The Eugenics of Personal Choice

Hmm, well.I remember I once met a white supremacist who insisted that allowing interracial marriage was genocide. He reasoned that if it went on long enough eventually there'd be no-one left whom you could reasonably describe as white, so you'd have abolished a race, which is what genocide means.Well, if that's genocide, then apparently there are two sorts of genocide, one which involves killing people and which I object to, and another which doesn't and which I don't.Similar remarks may apply here. You say "some see the specter of eugenics". Well, see, there's a reason why I don't think much of eugenics. It's the compulsory element. If, on the other hand, what is offered is that parents could (for example) freely choose to conceive a child without cystic fibrosis, then how is that a "specter"? That's a genie.

"The financial goal of acquiring money is essentially the same whether we're talking about earning it from useful work or stabbing people and stealing their wallets."

Well, what's the "program"?Various possibilities lie open to us. Several possibilities for each polymorphic gene, I guess. And the only reasonable thing to do is to judge them on a case-by-case basis. There is no sensible way we can think about whether "eugenics" (broadly defined) is a good or bad thing any more than we can pass such a judgement on (for example) things made of metal. It depends on the thing and what it does.

Well, this is something we could perfectly well do even if we didn't exercise our ability to change genes. That just involves looking at the genes. We can look at the genes now, we could look at the phenotypes since forever. There was a time in the USA when we did forbid people to procreate (and sterilized them) based on phenotype. There was a time when Spartan fathers tossed their sickly children off a cliff.The bad face of eugenics can appear whether or not we can give ourselves better genes through technology --- but, if you think about it, it's much less likely to appear if we have the technology. Imagine some politician, or some dictator, saying "We must stamp out cystic fibrosis by screening everyone and preventing carriers from marrying." Which he could do now. But then imagine that we have such powers as are presupposed in your OP. Would his attack on liberty not seem, and be, perfectly futile, if carriers could simply elect to have children without the gene? --- which they would. That depends on the particular allele of the particular gene. Is there anyone who wants to stick up for phenylketonuria because we need diversity? Again, this is a case-by-case question. Well ... with respect ... it's the way you brought it up. Your talking point was: "If this happened, wouldn't it technically be ... eugenics?" Which is fearmongering, and is no reason, or no good reason, to impede anything.

If you mean it comes with forcible sterilization and death camps, you are wrong. And if you don't mean that then it's not actually the same.

People actually think that just because we're not leading anyone into death camps or euthanizing the infirm, it's not "the same old eugenics we’ve always known".If you pay closer attention to what people say, you will have a better idea of what they think.

It's the same old eugenics, despite being different?That's not how being the same works. I get the point. It is wrong. Things that are different are not the same. It wouldn't, because reiteration is not a substitute for being right, or for finding a valid argument for different things being the same. I have paid close attention to what you say. I have also noticed that it's bollocks, because of different things not being the same.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.