Hacker News Reader

I think every definition of better is bound to be ego and ideology driven or extremely modest (exactly like their parents except not a Tay Sachs carrier or similar).

Also tyrannical in the long term, I believe future generations have a right to a genome that was made of only their ancestors (and retroviruses I guess). Maybe in 100 years it will be different but not yet.

View on HN

A further point to this- I don't believe our science is advanced enough to define better even in a perfect world where subjective considerations are somehow discarded.

I'm thinking of stuff like people prone to sickle cell anemia having increased malarial resistance.

I believe even an otherworldly morally correct implementation of eugenics would not account for unknown quirks like this and be counter productive in the long term.

No there's plenty of universally good attributes. Not being prone to cancer, death and aging for one. You're trying to shoe horn a complex topic because you're uncomfortable with it. Theres more to it than waffling around idiocy in an attempt to shut down discourse on the topic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com