But we don't know quite how, and to do that, you need to go to school (or a textbook, if that works for you) to learn about this stuff. Otherwise, you end up asking questions that don't quite make sense to scientists, or lack relevance for contemporary research.
That is not a put-down - I had some of these same questions/thoughts/ideas before I took any classes.
Stopping all changes in genes isn't possible, at least currently. If you could figure out a way of doing this without killing yourself, you'd have a surefire way to prevent cancer and diseases caused by retroviruses (such as Hep C and HIV, among others.)
> So what if what I propose is not feasible anytime soon?
When uninformed people write about the future, they usually end up being either dead wrong if they make specific predictions, or they say things that are so vague that they're useless.
How would anyone be able to predict RNA interference in 1985? You could predict all sorts of (useless, wrong) things, but you almost certainly would not have been able to predict something fundamental and useful like RNAi. Smart people focus on the details, and stick to what's within reach.
If you're not up to that, you can always be a science fiction writer - but not a great one like Isaac Asimov, who had a PhD in biochemistry before he became famous.
But we don't know quite how, and to do that, you need to go to school (or a textbook, if that works for you) to learn about this stuff. Otherwise, you end up asking questions that don't quite make sense to scientists, or lack relevance for contemporary research.
That is not a put-down - I had some of these same questions/thoughts/ideas before I took any classes.