|
|
|
|
|
|
by magduf
2850 days ago
|
|
|
I disagree: it's the concept of voluntary vs. involuntary decisions. If I look for a genetically fit partner to have kids with, that's my decision, and it's my choice as to what I consider "good" genes (which is arbitrary, after all). If the state does it, then I have no choice, plus I might be getting paired with someone who I don't consider to have "good" genes, or I might not even be allowed to breed at all. |
|
|
But is your choice yours, or just your genes speaking? I'd also dispute the idea that there aren't universal indicators of genetic fitness that we all find attractive. Given free choice we would all prefer someone with better skin, brighter eyes, more lustrous hair, better teeth, etc. etc. wouldn't we? No one sets out to look for an ugly, physically lousy mate, do they?
> If the state does it, then I have no choice, plus I might be getting paired with someone who I don't consider to have "good" genes, or I might not even be allowed to breed at all.
Like it or not, Eugenics of a type is probably coming down the track anyway via gene editing. Who would turn down the chance to upgrade their offspring's intellect or height, given the option?