I’m reading this book, ‘The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering .” It caught my eye at the library because it seemed relevant to Saturn in Virgo. It’s occurred to me that it’s my generation, with Pluto in Virgo who are trying to make people perfect.

I haven’t finished the book though I admire it. For one thing it’s a mere 150 pages and not a word wasted. Secondly, in spite of the title it seems to me midway through, the author is arguing FOR genetic engineering so I will interested to see how (or if) he turns this around.

But aside from that the author presents one scenario after another that really gets you thinking. For example, what if they split sports down the middle? Regular people on one field and enhanced (by whatever means) people on another? Who would the spectator go to see? The super athlete or the normal guy?

I am pretty sure the masses would go see the super athlete which seems a sad comment until and the author makes you think hard when he compares this to the first running shoes. Purists said no. They said it would ruin the sport.

He mentioned musicians who take beta blockers to calm their nerves before performing. Are they “enhanced”? Purists say yes. They feel overcoming the fright is part of live performance… implying you’ve got a bunch of drones playing. The people on the other side feel this merely allows nervous people to play as well as they can.

If a steroid is no good… creates an enhanced athlete, then what does a fortified Power Bar do? Point being where is the line??

There are parents who have their children’s pediatricians give them growth hormone if it looks as if they will be short. Apparently the FDA says this is okay if a boy looks as if he is going to be 5’3″ and a girl 4’11″. Why not 5’4″ and 5′? And what is the difference between giving them growth hormone or a super vitamin?

I mean I know the difference, but where is the LINE? I could break my brain on this. You?