I'm all for it. Improving the environment is not enough to improve society, the quality of the population should also be improved.
> As the twenty-first century began, human evolution was at a turning point. Natural selection, the process by which the strongest, the smartest, the fastest reproduced in greater numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits.
>Most science fiction of the day predicted a future that was more civilized and more intelligent. But as time went on, things seemed to be heading in the opposite direction — a dumbing down. How did this happen? Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most and left the intelligent to become an endangered species.
>>6832
>Eugenics decreases the genetic variation of humanity
Not all biodiversity is useful, a lot is deleterious or not as good. Considering technology and its implementation prevents its weeding out it's actually harmful not to have some form of artificial selection.
>which may have massive advantages in environmental scenarios we may not have anticipated
Huntington's will never be advantageous. There is plenty of variation this species would be better without. Such as alleles that result in reduced cognitive ability compared to its variants.
The only allelic diversity we should conserve code for functional immunological factors. And that can be done with a robust eugenics program, actually the program would have a better track record than with the absence of such population control as we are not under Hardy Weinberg Equilibrium conditions.