Continuation

I will now point out what I think are flaws in the Telegraph article. First, the author assumes that the future developments would be common enough that they will be even able to fulfill the requirements of the super-rich. Although, I seem to be inadvertently underscoring the author's line of reasoning and one might point out that this shortage would in itself trigger the rationing function of price and might induce even more exclusivity but this logic can only be applied to the assumption-filled textbook world. Here I can quote the example of body parts such as kisneys which suffer from inefficient allocation creating black markets and smuggling; many people who can pay the market price even can not buy the parts. Also there is no guarantee that the future developments would be free of side-effects, which is a major deterrent even today to consumers endorsing and using advances in bio-technology (O! I wont eat that genetically engineered tomato even if it is the yummiest; there are rumors of endowed antibiotic resistance in those things).Moreover, we are nowhere fully cognizant of our genetics to be able to categorically list out the diseases to which we are prone. We may have been able to isolate all our genes but we do not know the functions of the majority and it seems unlikely that we will be able to in next 20 years. Here, the author also assumes little to no role played by the government in the near future to reduce this disparity. I find this assumptions unwarranted as even as early as the present, groups are pressurizing government to keep a watchful eye on the implications of ongoing research on genetics. So I would not go on to say that the scenario is not possible but it does not seem likely and this post is not intended to be derogatory to the author as I wholeheartedly accept her to be more qualified and experienced than me.