> Eugenics means requiring inferior people to not reproduce
Not necessarily. Saying "you have the BRCA gene... here, have some free birth control pills" would be a eugenic policy, but it's not forcing anything on anyone. The same goes for PGD: It allows parents to have children who lack a "bad gene" and thereby improves the genetic health of the population, but it's not compulsory.
I am not into eugenics, and I'm not the poster you're responding to, but eugenics, as a theory, is perfectly harmless, until such time as one begins imposing eugenic criteria for others.
Given his interest in his own genetic data, and his interest in eugenics, it could well just be that he sees himself as less likely to reproduce if doing so would be to pass along a detrimental illness or genetic abnormality.
> ...eugenics, as a theory, is perfectly harmless, until such time as one begins imposing eugenic criteria for others.
Which becomes nigh-inevitable once eugenic theories are readmitted to the discourse, because once you postulate that individual reproductive behavior has a detrimental effect on society as a whole, it becomes a public health matter. As is trivially obvious from the history of the century just past, that particular slope is very steep and very slippery, and it leads into a crevasse whose contents are horrifying indeed.
Only in situations where society has power over individual choice, which, I grant up front, is exactly the society we have in America.
To put it into perspective though, Michael Bloomberg recently attempted to ban the sale of large sodas in New York City. I, as a personal choice, do not drink soda, because I believe it's the devil, basically. That said, that is only a personal choice.
I agree that it's obviously detrimental to society on the whole, but so what? I'm not beholden to society on the whole, nor is society beholden to me. The idea that we should ban soda, even if we know that it is bad for society, and even if we know that it is bad for the individual, is antithetical to freedom, and a practice which I don't support.
All that said, I agree that we live in far too controlling a society, and this is exactly why I oppose the notion of socialized health care; which is that as more of society is involved in my medical choices, more of them have incentive to eliminate every unhealthy thing that I might do (and vice versa). Despite the fact that I am a very healthy individual by most standards, I don't want my freedom to drink the occasional soda evaporated by those who mean well.
There are degrees in which society must suppress an individual's impulse in order to maintain cohesiveness, and so long as that control is limited to ensuring that everyone's rights are upheld (meaning, I have all freedoms that do not infringe on your rights), then nobody's ever anything more than irritated.
It's only when a society tries to impose value judgements on others, and to be fair, they almost always do, that unfairness creeps in.
Regardless, I think we're fairly far afield of the original discussion, so I'll demur on this.
To circle back around though, the idea that one should optimize for genetic advantage with his or her own offspring is no more offensive than when I volunteer at soup kitchens to help the less fortunate.
Compelling either situation though is (at least in my opinion) quite wrong-headed indeed.
The point, really, is that eugenics itself is not necessarily evil until and unless you attempt to control the reproductive rights of others by your own eugenic criteria.
Diplomacy score of 100