Alpha made a thread similar to this a couple years back, but I think I'm thinking just different enough to be considered a separate topic. If any mods disagree, do feel free to lock or delete this, or whatever it is you do with ID threads you deem unnecessary.

First, the broad definition of eugenics, "The scientific study of methods for genetically improving the human race". This can range from selective breeding, to genetic screening, to genocide against races someone deems 'genetically unfit'. Eugenics as a whole is a pretty broad topic. Theories of eugenics have been responsible for many atrocities throughout history, the most obvious being the holocaust. But I'd like to think its rather unpleasant history won't affect anyone's judgment of the idea in its entirety. The primary reason I'm currently pondering this topic, is Star Trek. In both the original series and Enterprise, references are made to a "eugenics war", which I believe the original also identified as World War 3. The general idea is, that certain geneticists began engineering genetically superior humans, and I mean vastly superior, like five times normal human strength, superhuman resistance to disease, doubled life expectancy, accelerated intellectual development, etc. Basically the idea of a "super soldier", except not made specifically for war, but as a model for what all humanity would eventually become. The fictional geneticist who started these experiments was also quoted saying, "With superior ability, comes superior ambition", and this geneticist was later murdered by a genetically enhanced human. Then this small faction of these superhumans basically united to take over the planet, and started the war, and then some shit happened... but never mind that. The subject I'm interested in here is the idea of attempting to genetically enhance our species.

Now, I'm guessing I'm not alone in saying I'd be against any sort of mandates on who can or can't have kids, or forced sterilization and euthanasia of those deemed genetically inferior, or abortions of genetically inferior unborn children. What I might not be against however, would be the genetic engineering of specific desirable traits, or removal of undesirable ones in unborn children. I'm actually not entirely sure where I'd stand on this. And I'm not just thinking along the lines of eradicating specific disabilities that are considered abnormal, but actually making a 'better' human race, improving upon normality.

If we discovered that there was a simple genetic alteration we could make in embryos to make the children live an extra 30 years, or be immune to cancer, more resistant to certain toxins, or or any number of improvements on what is currently considered to be 'normal' for a person, should we?

Is there a limit to what sorts of enhancements we should be willing to engineer into ourselves if we wanted to alter our genome in the first place? At what point do we finally say, no, we shouldn't do this, even if we are able? Is there a such thing as a bad improvement? Are there 'flaws' that are worth preserving?

Should we allow that sort of genetic tampering in individuals, even if we don't accept it as a society? Or would the threat of creating a real life Khan be too great to risk using it on anyone if we're not using it on everyone? Would it be safer to improve each generation a little at a time instad of making Khan with his five times human strength, double lifespan, triple intellect, and all that in the first batch of engineered children?

That kinda raises another issue, would we even be able to adequately raise a generation of children who are superior to us? Would they be intelligent adults by the time they understood their superiority? Or would we have stupid 12 year olds with the desire and ability to take over the world?

So I guess the most basic question this all boils down to would be this.

Should we open up this can of worms at all? Are we looking at the bright future of the human race, or a Pandora's Box that we'll never be able to close?