>My concern would be that we might be unable to distinguish useful genetic adaptations from disease. How do we actually make these decisions? Examine the DNA an

>My concern would be that we might be unable to distinguish useful genetic adaptations from disease. How do we actually make these decisions? Examine the DNA and then look for SNPs of concern? Is that a perfect process, or one dominated by statistics? How likely is it that this method will arrive at the expected goal? We sort of do this at a high level and with less empiricism anyways. We are often trained what characteristics in a mate we find attractive and use selection based on those attributes or make our own independnet choices, discarding these trends. Sometimes we make good choices, sometimes we make bad choices. The concern I would have more here is that the decision process would be fairly standardized and start to lack diversity more than us making the "wrong" choices as we currently do. We're going to make the wrong choices, period, because we don't have a crystal ball to predict all future cases where some attributes we deem harmful turn out to be more useful. The way we currently fight this and thrive is through a wide degree of diversity in the selection amd decision process, allowing for a fairly wide diversity of attributes. If the process becomes methodical, we're likely to start converging on fewer and fewer "acceptable" mutations. If we're advanced enough that we somehow can tell good and bad genetic attributes from a survival standpoint then maybe this isn't terrible but I think that is a challenging problem in and of itself. Just assume you can arbitrarily change human attributes around, what is the ideal human? Then we have the social implications. All of this reminds me of the movie GATACCA.