Three cases

Hearing. Preventing profound congenital deafness while preserving everything else admits widening — and leaves the future person free to decide what hearing is worth to them. Selecting deafness because the editors value the deaf community admits narrowing. And even that is not uniform, because the deaf community’s shared room is real and a deaf corridor is not categorically narrower than a hearing one. The test runs. It does not pretend to a single verdict where the width is contested.

Intelligence. Preventing a condition that would have severely narrowed the future person’s modelling admits widening. Selecting towards higher-than-distribution intelligence to an external standard admits narrowing. The future operator at the centre of the distribution is not categorically a less viable operator than the one at its edge. The categorical valuation of more as wider fails.

Athletics. Preventing degenerative muscle loss admits widening. Selecting towards elite capacity for a competitive trajectory the editors value admits narrowing. The line between repair and selection is specifiable in principle and hard in practice. The reading is at the corridor’s actual width, not the marketing.

This is the short edition of Ø Applications — a summary. Where a step is compressed here, the original carries it in full. The original book (PDF) · This edition (PDF)

The same page on the420code.org: the420code.org/models/applications/06-genetic-engineering/