[smsm42]

That's terrifying. Every project that aimed at "producing better humans" so far wasn't just terrible - it is ones that are brought up when somebody needs to bring up so terrible no discussion is possible after it, the ultimate peak of terribleness. And yet, there are people still dreaming of breeding "better humans". I hope at least this will be voluntary? Because the logical next step is if you choose "unsuitable" partner, your kid's healthcare will cost 10x (because it's your fault for loading the healthcare with unnecessary costs) and you face deep contempt from your social peers for not helping to improve the human race. At the best case, of course. We all know how worst cases look like.

[matte_black]

I don’t understand why it’s such a taboo. Sperm donors are already selected based on favorable traits. If you’re a loser with no job or have a family history of diseases and cancer they do not want your sperm. And there’s nothing stopping people with poor genetics from breeding promiscuously with multiple women anyway, leaving behind single mothers in their wake. The Darwin Awards are a dark celebration of people dying in stupid avoidable ways and thus “removing themselves from the gene pool”.

People with excellent genetic traits need some sort of advantage to meet each other. The movie Idiocracy may have been a satirical comedy, but its message is actually not far from the truth of where we’re heading if someone doesn’t do something about improving the gene pool. To me, that is way more terrifying than genetically conscious dating.

[smsm42]

> And there’s nothing stopping people with poor genetics from breeding promiscuously with multiple women anyway, leaving behind single mothers in their wake.

There's nothing that stops any people from "breeding promiscuously", provided they find suitable and willing partner. It is when you start talking about who is worth access to reproduction and who is too genetically inferior to be allowed that is where trouble starts. The humanity has terrible track record with this. Surely, you say, this time it would be different - we have The Science on our side which won't lead us astray! Which would be very reassuring, if only that wasn't the same thing, word for word, that was said in all previous attempts.

> People with excellent genetic traits need some sort of advantage to meet each other.

Why? If they're so excellent, they may find each other using their own excellent facilities. While it still sounds terrifying and offputting, I have no problem with people trying things that are terrifying and offputting to me in their own bedrooms. It's when this is proposed as some kind of societal norm where the really terrifying part begins, because we've been on that road, and not once, and we know it leads to hell.

[Trundle]

The poster hasn't said anything about people not being worth having access to reproduction, or being allowed to.

I can't help but think people are reading some form of government mandate argument from their preference when they haven't mentioned one.

I like swimming. I don't think anyone should be forced to swim nor that its the governments business to increase swimming.

That guy wants to filter partners by their long term health potential. I don't see any reason to believe he thinks people should be forced to do the same nor that he thinks it's the governments business.

[smsm42]

As I said, as a personal preference, it's personal business. If it's advocated as a societal norm, the government will inevitably come in, if not as direct coercion, then as softer means - subsidies, preferences, financial incentives, propaganda, etc. That's how it has always worked - maybe in theory the government shouldn't be in the business of enforcing societal norms, but it very much is in practice.

[Trundle]

There are already personal preferences in partners that are so common that they're basically norms. I don't see a world where people take longevity of a potential partners health in to consideration on top of height, face, class, etc; and the government decides to get involved, to be all that much worse than the one where people just take height, face, class, etc in to consideration and the government decides to get involved.

To me an appropriate analogy would be if burkas were the norm for everyone, some guy was all "I wish we could easily see peoples faces when trying to date. I have a really attractive face and I'd like a partner with the same", then someone was all "the government will get involved!"

How and why? Prevent uglies from dating hotties? The market already does a decent job of that.

There's no department for "dating profile height fraud".

No one cries "eugenics!" at being able to see how attractive your partner is.

[smsm42]

No one needs to cry anything - the OP admitted he's into eugenics. He just thinks it's completely logical and natural thing - after all, don't we want to better the human race?