There's a balance between best possible healthcare for all individuals and full blown eugenics. Neither extreme is very good, so yea it's worth at least trying

There's a balance between best possible healthcare for all individuals and full blown eugenics. Neither extreme is very good, so yea it's worth at least trying to understand the consequences. In the extreme of too much healthcare for too long, we'll breed humans into being dependent on it. That's a risk because if we somehow stop being able to provide that healthcare, we might die out. On the other hand, maybe we'll always be able to provide that healthcare and we'll become superior in some way as a consequence. This probably already happened with the technology of clothes, cooking, and houses. We depend on those because we're hopeless at digesting raw food and staying warm at night, whereas animals without those technologies are burdened by things like permanent fur coats and more expensive digestive systems, or having to slow down in the cold. That's general healthcare. The issue here is different - "bad" genes are probably actually good at the population level so do we really want to get rid of them? I'm not much of a luddite but I really don't think we should manually eliminate any "bad" genes from the gene pool. That's like trying to improve the environment by exterminating some troublesome species without realizing the indirect benefits it provides. Do you also call protecting endangered and apparently useless species a religious like fear of disruption of some higher balance?