> There is currently no known link between attractiveness and offspring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peafowl#Plumage_colours_as_attractants http://en.wikipedi

> There is currently no known link between attractiveness and offspring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peafowl#Plumage_colours_as_attractants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peafowl#Plumage_colours_as_attr... And yes, my two sentences are one and the same. A trait is a category, such as hair color. We can select for that trait without always selecting specifically red hair, for example. In fact, at one point we selected against red hair in some cultures [1]. Similarly, as I described earlier, intelligence today is often defined as IQ or literacy while intelligence in the past might have been toolmaking, memory (for verbal history/storytelling), or navigational skills. That's why I don't see any ethical quandaries about genetic modifications for beauty, because it's highly unlikely to lead to homogeneity and even if it did, if everyone is beautiful then nobody is, which means people would immediately find new definitions for beauty and pursue those instead. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair#Prejudice_and_discrimination_against_redheads https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair#Prejudice_and_discrim...