My only real worry is about the system being used to remove entire classes of minds from being born. Yeah, you can make a plausible case that an embryo that wou

My only real worry is about the system being used to remove entire classes of minds from being born. Yeah, you can make a plausible case that an embryo that would develop without arms should be aborted. But maybe you can make the same case for someone with severe autism? What about gay people? If a mixed-race couple have a child, should they be allowed to only keep the lightest-skinned embryos? These are all classes of people that are disadvantaged in various ways, ones that won't have a "normal" "standard" life trajectory. And I worry because once you start erasing variation in what a human is, you lose the opportunity to have a discussion about it. Once there are no more autistic children, you can't say "we shouldn't abort autistic embryos actually", because there are no more autistic people to point at and say "hey, that's a normal person, we shouldn't be aborting those". Additionally, even if we don't eradicate autism, plenty of people would choose to screen for it, so fewer autistic children would be born, so treatments will be much slower to develop. What worries me even more though, is that we could start selecting for economic incentives. China already have a problem with too many males and too few females due to the years of the one-child policy, which led to people aborting female babies. What if people can start selecting for "sociopathic jerk" genes? It's a fact, or at least an accepted truth (which in this case is the same thing, since it's people making decisions), that sociopathic jerks do much better in life than others. But can you imagine a world where every single CEO is a sociopathic non-cooperative jerk? I worry, in short, that the slope might turn out a bit too slippery.