For all of the genetic disorders and diseases that seem to be rooted in family history, would there be significantly less people with these disorders after 1 generation, if anyone with a trace of these problems in their genetics were not allowed to reproduce. If you had even a slight portion of your genetics with the chance of developing cystic fibrosis, if you did not pass those genes on to children, they would not have the chance, and their children would not have the chance either. Sure, that family tree would not be able to grow, but it would create more room for the healthier family trees to grow in the genetic forest. Instead of fixing problems as they arise in people, and prescribing new medication for more widespread problems, these people with the problems could not exist. And future generations would be safer.

Yes, but wouldn't it be cruel to restrict people from reproducing based on their genetics?

Only one generation would have to be restricted. People do it to dogs all of the time.

But who is to say who should and should not reproduce? Where would it you draw the line? Would we end up only allowing people with no family history of any disorder at all reproducing? If we draw a line somewhere who gets to decide where to draw it? And if we go this route and eradicate genes for genetic disorders, what about good genes in those same people? Would they be lost too?

 

Also people are not dogs.

Why is it that some people, who would normally understand the basic idea that biodiversity is a good thing, forget it when they consider humans?

 

Incidentally, Arnknd,

there's a very good chance that your genome contains "faults" that some would want to see selected out.

How happy would you be with that?

It's not at all as simple as good gene-bad gene; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110428123931.htm

What if your gene had traces of disorders. Would you be happy?

We've already defeated smallpox with out the restricted breeding, why not pursue that avenue instead of eugenics?

Yeah, better to have our medical technology advance instead.

 

Some of these disorders also shine light onto our genetic history and novel gene expression.

What about the good genes in people with disease in their Genetics?

You can't just prevent the ones with bad genes from not reproducing.

And what about diseases that you don't get genetically?

And what about diseases that you don't get genetically?

To be fair, he did say "some" in the title.

The real problem is that he doesn't actually have a proposal that would work for those diseases that are genetic.