"Genetic engineering will lead to eugenics. Therefore, genetic engineering should be impermissible."

Wouldn't pretty much everyone just end up picking more or less the same traits and over time the species would end up inbred as fuck because of lack of genetic diversity?

One argument is that you don't know what traits are beneficial or detrimental in future societies. If you breed out something, you can't just undo it.

was this ted kaczynski

or was ted kaczynski actually against genetic engineering because he fears it will destroy humanity?

after all, if self is the function of the mind, and the function of the mind depends on the form of the body which is human, then altering the form via genetic engineering would be to alter the self of you and me as human beings.

if human beings are weak (which we are) the inherent nature of systems favors the strong, and those that become not-human by genetic engineering are strong, we will all be replaced.

I think this all comes down to your perspective on humanity. are we a flawed creations of nature who's flaws are to be corrected, or are we creations of god

it is said that while humanity might not be experiencing natural selection anymore, we do experience sexual selection.

people with PERFECT genetics can interbreed all they want without concern.

>"Genetic engineering will lead to eugenics.

No, the species will be and generally better off if we selectively eliminate bad genes.

>Therefore, genetic engineering should be impermissible.

This doesn't make sense in light of your error.

You sound like an early twentieth century British or American. They had influence in Germany's Naziism. You're less than one pawn in the world of global affairs.

If it boosts the productivity and ability of our economies, I'm all for it. We need to strive to become more efficient. We've already practically destroyed the notion of food requirements (more food is produced than is required every year). Can you imagine if we could do that for every industry?

If God wants to leave me and other people unfinished it pisses me off but I'd rather that then the inevitable Star Trek Khan civil war we'll have.

>if human beings are weak (which we are) the inherent nature of systems favors the strong

Do you understand that an argument of the if/then variety should have justification if you want your work to be considered for anything other than the trash?

Right. And how do you define PERFECT genetics?

Not him but athleticism comparable to Jamacians and intelligence of average White people.

genetics that doesn't have catastrophic failures in recessive genes. recessive genes can tag along behind dominant genes and never get weeded. then you get a recessive gene paired up when brother and sister fuck

when you start genetic engineering, in theory you could engineer one perfect generation of babies and they can grow up and fuck each other and be fine, and each son-daughter pair out of them could do the same.

>I got my knowledge of genetics from anime and JRPGs

I'm not well versed in the philosophy of this stuff, but the obvious argument is that there are certain inherited traits that are objectively better than others - intelligence and good health (or removal of inherited defects or diseases) are the most obvious.

We can agree that these are pretty objectively good traits.

There's no such thing as "perfect" in nature.
The word perfect doesn't meant "the best" it means "complete."
You can't engineering completion because nothing exists in stasis.

A decrease in genetic diversity means a decrease in the species' ability to respond to environmental pressures.

All you're doing is creating a race of "muh dicks" that will categorically get wiped out by some meme pollen or something.

Is sickle cell a bad gene? You have to deal with some bad shit if you have it, but if some super strain of malaria ever evolves the people with sickle cell have the best chance of survival.

Perfect genetics can't exist as long as people have lifespans.

If we're to prevent civilization from collapsing while continuing with a non-transhumanist direction, then we need to firmly re-establish bifurcated gender roles where 1 genetically perfect alpha fathers children with 3-4 women. Age 17; kids depart home at which point the weakest 1/3-1/4 of men die in the jungle and the alphas find the most beautiful women they can bear children with.

Or we can opt out of mother nature's blind cruelty by applying our understanding to direct change.

At a retard conviction you'd get the blue ribbon

Coping with "what if" scenarios is a waste of time

>opt out of nature

The 18th century called they want their "understanding" back.

>literature

sage and report faggot

Humanity won't be purely natural once it supplants aimlessly evolved traits with artificial, selected editing. Making yourself perfect will be as easy as straightening a painting hanging crooked.

Who gives a shit, this thread is more fun than the shit in the catalog.

>Philosophical discussions can be posted on either Veeky Forums or Veeky Forums.

Read the rules and fuck off.

we already don't live in nature
we don't undergo natural selection, just sexual selection

any system can be defined on a gradient scale from robust to fragile.
any individual and their DNA can also then be robust or fragile
it's completely possible to genetically engineer a thing to be astoundingly robust(if genetic engineering was an available technology)

natural selection causes a huge number of sacrifices to made to accomplish its goal of passing on its self-replicating chemical tape
such as survival in extreme scarcity encouraging designs that are energy conserving, but at the direct cost of muscle strength
natural selection wasn't capable of making all of these changes in one clean motion to form an overall benefit.
it accomplishes one change at one point in time, and then later makes another change at another point in time, creating an overwhelmingly expensive energy consuming but highly advanced nervous system that is completely at odds with survival in an extreme scarcity environment it dealt with earlier

genetic engineering, being not under these restrictions and limitations that natural selection had, can accomplish so much more. especially as the goal of genetic engineering translates the goal of genetics from the survival of self-replicating chemical tape to the survival, health, and well-being of the individual

with genetic engineering you could create perfection. there would be no meme pollen the individual, the superman, couldn't overcome.

and genetic engineering would still be wrong