Heh, I'm.. wary of that, I guess? The people who alter their embryonic children during the first 100 years of that technology's existence - I assume - will mostly get a raw deal until embryonic alteration as a field goes through a billion 'Anna Karenina principle' failures.

We have the ability to adapt by simulating nature in our minds, and science too comes from this - but we are the result of so much time and such harsh filtering. In other words, I don't think we will see as much interest ten years into it after as we would during the first year.. we would only, in such little time, pick the low-hanging fruit changes. But these are also the ones nature has not propagated - which would be odd if they are both simplest to achieve (including my accidental mutation) and also known to be beneficial on average.

I'd imagine hypothetically that the first wave of children would start exhibiting genetic illnesses will drive down the willingness to sign children up, out of simple precaution that parents are unlikely to have ever seen evidence that the procedure does not have a risk of ruining the child's life.