RE: Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?
August 10, 2017 at 12:05 pm
(This post was last modified: August 10, 2017 at 12:10 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
It starts with editing out disease genes, then you have mandatory sterilize the people carrying the disease to protect the gene pool, insurance cost reduction, the common good etc. Especially since certain demographics are prone to certain "deficiencies" the "corrupted races" can be editted out. Then since we know which genes might cause depression or anti social behavior we need to proactively edit those out to create a more happy and compliant populace, you know, public safety, etc....and since gentlemen prefer blonds then it should be mandated that all new children be edited to include that. And since people with blue-eyes are happier...
Of course we cannot forget epigenetic factors, some diseases will still happen because of environmental effects or accidents. Those people will be considered a burden to society and even the people who love them will come to understand that because of their "poor quality of life" the old, infirm, and disabled need to be eliminated "for their own good" (sorry, we already do that)
Of course none of that will ever happen...HERE
The thing is empathy is a rather plastic concept. If I was a "useless eater" and a "burden on the national health system" then surely I would want to be terminated for the common good.
Of course we cannot forget epigenetic factors, some diseases will still happen because of environmental effects or accidents. Those people will be considered a burden to society and even the people who love them will come to understand that because of their "poor quality of life" the old, infirm, and disabled need to be eliminated "for their own good" (sorry, we already do that)
Of course none of that will ever happen...HERE
The thing is empathy is a rather plastic concept. If I was a "useless eater" and a "burden on the national health system" then surely I would want to be terminated for the common good.
