Eugenics has some tricky ethical problems. Nobody wants a holocaust. Nobody wants genocide. On the other hand nobody wants psychopathic killers or genetically transmitted diseases either. We also don’t feel right about telling people whether or not they should breed or how they should breed. So how can we improve humanities children without infringing on the rights or freedoms of specific parents or specific children?
In a sense humanity’s genes and the next generation of humans belong to humanity as a whole not to any particular people. Now some might say that these things all already belong to the next generation and not the current generations of humanity. The problem with this is that all potential humans if they deserve a say deserve an equal say in whether they get to be conceived or not, both those with weaker genes and those with stronger genes. If we have the power to tip the balance in favor of the stronger gene pool shouldn’t we do so?
Things seem relatively clear at this point. As long as we can change the next generation enough to weed out undesireable genetic burdens on humanity we should do so. However, this is not so simple as it may seem. How do we define which traits are desirable. Once we start breeding children to become stronger or more beautiful haven’t we already crossed the genocide line? Isn’t a preventative genocide of genetically sick people still genocide, even if they are being replaced before conception with healthy people? Is the luck of the draw really the only fair way for humanity to propogate?
Perhaps the best thing that humanity can do is draw up a list of specific genetic traits that simply do not do any good. These traits can then be tracked or treated to some extent. They may never be eliminated but at least we would have the knowledge to stop their transmission in many cases if we should choose to.
On the other hand. Some of us may choose to take this farther and start communities with a different set of genetic ethics. Some us may decide to genetically modify ourselves and our offspring to be any number of things. If some of us decide to artificially evolve in this manner should the rest of us tolerate it?
I am inclined to allow it. I am curious to see what new species might evolve out of humanity. Surely our evolutionary path is not complete simply because we have aquired advanced technology? I suspect that at least some of us will inevitably evolve into our technologies or into new biology, likely both.
Perhaps the only difference between evolution and genocide is the difference between selective breeding and selective killing.
The Lunar Fox Press 