I’m keeping my opinions to myself. I don’t condone murder, regardless of much I may despise someone. Shut up and listen. There may be a test later that you may only take once.
@Nicho I do, but only if the individual is a net-negative for society (ie their continued existence will result in more harm than good), and if certain other conditions are met (eg the difference will exceed the impacts of their loss).
That's just a natural result of an almost purely logical, as-objective-as-possible worldview in which any action whose benefits outweigh the costs is good.
Pedophile rapists and moronic wannabe fascist dictators tend to fit neatly into the net-negative category.
The problem with eugenics is the discrimination, the suffering, the brutality, and the cruelty involved - and it always was.
The problem was never with the end goal of improving the genetic condition of the population, the problem was their means. They forcibly sterilized people, & killed disabled people just for being disabled. That's not OK at all.
Elective genetic modification allows total individual choice/freedom & isn't cruel. There's no ethical issue.
@Smersh @Nicho Sure, and that was a mistake.
... because we can achieve the same goals with voluntary, elective, optional (and subsidized, so everyone who wants it can afford it) genetic engineering - no suffering, no discrimination, and no totalitarian interference required!