[MiracleUser]

you seem to have gotten negative feedback, but I agree with your sentiment.

It is kind of silly to think we are "altering" species. We would be creating new species or breeds using existing ones as a template. Unless there is some agenda I am unaware of to go out and kill all existing members of a species after we create our own version of it?

If nothing else, isolate the artificial species into controlled habitats. I know a primary use-case often discussed is regarding mosquitoes where that wouldnt be the case.. but imagine editing the genetics of zoo animals so that they are much more easily acclimated to zoo life. Less negative effects of poor temperature control, a broader dietary selection, reduced reaction times for dangerous animals. And there is no risk of environmental impact since they are in isolated enirovments

[teraflop]

As mentioned in the NYTimes article, a gene drive is more than simply introducing organisms with new traits into a population. It also codes for cellular machinery so that if the gene appears in one copy of a chromosome, it will splice itself into the other chromosome.

In other words, if an organism inherits one copy of the altered gene from either of its parents, nearly all of its descendants will also carry it. Which means that even a trait that is fairly detrimental to the organism's survival can spread through the population, in violation of what natural selection would predict. So, yes, we can "alter" a species.

[MiracleUser]

You are not emphasizing the descendants part enough. It still requires existing members of the species to propagate the gene with natural breeding, same as 'natural' genetic mutations. So if it is a gene detrimental to survival, it can still very easily die off. Which is not in violation of what natural selection would predict.