That's the risk of following the intelligent design way of change. Nature's evolutionary way seems to be more robust.
Is it really though? Look at how many species are extinct. Certainly the entire race being susceptible to the same bug is risky. Though the gene pool would be reduced, I’m not sure that the problem is as big as one might think. You can remove many errors in DNA and I would presume still maintain a fair amount of genetic diversity.
I don’t not think that genetic diversity, when it comes to withstanding bugs, necessarily must get as reduced as implied in this thread. I am assuming the thought here is that if one makes n number of genes the same throughout humanity then obviously we have less diversity. Still, I’m not sure that less diversity in some areas automatically equates to less diversity in disease resistance to germs.
Or to put it more simply, if one takes a fertilized egg and changes a gene, then I assume that specific gene change may not have any direct correlation to being more susceptible to disease germs. Or is this incorrect?
I realize it is an actual potential problem as well as a SciFi trope that we could] either create a genetic weakness to a germ. What I am questioning is the idea that gene therapy must increase germ susceptibility.