4 ms·

It seems like you are asking why eugenics has been rejected as unethical. If so, Wikipedia has some starting info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Ethics

• ivanca 12y ago
  First of all nobody is talking about enforcing anything, so the "you want to kill people!" slippery slope is out of the way. Second: where is the line then? If I have AIDS should I have children (and not get treatment to avoid infecting them)?, if you say "no" that is eugenics. I, myself, I'm carrier of a disease that I is mostly genetic, so I decided that I will never have children. Discouraging the (pre-) existence of unhealthy childs is not nazism and people should stop pretending it is.
  • datenwolf 12y ago
    You just confused Eugenics with Euthanasia which are completely different things. Eugenics is reproductive control on a very high level, and may go even as far as governmental control on procreation. Aside the ethical problems with Eugenics there's also a problem raising from simple statistics: In which way shall it be decided who may procreate with whom and who not? Any kind of biased selection eventually leads to a drop in genetic diversity. However the smaller the genetic diversity the higher the chance for illnesses and defects to spread within the population. So if the ultimate goal is genetic diversity the only sound selection would be to make as much mix-and-matches as possible. Interestingly enough mitochondrial transplantation adds a little to genetic diversity, because it dissolves the meiosis relationship between female nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA.
    • ivanca 12y ago
      Genetic diversity is not a problem when your sample population is of 7 billions.