It is more intolerable with humans but animals should't be subject of either (animal cruelty).

Yes, that is what I am saying. In your example, of course if there were tests you could have done to prevent the outcome you're at fault. But that aside, the outcome is the same but human editing of a gene means you are causing a specific change in a complicated code bypassing natural adaptations and rejections that might be needed for a trait to be amplified. So you're responsible for the outcome even if there was no testing you could have done to ensure it won't cause cancer on some consumers. You are responsible for any deviations caused by your editing,good or bad. With selective breeding you are forcing breeding between animals that would have bred anyways. It is not impossible for the natural course of things to force breeding between those same pairs of animals. The outcome is the same but since you did not do something that could not have happened anyways in the natural course of things you are not responsible for all deviations.

What I meant though was more like deformations and other flaws that would be cruel to the animal. For example selective breeding of dogs has resulted in some breeds where the brees itself is illegal. Some breeds have skulls that become torturesome and painful once the brain grows to a full size. These breeds would die off if it were not for humans that insist on breeding them.

Mistakes are inevitable and az such the question of "is even one mistake acceptable?" must be asked to which I say no it is not. Trial and error are not acceptable because one error is not acceptable. Ends don't justify means.

Maybe someday computing will be powerful enough to model how editing of genetic material will affect the grown animal (100% accounting of unintended consequences).

> Trial and error are not acceptable because one error is not acceptable

Trial and error is exactly what evolution is. I'm struggling to understand your argument - is it that evolution, once it makes a mistake, culls that line? Whereas when humans make a mistake (based on your dog breed example), they continue it?

Evolution continues its trial and error even after mistakes are made. There's no central database that limits this -- it continues to happen, again and again, with the same mutations.

We're not discussing evolution. You're changing the subject.

As human beings we recognize our ability to discern right from from wrong, just from unjust,cruel from humane and correct from incorrect. Knowing there is a risk of something incorrect that will result in an unjust,cruel and inhumane outcome, if you proceed with that action you are considered unethical. If the same outcome happens as a result of nature, other humans or by choice of the person/animal then it was not your decision or responsibility. The fact that other actors or nature might cause the same outcome does not absolve you of the decisions you make right?

I disagree that humans have an ability to differentiate right from wrong in any universal sense.

> Knowing there is a risk of something incorrect that will result in an unjust,cruel and inhumane outcome, if you proceed with that action you are considered unethical.

I also disagree here. Unethical negligence is determined by a calculated risk of the bad outcome. There is a risk of bad outcomes every time a jury takes a criminal case, but that it clearly not an unethical action.

I'm generally not sure what your point is. We take calculated risks that could end up with something bad happening -- think driverless cars -- but there is a lot of variance between individuals' line between "acceptable risk" and "unacceptable risk". And sometimes the ends do justify the means, depending on your opinion on the Trolley Problem.

You seem to be under the impression that animal breeding--artificial selection--does not involve trial and error?