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.
> 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.