DNA Genetic Modification also for Humans

Humans are territorial mammals: this statement can never be called into question, as human beings are in fact primates genetics-wise and as such they incorporate many behaviours which are commonly perceived as staples for this group . Humans, therefore, need their own environment, their own dimensional volume of action, potentially definable as an ecological niche within the social sphere in which he lives. This phenomenon manifests itself in many different ways, the main one consisting in taking possession within the aforementioned area of action, but also in expanding it proportionally to one's possibilities, an operation which historically hasn’t always been carried out with respect for that which was contained in the environment before its appropriation. At times, a sort of competition may arise between individuals which might give rise to conflicts of various types. These could be either peaceful or violent, but man's nature is still that of an animal that wishes to acquire or retain control of its zone of influence. Behavioural phenomena therefore arise which, although they may be considered common from a social naturalistic point of view, often lead to numerous situations where the dominance of one or more individuals over others emerges. War, world hunger, discrimination are just some of the most evident examples of this mammalian fallacy.

"Wir brauchen Lebensraum - We need living space"
This phrase became a mantra for the expansionist policy of the Nazi regime and was often used to justify the invasion of the territories of neighbouring states. But was it really a new historical concept at the time?
In actuality, there has never been a civilization who didn’t resort to wars and policies in order to expand its borders and related spheres of influence. However, were we to focus on the Western side of the world we’d have to mention the Roman Empire, which managed to expand itself over a very vast geographic area, to the point of absurdity, from North Africa to the Middle East. The Roman policy of territorial acquisition was based on the idea of "Romanization," or the idea that conquered peoples would adop thet Roman language, culture, and institutions. The Roman Empire needed new lands and resources to support its growing population and its expanding economy, justifying its actions as “pre-ordained by fate”.
In more recent times, after the discovery of the "new world", the Spanish conquistadors in South America colonised the populations of those lands, bringing slavery and exploitation of resources. Similarly, the British colonisers in North America and India imposed their political and economic control on local ethnic groups, often to the detriment of the cultures already present and the local ecosystem (the disappearance of the Madagascar Dodo is just one example of the thousands of animal species whose extinction was a direct consequence of mankind’s interference), arrogating the right to claim whatever lands they happened to discover for themselves.
Although it is imperative to remember, in these contexts, the differences between the phenomenon of colonization and the Nazi expansionist policy referred to as a "living space" (i.e. in the first case there were also instances of several cultures and peoples clashing and mixing, while the radicalization of the idea of an ethnic and cultural superiority privileging a people who have the right to dominate others and to expand through their total annihilation was a fundamental precept of the lebensraum which fundamentally differentiates it from colonisation policies which can be seen as a form of political expansion and economic, as opposed to a racist, aggressive and absolute domination narrative), the initial concept still remains alive: our territoriality is part of a genetic system contained in the DNA of mammalian species, therefore its implementation only defines mere application details, without diminishing its cause.
These phenomena are also relevant at the reproductive level. We should consider and admit the primitive nature of the mating rituals with which human beings unite, practices which, combined with the behaviours mentioned above, lead to possessiveness, aggression and often violence on both sides. All without considering the problems of our reproductive nature itself, which leads us to the question of how a system that continuously generates genetic diseases and potentially lethal birth complications can still be present in our highly technological society.

Before delving into the details of such a hypothesis, it is worth underlining that there is no doubt about the positive aspects of what is at stake: the desire to put an end to conflicts, hunger and discrimination is an objective that is favoured by most of the world population.
The starting point of the question is therefore to ask ourselves whether it is possible to eliminate all these problems and resolve them definitively through an eradication at a genetic level that would impact all those behavioural phenomena that determine our aggressive and dominant actions, simultaneously causing an improvement in the health of the individual thanks to the correction of any congenital diseases.
However, the idea of genetic "elimination" must be analysed carefully:
First of all, some might dispute the fact that delegating the task of modifying or evolving mankind to technology would be an unnatural process. In contrast to this assertion, one could also argue that technology does not represent the evolution of a species, but rather a tool that man himself has created to improve and perfect his life. In the same way that childbirth is practised in an "assisted" way with all the necessary hygiene and health measures, an "assisted" control of the genetic heritage would also help to eliminate all the diseases that can "naturally" emerge from the chromosomal recombination process. Furthermore, since human sexuality is a very complex and varied phenomenon, not reducible to simple models, we are not talking about eliminating the concept of experiencing love, affection or feelings, but about the phenomena of possession and aggression that can arise from these.
Secondly, one could object that the inclusion of recombinant DNA or an artificial womb in the process of genesis of a new individual would inevitably lead to a series of very delicate ethical problems. The manipulation of embryos and fetuses in fact gives rise to the idea that the genetic imprint of the mother could be entrusted more to technology rather than to nature, making it appear as a sort of eugenic project that could lead to crude or unjust solutions, for example with the selection of embryos based on skin colour or physical characteristics. The counter-argument to this is that the natural "modus operandi" itself is aimed at ensuring that only individuals with the most suitable genetic characteristics can have the privilege of mating: in fact the so-called "alpha males or females" are not necessarily those who happen to be the strongest of their respective groups (although in many contexts strength has its relevance, given the physical commitment to which each individual will be subjected in life), but who present the best survival characteristics for specific environmental conditions: only those who have survived thanks to these characteristics will in fact have the possibility of transmitting them to the next generation, therefore it is nature itself that has established this "eugenic" system from the beginning. The physical peculiarities are suitable for the environment in which we live: remember that somatic traits such as skin colour, eyes or hair, just to name a few, are not established by evolution because "nature is beautiful" but because they are necessary to the geoethnic environment in which the individual's life takes place.
Thirdly, granting the benefit of the doubt raises the spontaneous question of whether the eradication of dominant human behaviours can effectively reduce violent actions such as wars or murders, whether for territorial or passionate purposes. That is, if at a genetic level we could eliminate those impulses that lead to these crimes, are we really sure that it would lead to the elimination of the phenomenon itself?
Obviously, as long as we do not enter into practical experimentation, there is currently no unequivocal answer to this question. Furthermore , keep in mind that modern society is not only made up of aggression, but also of positive values such as empathy, solidarity, justice and cooperation. It is hypothesised that a genetic orientation that limits hormones triggering aggression or territoriality could increase these positive aspects for peaceful and constructive coexistence.

However, the difficulties that arise are considerable:
A first aspect to consider concerns the complexity of human genetics, which makes it difficult to identify the individual genes responsible for these behaviours. This requires extensive and complex sequential identification and understanding of how such genes interact with each other to regulate human behaviour; more generally, experimentation in this context is very delicate and requires particular ethical and legal caution. Genetic modification on human individuals leads to many questions about how to apply this technique and the possible results or consequences that will occur. Furthermore, even if the genes responsible for acting in the individual were found, it would be necessary to carefully evaluate the long-term effects resulting from genetic selection and manipulation within future generations: this implies that there would be a need for further research and studies on the socio-cultural repercussions of genetic modifications.
However, keep in mind the pros and cons of the situation: if such a modification was successful, it could significantly reduce or even eliminate some of the most serious forms of violence and conflict between individuals, such as murder, femicide and rape, not to mention that there would be no more deaths from wars or social conflicts. This would certainly have a positive impact on society, individually and collectively. The reduction or elimination of these behaviours could also help promote peaceful interaction between different cultures, ethnic groups and religions, encouraging cooperation and harmonious coexistence, leading to greater cohesion of the individual. Changing mating methods in humans would reduce genetic diseases linked to the errors that nature statistically reserves for us, leading to an improvement in public health, reducing premature aging of the individual and therefore extending people's quality of life.
We would therefore move towards a path of greater awareness and greater civil commitment in the construction of a more just and peaceful society, which respects the fundamental rights of every individual, of the territory, of nature and promotes cooperation and solidarity between peoples. Only in this way will it be possible to put an end to conflicts and discrimination in a definitive and lasting way.