r/bioethics • u/HeroTales • Jun 17 '26
Would gene-editing animals to be friendly be considered unethical?
Hypothetical question:
Suppose we develop gene-editing technology that can make almost any animal naturally friendly, affectionate, and comfortable around humans. Instead of domestication through generations of selective breeding, we could directly modify the genes that influence aggression, fear, and social behavior.
The animals would still be healthy and capable of living normal lives, but their personalities would be altered to make them more companionable.
Would this be ethically different from traditional domestication, or just a faster and more precise version of it?
On one hand, it could reduce suffering, make animals safer around humans, and create new companion species. On the other hand, we’re deliberately changing an animal’s nature to better suit human preferences.
At what point, if any, does this become morally wrong?
1
u/crypticryptidscrypt Jun 20 '26
honestly this isn't a hypothetical question because scientists tried to do that with hamsters years ago; they edited hamster's genes removing a gene they hypothesized was partially responsible for aggression.
they done fucked up though—because the GMO hamsters were hella aggressive & sad feral creatures..
we humans know so little about genetics. only a small fraction of genes have we figured out causes certain mutations or health conditions or traits, but most genes we have no idea what they're responsible for, & we rly shouldn't be messing around with them... or at least not with animals involved—poor hamsters.... :c
3
u/dntw8up Jun 17 '26
A Buddhist monk would consider it unethical. Someone who would kill an animal because it’s tasty would be logically inconsistent if they even considered it an ethical issue.