Sure. There’s various ways to influence the gene pool and most are not great ideas on a large scale. Enforced non-procreation for people with “undesirable” genes is a dark road to go down. Especially if we have other ways to treat these problems.
In the very long term the lack of natural selection could have a noticeable degrading effect on the human genome, but it’s a slow process of drift. Since gene editing will probably be more common eventually I don’t see it as a major concern. We left the brutal mechanisms of nature behind, and we already have the means to replace them. It’s right that we approach the topic of genetic manipulation with caution, focusing on clear cases of extreme need. We’re fine for the foreseeable future.
Bridging the gap with eugenics or the like just isn’t necessary, and is likely to cause societal problems far outweighing any advantage.
It’s pretty straight forward to select away almost all cases of Alzheimer’s by simply not procreating if you are positive for APOEε4, for example
No suffering required
That’s not natural selection.
You are seriously missing the point…
I said we no longer have natural selection removing diseases like it was
I am not advocating for natural selection/genocide
I’m saying without action we’ll accumulate more, and there’s very real things we can do about it either as individuals or as a society
Sure. There’s various ways to influence the gene pool and most are not great ideas on a large scale. Enforced non-procreation for people with “undesirable” genes is a dark road to go down. Especially if we have other ways to treat these problems.
In the very long term the lack of natural selection could have a noticeable degrading effect on the human genome, but it’s a slow process of drift. Since gene editing will probably be more common eventually I don’t see it as a major concern. We left the brutal mechanisms of nature behind, and we already have the means to replace them. It’s right that we approach the topic of genetic manipulation with caution, focusing on clear cases of extreme need. We’re fine for the foreseeable future.
Bridging the gap with eugenics or the like just isn’t necessary, and is likely to cause societal problems far outweighing any advantage.
Yes, you agree on all points? So what is the point of this?
I disagree with your assertion that you can deny procreation to swathes of the population without causing suffering.
No one is saying some authoritarian force needs to deny procreation rights