.

Although humanity has increasingly protected itself from the harsh forces of natural selection through technological, economic, medical, and welfare advances, the underlying biological processes of mutation accumulation and genetic diversification persist. In most cases, these processes harm rather than benefit the affected individuals and their descendants— and will continue to do so unless actively addressed, even if artificial general intelligence (AGI) reshapes civilisation.

If evolutionary mechanisms are accepted as unchangeable, we may come to endorse Social Darwinism, discouraging compassionate welfare and health interventions. Such efforts would be seen as counterproductive to natural selection, which is assumed to be necessary for the resilience and adaptability of a species.

But rather than powerlessly enduring or ideologically defending natural suffering, we can take agency and responsibility. Through ethical applications of heritable gene editing, we could instead someday tackle many influential root causes of suffering and repair disadvantageous mutations - accumulated over centuries in wealthy, welfare-oriented societies due to the successive, purposeful removal of many suffering inducing natural selection pressures.

By implementing Genomic Welfare programs and promoting solid genetic foundations of moral behaviour, humans could foster a world where well-being is genetically supported and sustained. The prevalence of physical and psychological suffering in all sentient beings could be addressed, while maintaining adaptability and resilience of species in the face of changing environments and existential threats.

Notably, suffering has both internal (genetic) and external (environmental and social) causes. External causes of suffering—such as poverty, violence, trauma and social inequality—place immense strain on human psychological and physiological resilience.

Most external causes of suffering can be mitigated through:

• Cultural reform that promotes moral circle expansion and prosocial values, while reducing norm-based incentives for aggression, hierarchy, and dominance.
• Education systems that cultivate analytical, strategic and critical thinking, as well as self-reflection, mutual understanding, and cooperative behaviour.
• Social policy that reduces economic precarity, marginalisation, and inequality.
• Accessible, equitable healthcare that promotes public health and wellbeing in holistic and sustainable ways.
• Built environments that are safe and support wellbeing by promoting healthy activities and strengthen community connection.

Addressing causes of suffering at its roots requires a dual approach. A sustainable long-term framework for safeguarding future wellbeing and systematically reducing preventable suffering should integrate ethically governed genomic care with comprehensive socio-environmental interventions.

Without managing genetic contributors to suffering, compensatory systems remain unsustainable in the long term.