[throwaway_789]

Unlikely. The perceived benefits of eugenics would be too tantalizing for those social engineers in control of "licensing" the right to reproduce. Robust markets for DNA sequencing and clinical already exist. It'd be a vanishingly small step to pivot those platforms for eugenics.

The licensing proposal is odious even if we were to (naively) discount conventional eugenics. Licenses would likely be tied to "merit", which is rather inextricably linked to socioeconomic class.

[ZenoArrow]

> "Unlikely. The perceived benefits of eugenics would be too tantalizing for those social engineers in control of "licensing" the right to reproduce."

What if the priorities of the eugenicists and other life licensers clash? For example, what if a known criminal was also the holder of some rare genes that would link up well with someone from the ruling class?

> "Licenses would likely be tied to "merit", which is rather inextricably linked to socioeconomic class."

So someone who is poor is of less "merit"?

[Dylan16807]

>So someone who is poor is of less "merit"?

With the word in quotes like that? Absolutely yes.

[ZenoArrow]

Can you explain what you mean by that?

[Dylan16807]

Poor people are, in general, treated as if they have less merit.

So they have merit in an absolute sense, but not in a societal opinion sense.