Denying the opportunity to phase out some of our undesirable genetic disorders

As Natalie Regoli wrote, it's a simple fact that choosing healthy mating partners and controlling the offspring can improve the quality of human life. But when that is not done engineering the genetic makeup of a child can eliminate hereditary conditions that lead to deformities, mental and physical problems. It then acts as a preemptive protection for the child so that he or she will no longer worry about inheriting genetic disorders from his or her ancestry.

Eugenics is already shaping where the next generation wants to go in education, and parents are already using testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering, and we can move on from there, as the deceitful paralyzing of eugenics begins to wind down.

One of the stupidest things humans have been doing at least since World War II is denying the opportunity to phase out some of our undesirable genetic disorders. This also relates to denying the biological origin of social behavior.

Positive eugenics is aimed at increasing desirable traits, while negative eugenics refers to decreasing undesirable traits, but we can't even advocate decreasing undesirable traits without some loudmouth calling us racist.

It is true, as Regoli points out, that engineering desirable offspring is now very expensive. Not many couples can afford hiring a team of geneticists to engineer their next baby. This further widens the gap between the rich and poor, with the rich producing the more dominant and more superior offspring. And down the line eliminating genetic disorders might also produce humans with similar genetic makeup and a shallow gene pool, with a lack of diversity.

But basic human nature is genetically kin and ethnic centered and if idiotic multiculturalism is not forced upon us we naturally separate into ethnostates and diversity naturally continues.

Some of the best thinking on eugenics over the past 30 years comes from Raymond Cattell's book, “Beyondism,” (1987), especially the tightly packed 16^th chapter. I would have future sociobiological research centers built on many of Cattell's ideas, which could then be applied to our religious evolution toward supermaterial Godhood.

For me the deeper more serious problem in blocking eugenics is that it blocks the sacred mission of life evolving to Godhood. We do not launch ourselves out on a goalless adventure of evolution, we need not remove God or Godhood from evolution, our goal is Godhood.

We can learn to prevent the decline and early death of a variety of people, ethnic groups, and societies by understanding the social and biological patterns that bring collapse, and by applying voluntary population control and genetics. We can help prevent negative ends, but we can also civilize the beast and seek positive ends, even as we recognize that competition, separation, and distinctiveness are a good thing on the evolutionary path to Godhood.