>>11842294>Note that ‘undesirable’ and ‘desirable’ are inherently ideologically definedSubjectively*
There does not need to be an ideology behind it, aside from one that would be required for this policy to somehow go through.
>Humans are exposed to very different environments across individuals, so most of trait variation is not due to genetic factors but to differences in environment.Utterly false, the moderate estimate for heritability in the US for example is around the 50% mark.
>It is possible to measure genetic potential directly from genetic markers and what we know from this is that these genetic predictors perform poorly.Which is why you don't implement based on genetic markers, but based on the phenotype.
>It would take a long time.Relatively, sure, but not that long.
You would start to see results (minor or not) within a 50 year period.
>a) these traits arise directly from the genomeNo, merely that removing all organisms from the reproductive process means that both those caused by environmental and genetic factors get selected against, ergo it doesn't really matter.
>that genetic variants responsible for those traits are present in the population and will disappear upon removalFor intelligence? Absolutely.
> many traits that are detrimental to fitness arise because of de-novo mutations that cannot be selected outAnon, they would be selected out in the next batch since their ability would be affected by those detrimental mutations.
That's a non-issue.
> recessive genes cannot be selected out when considering phenotype alone.Since any effects from recessive genes will also be selected against since they will exhibit decreased ability, no, they will.
What's more, if we also track on a lineage and relational basis rather than just a direct ancestry, we can see whether recessive effects take place.
