Welcome to Gaia! ::

The flaw in the argument for eugenics is that its supporters are falling back on saying things will be "better" based on their own interpretation of what "better" means.

As Elke pointed out, she believes her life is better for having her brother in it. Who can say that a world without her brother is -actually- what would have been better? I know we're not talking about her family specifically for this topic, but it is illustrating a point: in a world with eugenics, he would not have existed and eugenicists think that would have been better because then there would be no "defective" people like him. One would need the capability to explore alternate realities to truly know what would have really been "better".

As I believe I had already pointed out, some people are not bothered by their own genetics. You don't have to be born "perfect" to live a happy and successful life. And as pointed out by BlueVidder, one cannot determine what is actually a "defect". Aside from the sickle cell anemia example, you can also consider blindness as another. You might think blindness is a defect, but often in those cases, these people's other senses are all heightened - touch, taste, smell, and hearing.

Another thing to consider is that there are people who believe that everything that happens has a reason to it, meaning that if someone was born with certain types of hereditary conditions, they were given those conditions so that they could fulfill some sort of purpose. Some may say it is a lesson in humility handed down from God, others may think it to be karma. It may not be the most "scientific" of reasons, but people do hold strongly to such beliefs.

If people wish to sterilize themselves because they personally feel that their genes are unsuitable, then that is their own business and there is nothing stopping them from doing such. However, forced sterilization is dictating to people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies and lives. You may not think some people should be allowed to have children, but what gives you the authority to say what is actually better for the world?

Something else that also needs to be pointed out: eugenics is a slippery slope. Once all the "obvious" hereditary defects have been bred out, there is no guarantee people will stop there. It may be decided that excessive body hair is a defect {some people actually do genetically have less body hair than others}, then brown eyes, then dark skin. Any number of things can eventually be considered defects. Some people now may even already consider such things defects. Who gets to determine what is and is not a defect?

Oh, and by the way... near-sightedness can also be caused by reading a lot, sitting too close to the television, and/or using the computer too much rather than just something you're born with.

Yes, there would be the risk of breeding out perfectly harmless traits once all the traits that resulted in a person having special needs were done away with. You have a point there.

To be honest, I do consider blond or red hair to be not flaws, per se, but weaknesses because they result in paler skin and thus less sun resistance. But they don't affect a person's ability to perform. I suppose in my perfect world, after hereditary physical or mental disabilities were done away with, albinos, blonds, and redheads would be next if people weren't satisfied with having a race of physical and mental supermen since I wouldn't be alive to regulate things by the time my project was complete.

Huh... I thought everything there was to discuss had been discussed.

And just because I'm a perfectionist, and can't let things go:

Eugenics boils down to selective (read: enforced) breeding to eliminate or enhance genetic traits. That's not so nice.

Reprogenetics is the selection of particular genetic traits to be created by an egg once implanted in a mother. (Assuming we manage to ever get a grip on the whole "what-genes-do-what" questions.) Not so bad, but the ethical question of building humans remains.

That is all.
Thank you.