What is the strongest moral objection to eugenics, or some aspect of eugenics...

What is the strongest moral objection to eugenics, or some aspect of eugenics, and can that objection be adequately answered?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=9AEa_NSLWRI&list=PLQ0PXV3djGQuX9MzdPahqq2naVD3tL3vy&index=5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prevention
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Jews

Haha, and I thought my countrymen were the shit posters.

If you forcefully sterilise someone, that's an infringement of their human rights.

>anarcucks
>rights
thanks for the laugh

Jews2

"And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell {whether} GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?" (II Samuel 12:22)

Untermenschen are not human and thus have no rights

There's a necessary cut-off point that is essentially arbitrary, and I would trust no person or group of people anywhere in the world to make that decision. Unless you mean a case like China's one child policy, which selects for richer folk having more children and propogating quicker, but that required a communist regime which is shit anyway. It's okay in CK but IRL it comes with so much actually fascist baggage that it's not worth it.

For forced eugenics, the fact that you're sterilizing someone (or making them breed) by force.

For voluntary eugenics, i.e. designer babies, gene editing, etc, absolutely none. There can be no moral objections within any coherent system of morality.

Many of the objections to things like breastfeeding are based on the idea that not all families can do it so those who can, shouldn't, because it gives them an advantage.

I can only imagine that they would use the same argument on child who want to weed out bi-polar disorder or something. That the poor wouldn't have access to the same reproductive eugenics tools so no one should do it.

It's beyond arrogant to assume we know enough about human evolution, human brains, and humans genetics to make correct, good choices in eugenics that will be of benefit to either individuals, societies, nations, or the world. There's far too much we don't know about how humans work to honestly make a claim that you found what the right path forward was.

I disagree, it would mean that any unedited baby in the future would have a big disadvantage, you yourself might be considered retarded had you been born as you are in a future with designer babies. Ofc I’m not against it but just that this would be an ethical argument against.

You could quite easily make it a requisite to receive government aid. I'm sure many people would be willing to get sterilised to receive welfare or whatever

>2350 years after Plato
>STILL not in place

That would be a social issue caused indirectly by eugenics, but eugenics themselves aren't a problem

>Many of the objections to things like breastfeeding are based on the idea that not all families can do it so those who can, shouldn't, because it gives them an advantage
Except that's an idiotic argument and you should feel ashamed for entertaining it.

By that logic no one should ever procreate because some people are born infertile.

I didn't make it, you fool.
Read my post again with your glasses on this time.

Why should there be a requisite for receiving aid? if they need aid why not just give it to them?

People should not be precluded from the choice to procreate. Though I am a proponent of Eugenics. The best arguments against eugenics will always rest on issues of human rights and morality.

The problem is, it does not work.
That is, we lack accurate knowledge to implement it in such a way that the desired results are archived.

It was long thought that Blond and Blue eyes are superior for ... reasons. Turns out it has nothing to do with it.
Then it was thought that "3 generations of idiots are enough", if we did not neuter the morons we would be outbred by them and humanity would fall back (early 20th century, long before Hitler btw). Despite no such large scale program taking place, humanity did not get dumber.

Before you try and improve your car with a hammer, you first must understand exactly how it works and what can and cannot improve its performance.
Maybe in 200 years we will have amassed enough knowledge about the brain, body and our genes to make a viable eugenics program. Until then you might as well throw a dice.

Right now they have the ability to impregnate multiple fetuses and test which have disorders and which don't.

There is some crazy shit out there you can do if you have a few hundred thousand dollars.

>There can be no moral objections within any coherent system of morality.
Here's one. I don't know whether or not I agree with it but I happened to be reading about it recently.

1. We can't predict the societal consequences of introducing new technology and the consequences are always such that human freedom is diminished and human existence is increasingly reduced to nothing more than a means for bringing about technology's ends. Technology's ends being, in part, proliferating itself for the sake of proliferating itself. In other words, if technology can do something, it eventually will because the means exist to bring it about (us humans). Given that human freedom is a prerequisite to a moral life and human enslavement makes freedom impossible, technological advances should be rejected. Since eugenics is an instance of technological advance, eugenics should be rejected.

Where did Plato advocate for eugenics? I know he advocated for certain types of people playing certain social roles, but that's different from eugenics.

>the poor wouldn't have access to the same reproductive eugenics tools so no one should do it.
>any unedited baby in the future would have a big disadvantage
Thing is, these aren't ethical arguments, even though they're the most common arguments that get brought up on this subject. Their issue is with the inequality that arises as a result of it (which in itself is a worthless argument), but that does not make the act of selecting superior genes for a child (or correcting genes that carry illness) an immoral act.

and yet those tests are flawed, throwing false positives they also exist only for a tiny minority of all disorders.

Very true. However a basic program could begin by offering financial incentives to some.

Objection ? God didn't intent so. Also ask Iceland, why their literal fetus holocaust isn't working as intended, and they're still declining despite the fact that they're killing babies by the thousands each year ?

There you go. Eugenics and the abortion-practice that comes with it are to comdemn without a doubt, because it achieves nothing but generating shekels and making the lifes of the participants miserable (think of all the women like "oh God I wish I didn't abort" or that took damage from abortion).

It is a step towards making humans more machine like, which is a regression. We should be attempting to make evolution more powerful, not tame it.

I agree but the average person might feel that way. Income inequality is an issue in our society for example and it has obviously done well about worming its way into the average person.

All it takes is for some opportunist like Bernie Sanders to get up there and say the super wealthy are going to get into a position where their children are not able to have fair competition in a free market because of their outrageous intelligence.

People will be scared, and vote down these programs.

Sorry, but I don't believe you.
Scientists are pretty excited about the way reproductive eugenics are going from everything I've read. CRISPR is just one example.

nah, its just hype and marketing to get those grantbucks.

>the consequences are always such that human freedom is diminished
This premise is incorrect. There are plenty of technologies that have increased human freedom (not that freedom has been defined in the argument, so we'll assume the conventional definition). Writing, medicine, the wheel, agriculture, etc. At least one is sufficient for negating this premise.

>Technology's ends being, in part, proliferating itself for the sake of proliferating itself
This ascribes some sort of nonsensical agency to technology, and is putting the cart before the horse. Humans create technologies to satisfy their desires. The "ends" of technology are the ends that humans assign.

>technological advances should be rejected.
Given that tools are a technological advancement, and technological advancement is a result of man's ability to understand the world and use reason, this argument posits that the most "free" and moral state of mankind is that of an unevolved ape grubbing for insects in the mud. Not exactly a compelling argument.

Problem with eugenics is that the universe is already a eugenic machine. Before, weak people were cleansed by disaese, now they are cleansed by depressions, suicides, HRT, obesity etc. Eugenics simply are not necessary.

To be human is to be ineffecient and imperfect.

Most of histories' most important artists had some form of disability, mostly sight issues.

Being different gives a different perspective, eugenics will make everyone the same.

>vote down these programs.
And then the Chinese gene-edited ubermenschen will heavily outcompete us, at which point even Bernie supporters will gradually see the light. It'll be too late by then, but they'll understand eventually.

>eugenics will make everyone the same.
This doesn't follow.

Homogeneity seems inevitable.

In all seriousness it got a bad rap from the “6 million” so it to a nosedive in the PR department.

Consider, ideals of ‘beauty” and “masculinity” actually are “eugenics” in a way. “Preferred breeding”.

But perhaps it should get a serious second consideration when you give things some thought. We “domesticated” wild animals to make it possible for them to live among us. Why wouldn’t it be reasonable to “domesticate” humans. Perhaps Eugenics is not a single thing. Should it be divided into two directions? One direction is toward increasing and improving desirable traits and another in decreasing and eliminating undesirable? It actually is a good question.

The choice is: Preserve the "humanity" of humans or make them drones - on totally and absolutely more levels than is the case now already.
The system will crumble at one point anyway.
The question that follows "eugenics, yes or no ?" is "when will it end?". Because humans are fallen by nature and biology is falliale. Don't be of the impression that just because you have one generation of perfectly working drones, this is going to continue. New circumstances - and new techonlogy for that matter (see pollution, chemicals in everyday life and so on) - will breed new mutations and suddenly we'll be confronted with diseases and disabilities we hadn't have before.

So the problem is not only that eugenics is highly against natural order, but it is something that, once started, will have no end and might inevitably end in organized genocides. We had that before - and it didn't work.

Not really strong moral arguments against it. It's more pragmatic.

1) The deciders of who is fit and not fit to breed will be corrupted almost overnight the same way they always are in governance. You are giving the government and the means to decide who can breed and who can't. You're giving it to the rich and connected, not the smart and fit.
2) Darwnism's concept of survival of the fittest is not social darwinism, which thinks what is the ideal of society is the most fit. That is not the case. The fittest is simply that which can reproduce the most and survive the best.
3) Perversion beyond reasonable "stop life-threatening diseases and illnesses"
4) decreases genetic diversity. Not nigger diversity but genetic.

You misunderstand. The Chinese will have a system. And they will sell it to the highest bidder in the US who will go on foreign 'gene-editing for the baby' vacations.

So instead of being domestic and slowly obtainable by everyone like other technological developments, it'll remain the prerogative of the rich.

I don't even like the idea of designer babies and in a perfect world we'd be able to stop it at "preventing hereditary diseases". But I know there's no reason to ban it when people will just go abroad for the service.

What are you going to do then? Kill their baby?

The opposite is happening most people do not race mixing and with more people than ever before diversity can only increase.

>make them drones
Eugenics in this context is merely allowing people to choose whether to edit their own genes, and the genes of their future offspring, to select for desirable traits. It has nothing to do with making drones. It doesn't make humans with gene edits any less human. There's a difference between gene editing and post-humanism.

>suddenly we'll be confronted with diseases and disabilities we hadn't have before.
Certainly possible. But at the level of development required to edit genes, New diseases are probably not going to be as much of a concern as they are now.

>might inevitably end in organized genocides
On what basis?

The points you made are similar to the problems I have with the argument. There are a few points I could see being made in response.

>There are plenty of technologies that have increased human freedom
A lot of the people making these arguments seem to think that civilization itself is bad and that industrial use of technology is a prerequisite to civilization (or at least the sort of civilization they have an issue with). So, their response would be that you can't really criticize/reject the bad but keep the good bits of (industrial) technology that you like. You'll still be left with something, whether it be actual machines or some theoretical apparatus, that constrains what humans are able to do. I agree with you though that the vague use of "freedom" makes this line of thought pretty difficult to sustain and, so far as I've seen, none of these writers really define it. At best, there seems to be an assumption of freedom being "negative freedom" in the political sense and only absolute negative freedom from technological control makes us free.

>This ascribes some sort of nonsensical agency to technology
I sort of agree. Their response would be that it used to be the case that technology was created to satisfy human needs and some desires but gradually, and especially during the industrial revolution, the cart and the horse really did switch positions. Technology forms and creates our desires. It doesn't do so by intending to do so, it does so in a non-intentional way. I think the issue is that their use of "means-ends" is misleading. I do agree with them that technology seems to shape our desires much more than the other way around, though. I lived before the internet or cell phones and didn't have either until recently. It's still a little strange to me and I definitely notice the difference between ordinary people and the people I grew up with out in nature with regard to technology.

cont'd

It supposes that we're biological machines, that there is no such thing as a soul and thus it only works in an atheistic nihilistic universe. In other words, it denies God.

>Eugenics in this context is merely allowing people to choose whether to edit their own genes, and the genes of their future offspring
Are you sure about that? There are plenty of people here talking about the Eugenics committee or oversight group that decides what genes are desirable for other people.

>Given that tools are a technological advancement
This wasn't clear in my first post but the earlier distinction I noted between technology serving human ends and vice versa avoids the criticism to some extent. Tools are fine, according to these people, so long as they aid in self-reliance. At least that's how I understood it. Yes, it would be a much more dangerous and less glamorous life than we're accustomed to.

This is true. As with all advancements in technology, it is impossible to stop once it shows up. If it confers a competitive advantage, it will spread through most of humanity whether people try to resist it or not. That's why it ought to be embraced, so that economies of scale can reduce the price and make it available to as large a market as possible.

What is the soul, that knowledge of its existence would caution against the rational selection of genes in humans? (As opposed to traditional environmental and sexual selection.)

There isn't such thing as a soul but, even if there were, it isn't clear how that would make eugenics "not work." It's also possible that there are no souls and God exists (but God doesn't exist either).

>civilization itself is bad
They would have to support this premise as well.

>only absolute negative freedom from technological control makes us free
Which uses a perverse definition of freedom, since it seems to imply that restricting someone who wants access to this kind of technology would render them more, rather than less, free.

>Technology forms and creates our desires
The world we live in forms and creates our specific desires. But those desires are subsets of universal human desires. If you lived on an island that only has bananas and fish, every time you felt hungry you could only think "Gee, I could really use a banana right about now" or "I should probably get my fishing rod ready". If you found some rabbits as well, your desires would expand to account for rabbits in addition to the other food. But the whole time, regardless what is on the menu, or how expansive it becomes over time as you discover more of the island, you are still acting in order to satisfy your desire for food. Technology allows us to satisfy our basic desires in different ways, but those desires are ultimately what induce humans to act. The cart never goes before the horse.

I was. I assumed you were responding to my argument, rather than all the ones presented here. I agree that state-run eugenics is a recipe for disaster. I am only in favor of private, voluntary eugenics.

The soul (and the mind) is the part of us that is not physical. Bluepilled atheists like think that we are just our bodies, in which case eugenics would be completely justified. But we know that we are more than that, because we are consciouss(well, at least I know I am). The moment we are more than just our body (genes) eugenics falls apart.

I still want to know how a handicapped person is worse for society than an exploitative businessperson.

>civilization itself is bad
Civilization, or the kind they have in mind, is bad because it requires a certain human relation to technology that constrains freedom.

>Which uses a perverse definition of freedom
I don't think there's really a problem here. At least not a logical one. If they're right about the nature of technology then, yes, it would follow that a person is more free when they're not living in a civilized community. It's an extreme idea that I don't really accept but I see the validity to the argument.

>But those desires are subsets of universal human desires.
Agreed.

I have to sleep now but thanks for responding. I haven't talked to anyone much about this stuff so it was helpful.

Look in the Bible.
It says "thou shalt not kill".

Go to Haiti if you want to live in a place where there aren't any businessmen.

Submit this post to a philosophy of mind journal. You'll be famous. Airtight argument right there.

Eugenics is not limited to shoving retards into gas chambers.

The thing that comes to my mind is that nature should take its course, because I can imagine we could potentially fuck something up by, say a misconception of what features ought to be enhanced in a human. This could lead to disasters in the long run since we now control and restrict something that revolves around adaptation, which means it is up to us to figure out what traits are the best in a given situation

Humans don't always know what solution will work, and we could end up in a really difficult spot where we die out because of a failed genetic gamble

On a moral point of view it is a potential danger to make eugenics more socially acceptable. It may be fine now to some, but who know what the future will bring? Perhaps an authoritarian regime can capitalize on a public support for eugenics to control us with greater ease, sort of like brave new world

With all that said some genes will die out or carry on due to natural selection(evolution and all that crap). It's just that I personally don't trust this phenomenon to be in the hands of people I don't know

> 1) The deciders of who is fit and not fit to breed will be corrupted overnight.

They already have been. We've decided welfare Queens and Kangs are fit to breed and so we support them at a low level of existence with welfare. Those not willing to breed leaving their progeny to be dependent on the state at low levels of existence are not supported. They create fewer children.

Welfare is a MASSIVE dysgenic program.

...

It would hurt the Fee Fees of post mod Leftists and their shitskins pets, since you'd be castrating a significant proportion of blacks, and spics, as most have an IQ below 95. Most prominent anti Eugenicists are also Jewish liberals who use the excuse of muh Holocaust to deny Goyim the tools to better their stock so they'd be more of a threat to Jewish western dominance. So anyone who wants Eugenics to be mainstream would need to contend with the kikes and shitskins/leftists. And the average Normie equates eugenics to Nazism, despite the fact that every western country has an eugenics program before the end of WW2. Eugenics won't be accepted until the Redpill about race and IQ becomes mainstream.

>>might inevitably end in organized genocides
>On what basis?

Euthanasia is not only gene editing. It is also "weeding out" the bad ones when they are "discovered". This is the ultimate consequence of it. Think of Iceland, Planned Parenthood and the likes - or assisted suicide.
Once the initial hesitations are broken, there is no end to it. And you know that pretty well, because that is what we humans do - as you can see everywhere now, and in the past.

>natural selection
You realize that humanity has greatly reduced selective pressures from most sources through advancement of technology, right? We've already messed up the "natural order". If some new challenge shows up, evolution is hardly swooping in to save the day. Genetic engineering can respond to problems within years, rather than centuries ie millennia.

*or

Yeah, why not just keep printing money while we're at it

How about you learn what "entertaining an idea" means you fucking idiot. It doesn't mean "make" and I never said you did make it, Im saying you're a retard for even bringing it up in this thread as if it matters or that view should even be acknowledged.

Many mutations and diseases are a direct result of the (over-)"technologization" (if that's the right word). More chemicals everywhere, significant amounts of radiation everywhere, and yet, we don't even know the long-term consequences of most of it. A good example is aluminum. Used for tens of years everywhere (I mean other than construction) and then it turned out it can accelerate cancer and Alzheimer's disease with high enough concentrations. And there's your problem.

You cannot fight the (partially pretty severe) consequences of technology with more technology.

I brought it up to a question about what arguments could be made against eugenics.

To say that I shouldn't have even answered that question makes you the biggest dumbass in this thread.

...

Our current living conditions are not really messing up any natural order, we are adapting to how things are around us just as much now as we have in the past. What traits will dominate in the future is impossible for me to predict, but evolution doesn't stop.

With that said I will once again bring up what I mentioned in the post you replied to, where I personally regard a greater control of human evolution as something that will restrict us.

Imagine a scenario where we have "crafted" ourselves in accordance to a certain set of living conditions that we now depend on to survive. Let us now think for a second if something distruptive happened and all of a sudden the entire set of conditions we need to survive no longer exists, thus we die out.

There is a potential we could've lived on had we allowed change to happen on it's own and give ourselves a better shot at dealing with the unpredictable

I, of course, meant eugenics

The biggest problem with Eugenics I can see is that Eu implies a definition of better.

A definition of better begs the question: Better for who?

If you're breeding and genes are being manipulated for someone's benefit, that is closer to how livestock is bred than wild animals.

Even if we're given control over what traits to give our own children we don't know what traits they will actually need. Also why do we find those traits desirable? Is it because they are valued? By who? Why are we breeding ourselves so as to benefit these people?

Also what happens when what is desirable changes? The next generation will have todays valued traits in spades so odds are they won't be valued as highly then even if the other circumstances that made them valued haven't changed.

And if those circumstances such as the technological state of things should change - expect it to, then all those traits your parents selected for are no longer useful to you as an adult or maybe they are even handicaps.

For instance, what if you were bred to have the ability to do arithmetic in your head. Then calculators are invented, and now you have wasted space in your brain for this ability that no longer gives you advantage. The odds are high you end up being obsolete by the time you grow up.

There is no argument against it. That is why every time it is talked about in a documentary they have to add ominous music and a dire tone of voice to the narration to evoke negative emotion. Just like every time they talk about the 3rd reich.
youtube.com/watch?v=9AEa_NSLWRI&list=PLQ0PXV3djGQuX9MzdPahqq2naVD3tL3vy&index=5

>Too hard over too much time to have anything meaningfull
>Requires forcing people into doing shit they would hate.
>In the end its hard to tell what to choose exactly.

Say what you want, but I'm not marrying a gypsy to decrease the chances of diabetes in future generations, nor a nigger for decreasing autism or Down syndrome incidence.

Plato advocates for selective breeding in the republic

I don't believe eugenics is necessarily immoral desu.

What if the person receiving aid is merely down on his luck at that point in his life and comes from a poor senpai?

Plato's a cunt tho...

I think it's a simple solution here. Don't let ugly, messed up people reproduce. It's common sense.

People are afraid that they'd get their lineage eugenic-ed. no one wants to open that box of spiders because who's to say what the next step would be. Who's to decide who's too weak to live, it may start with retards and the deformed fetus, but where would it wind up? (give it enough time and maybe the final result wouldn't look much like a human being anymore) It's just too touchy of a subject to fuck with, when we can just go 'yeah let's not'

I think it will be asians who get into it first though, souless monsters.

Jared Taylor put it nicely: Nobody opposes in-vitro fertilization, but let's not kid ourselves. No woman asks for any old sperm. They want the sperm of an Ivy Leaguer, someone handsome, a certain height. We've been breeding desirable traits in animals and crops for thousands of years, haven't we? And we instinctually are attracted to traits in partners we feel are desirable, complimentary to our own. These are the same people who would stand aghast at the notion of discussing eugenics openly, when they do so all the time without realizing or acknowledging it. Eugenics is the past and present, but also the future, one China takes very seriously, and so they've begun a sort of ubermensch eugenics program of their own in a bid for global dominance in the coming decades. They're capable of ratcheting up the IQ of potential embryos by 15 points. And so, as Taylor put it, if you don't take eugenics seriously, make sure thirty years from now, your grandchildren learn Mandarin.

Also if you think making designer babies is a good idea. You can bet your ass that it'd cost an arm and a leg to conceivably do it, at least at first ( the most important time frame). So be prepared for the super-elite to create a race of super-duper-elite and enslave humanity.

Instead of forcing people you could incentivize, using subsidy, those who have desirable characteristics. You could also incentivize undesirables to undergo sterilization.

This. I recall an offer someone made, $1,000 per IQ point below average for sterilization. Everybody wins.

who would fucking do this.

>We can't make perfect people cause my poor retarded ass won't be included
Nice

Not against regulating sexual behavior, but I am pro life

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prevention
Absolute fuck ups. The ones we want to subsidize.

If you studied the bible, you would know that it is properly translated to thou shalt not murder

>You cannot fight the (partially pretty severe) consequences of technology with more technology.
When you can literally edit your genome and change phenotypes at will through routine medical procedures, you sure as shit can fight the consequences of any new problems that arise.

>we are adapting to how things are around us just as much now as we have in the past.
In much smaller ways than before. Thanks to medicine, those who would normally die off before reproduction can now keep defective genes in the population. Thanks to automobiles, there are no selective pressures to run faster or farther. Evolution through natural selection is when a species adapts to its environment. On the flip side, man changes his environment to suit his needs. The more we control, the more those old selective pressures disappear.

>Let us now think for a second if something distruptive happened and all of a sudden the entire set of conditions we need to survive no longer exists, thus we die out.
This is a possibility. We can also imagine just as many scenarios where manipulating our genetic code would allow us to deal with those disruptive conditions and survive when we would otherwise die. This is not an argument for or against genetic manipulation.

>give ourselves a better shot at dealing with the unpredictable
I would count this as a desirable improvement, and therefore precisely the kind of thing that gene editing would strive to accomplish.

My point is that evolution doesn't do anything particularly different from gene editing. It doesn't make the organism and more or less fit than if we did it ourselves. It does, however, take an extremely long time, and when disaster strikes, gene editing can save the day with far fewer casualties than waiting for evolution to take its course (and risk joining the untold millions of species that have gone extinct in our planet's history when they couldn't adapt fast enough).

>Who's to decide who's too weak to live
You could have panels of experts in various fields make assessments. You could also set up a system whereby people weren't forced to do anything, but instead incentivized using subsidy. So for instance, in russia, ethnic russians could be incentivized to increase birth rate, while non-white russians could be incentivized to undergo sterilization.

>thinking we can make perfect people
and it's not my poor ass, it's your poor ass too, if you aren't in the 1% of the 1% you wouldn't have access to this technology when it actually mattered.

>have access to this technology
Is that why only billionaires own cars, and all the other plebs have to walk?

No you can't. That was always the problem.

That.... is a retarded comparison, and you are retarded for making it.

Do you expect people to just comply in these matters?

People would rather be in misery or migrate to more permisive zones than just willingly giving their future choices, and you would end up with people just going for the benefits and still having children with who they want.

No, you have to more subtle and insidious, keep things as they are but let the market take care of it.

It will not be the state promising order, it will be the people, through the market that would let you aproach something near eugenics.

Its already happening, when you go to a fertility clinic or places like those, they let you choose several traits and one specific donor, and although its hard to tell who is going to be more intelligent you can stimate how to choose the zygotes with the least ammount of genetic defects.

Over time you can bet that after several generations of doing this the genetic makeup of the population would change to a more "healthy one"

But then it brings other problems, since what you end up choosing is just one donor this affect the genetical diversity of the population, and laugh now but if some bacteria mutates and takes advantages of having less "inmunological weapons" to defend ourselves its going to fuck up humanity hard.

Then there is the problem of repeating traits and that people will choose wathever fad is at the momment, going to great lenghts if necesary, so if some day turns out that people like being fat and ugly you would start getting those traits until the social trends change again, and the children that were born in that time will have to live with it.

Some sperm donors are actually getting paid for donating their sperm right now because of all of this.

And I don't trust the government at all in these matters, you would be just moving the problem into another field and creating a conflict between what the government wants and what the parents want, and in the neither wins.

It's entirely accurate. All new technology is expensive at first. But there are more non-billionaires than billionaires. That's a huge pool of revenue to pass up. That is precisely why the annual revenue of Toyota is far greater than that of Bentley.

Gene editing will only be for the wealthy at first. Once that market has been tapped, firms will get their shekels from everyone else as well.

What a compelling argument.

You cannot edit out what isn't there in first place.