Do we not compete in sports? Or win Nobel prizes? Aren't we free to do what we want? Every one isn't a sports person or what have you.

Unchecked genetic engineering is what will bring about mono-cultures, fads, and me-too traits. Does any parent want to put their child through something like that through their entire life? Is it better to build a hab on Mars and breath air, or to genetically engineer yourself to possibly breath what is in the martian atmosphere/ground? What genetic trait trade-offs are you going to make when you can't have certain traits and are at the limits of biology? What trade-offs is the population going to make? I think the answer to all of these questions leads to less freedom for the individual, and a worse society. The parent doesn't have the right to take away or add traits, however benign or meaningful they seem, unless fixing a genetic disease.

But it doesn't increase the chance of survival, which is what he probably means when he says we halted evolution.

Genetic engineering isn't about to give anyone an "increased chance of survival." Unless you have a genetic disease, then it's ok. The population of earth isn't going to start decreasing anytime soon. Unchecked genetic engineering reducing natural genetic diversity might actually reduce the population of earth.

I don't understand what "halting" evolution means. Evolution as a process, through natural selection, is at work and will still be working when you have or don't have genetic engineering.

Also, trading personal and societal freedom for some notion of "increased chance of survival" isn't a trade-off you want to be making. Would you rather be free or live longer?

Halting evolution insofar as "organisms that possess heritable traits that enable them to better adapt to their environment compared with other members of their species will be more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass more of their genes on to the next generation." no longer applies where "organisms" = humans in developed countries. You can now be less fit for your environment and still survive just as well as someone who is more fit. You can reproduce the same as or more than someone who is more fit, and pass on more of your less-fit genes. Your random mutations don't matter much since we've solved survival pretty well for the vast majority of people. One finger being half an inch longer won't help you much in modern society.

This is just wrong. Do bears not make homes in caves? Do monkeys not use tools? Parasites co-evolve with who ever they're leeching from. Plants, insects, and bacteria are still evolving in greenhouses and petri dishes. Natural selection is determined in many ways, you can go read about it (most definitely not just with "random mutations"). None of those reasons exclude humans on earth just because we live in concrete walls. A lot of animals and whole species are "less fit" by your definition and still pass on their genes just fine. Or are "fit" by your definition and don't.

Once again, I have no idea what you mean by halting, or "less fit" or anything else in your rambling comment. The fact that you focus on the traits you think matter, makes the comment even more idiotic. People who have no fucking clue what evolution is, should not be a part of this conversation and should be ridiculed and ignored.

Evolution is not survival of the fittest, it's natural selection. It is working on earth, on humans, and will continue to work with or without genetic engineering. Like I said, the decrease in natural genetic diversity from unchecked genetic engineering will hurt every species on earth. What we've done to cultivated plants in reducing biodiversity, should be more than enough evidence of what will happen with genetically engineered humans if we ever get there.

Well, not quite in that way. Survival of the fittest doesn't literally mean 'survival of those with the most physical strength'. It means survival of those most well adapted to their environment, intelligence included.

And evolution hasn't effectively halted either. It's hard to tell that sure (because evolution on a massively noticeable level is a slow process and human history is short) but the whole process of genetic mutations arising and people doing better because those mutations make them slightly better for their environment is still going on.

And the traits selected for aren't random nor a crapshoot, they're just kind of overshadowed by social situations and hierarchies. If there were two kids from the exact same background and one was 'more intelligent' than the other, the more intelligent one might do better. But it's very rarely that simple in society now.