> The only thing to add to that, where you have to be slightly careful, is if an animal hasn’t got strong genes. And then you interfere and you allow that animal to procreate. You could potentially be making the gene pool weaker and more susceptible to mange. That’s where you have to be a bit careful. It's interesting that we can talk about this in such an objective and rational way when it involves non-human animal…
On a side note, what constitutes "good genes" nowadays?
The ability to exploit finite natural resources (including human health and lives) in a maximally efficient way? Accumulating as much money as possible?
Would you prefer to reduce human population to a wealthy, healthy remainder and purge all people who cannot sustain themselves?
What does sustaining yourself mean in terms of "benefit to society"?
Is making money by burning fossil fuel - or facilitating and developing systems that (unnecessarily) burn more fossil fuel - a contribution to a "better human gene pool"?
Can sustaining yourself make life worse for others?
Would you approve eugenics, if yes, to what degree?
These are ethical questions as old as humanity.
Overcoming naive social darwinism is arguably one of the reasons that todays "civilized" society can even exist.
I appreciate your comment as a start for a discussion, but I also dislike the implications that I read into it.
People who earn obscene amounts of money and deplete natural resources hardly contribute to an improvement of the human gene pool.
And to me it seems that most people with physical or psychological handicaps that deem them "unfit" already are poor, die young and often don't procreate.