[DoreenMichele]

The bottom 75% of the IQ curve has been poisoned against the word “eugenics” to the point that they can’t even have a basic conversation about things as sane as “genetic screening for debilitating illness” without completely breaking down.

This is a really not good way to engage with this topic. I'm not happy seeing this kind of framing on HN of what is an extremely sensitive topic for many people and with good reason.

[Kye]

Agreed. I think some people in the pro-eugenics crowd mistake a broad anti-eugenics stance as an ignorant denial of possible benefits. I think it could be good and fine, but I don't trust humans to make those decisions. I don't trust myself to make that call.

[speleding]

So, how would you frame it? I realise it's a sensitive discussion that can easily degenerate, but the subject should not be taboo on HN.

[dekhn]

I don't think there's any real venue in which a discussion of permanent germline modification of humanity (or in-utero modification that affects all cells) can be rationally discussed. I've never seen any productive discussion of this in any context. It's one of the few issues that dives so deeply to the core of the human value system that it's truly challenging to come up even with the terms of the debate.

That said I expect that in the future, for many genetically inherited diseases, parents will be given the option to address the problem without termination, so long as the solution seems to be exceptionally safe and highly effective (IE, 99.999% confidence the outcome will be positive). I don't think people will see that as "eugenics", although there have been a few press campaigns that have done so.