Why does this discussion always immediately jump to the absolute worst case scenarios? This should not be such a black/white, us/them topic. We are not advocati

Why does this discussion always immediately jump to the absolute worst case scenarios? This should not be such a black/white, us/them topic. We are not advocating for eugenics, or caste systems, and the other protections that we have for human rights in society won't immediately disappear. >it would require having access to the genome of every single person you want to manage Only in this dystopian hellscape you're imagining. This isn't about micromanaging individuals. Its about better understanding the origins of behavior in society. Here's one immediate potential application: how can you be sure that quotas in hiring aren't unrealistic and counterproductive if you refuse to research the effect size of genetics in human interests? My overall point is that we don't know the answer to these questions and there is an emergent social pressure which presumes a worst case application of such research and does not allow for it to be conducted. This leads to assumptions pervasive in social, medical, and academic practices which we don't know to be true. What if effectiveness of psychological interventions hinges on genetics? Should such research be forbidden because of totalitarian fantasies?