>>118466561. It's unlikely that we are smart enough to use it effectively.
Humans are bad at understanding complex systems. If they attempt to manually select against certain traits they will mess things up, just like experts fiddling with biological ecosystems like yellow stone.
Once this can of worms is open, just image all sorts of politically motivated directions it could go.
2. It's morally questionable to impose these sorts of major changes on your life.
Does being a bad gene outweigh other factors like having good character or integrity? What if someone with good genes is a fat lazy fuck?
Given the epistemic limitations mentioned previously this problem is compounded.
Not only are you fucking with major aspects of someone's life, you don't know what you're doing.
3. It treats genetics as the core problem, and not education, culture, and parenting.
Look intelligence and all that may be genetic.
But if you have good strong societies and families, you can raise people of average intelligence and physique to be good people.
Putting smart people in horrible environments doesn't turn out well.
On the other hand POSITIVE eugenics solves all these problems.
If we simply encourage people with "good" genes to reproduce more and let everyone else live their life, we both improve the gene pool, and avoid all the moral hazards that go with it.
Governments can start with this:
- give tax subsidies to ALL hetrosexual couples who are legally married, regardless of gene fit.
- give tax subsidies to each child that is born to couples proven to be genetically healthy.
- the government could arrange or encourage marriages between particularly high achieving people
Of course, you marriage equality fucktards forgot that these kinds of benefits aren't just for people loving each other and had to expand them to gays and other moral degenerates, entirely defeating their purpose.
