That really depends on how they follow them. For example, eugenics is scientifically sound. It’s morally depraved in practice, but the scientific method doesn’t account for ethics.
Is it though? Time and again it’s been shown that having a very wide basic genetic options is the healthiest for a species. Evolution favors adaptability.
Now if you’re talking about weeding out and genetic issues, diseases, and known problems, yes. We do that today.
It works if you know the traits you’re trying to optimize for and don’t care about the mistakes. We don’t know that for humans, and we do care.
I think you’re mistaking science for psychopathy. Proper science would recognize that humans are social creatures and therefore our actions have impact across society, and we need to take that into account.
Also, try and breed two very smart people. You rarely get a stable smarter person.
That really depends on how they follow them. For example, eugenics is scientifically sound. It’s morally depraved in practice, but the scientific method doesn’t account for ethics.
Is it though? Time and again it’s been shown that having a very wide basic genetic options is the healthiest for a species. Evolution favors adaptability.
Now if you’re talking about weeding out and genetic issues, diseases, and known problems, yes. We do that today.
Through gene therapy, yes. Eugenics implies selective breeding. It clearly works, look at any domestic animal. It’s an ethical nightmare though.
I’m looking at a pug right now. Uhhhhh…
It works if you know the traits you’re trying to optimize for and don’t care about the mistakes. We don’t know that for humans, and we do care.
I think you’re mistaking science for psychopathy. Proper science would recognize that humans are social creatures and therefore our actions have impact across society, and we need to take that into account.
Also, try and breed two very smart people. You rarely get a stable smarter person.