4 ms·

Your argument only works if you consider eugenics to be inherently unethical, which isn't necessarily true. Previous attempts such as exterminating anyone with

Your argument only works if you consider eugenics to be inherently unethical, which isn't necessarily true. Previous attempts such as exterminating anyone with flawed genes was certainly unethical, but that was just an example of people drunk on power exercising it. The benefits from ethical eugenic research would be to the whole society. You'd get less genetic illnesses, improved metabolisms, better eyesight etc. In theory it's basically just improving the odds of rolling good genetics for everyone. It's certainly not going to be easy however, and to be frank: I doubt any of us will be alive by the time the research would bear fruits.

laverya 4y ago
> Previous attempts such as exterminating anyone with flawed genes was certainly unethical, but that was just an example of people drunk on power exercising it. IMO it really depends on how you're doing the extermination. Killing adults/children with the relevant genes is of course hilariously unethical. Killing fetuses with the same genes is very debatably unethical - as in, a lot of people will very strongly say it's unethical, but other societies will do so at >90% rates (see Down's in Iceland as an example). I find it hard to think of a way in which editing an individual embryo to change the relevant genes is unethical besides the "changing anything is evil eugenics" objection.