So the majority of people agree on what exactly? What do they mean when they say something is morally right or ok?

That’s the next step. Once we agree that someone is right and someone is wrong, then we can start talking about the definition of “moral good”. And that is a very difficult and complicated discussion. But just because it’s hard to define doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not real.

Muslims say that music is Haram because it is said so in Hadith, does that make music objectively wrong?

That is the exact opposite of what the above comment said. An objective view of morality would say that the “rightness” or “wrongness” of the act of making music is an objective truth. If music is “right”, then music is right, regardless of what Muslims or any other people say, and vice versa.

It means you can’t come to a correct moral judgement just by taking a poll of the people around you.

Another solution then: automatically download/cache a user’s most frequently played tracks. I know downloading is a premium feature or whatever but they should consider it if it would save them money.

Shown Furcotte taking it up the ice.

He passes to McSriff.

Oh, a big hit by Bobson Dugnutt! He collects the puck and sends it on to Dandleton.

Dandleton now with the puck. Across to Sweeney - But it’s picked off by Smorin!

He finds Noginly on the breakaway! Noginly - He Scores!

Noginly hits the brakes at the last second to slip it past the bumper of goaltender Mike Truk!
And the Jonsonbill Nailers take a 2-1 lead, with 3 minutes remaining in the second period.

What’s not clear to me is whether these edits will be passed on to future generations of trees. I think that’s usually not the case with CRISPR, but this article is talking about “breeding”, so maybe it is the case here. The phrase “building a better forest” is particularly disturbing as well.

My concern here is basically that we don’t want to be replacing wild forests with genetically engineered monoculture. Replacing millions of years of evolution and biodiversity with 1 or 2 “optimal” genetic lines leaves the population vulnerable to things like disease and environmental changes. A diverse population is much more resilient against these dangers, since the differences in individuals may allow some to survive where others couldn’t.

So as long as the usage is limited to specific tree farms, it’s probably no worse than other modern agricultural practices. I just hope they don’t want to replace wild forests with CRISPR trees.