imacentristmoderate,

"Aidan, selective breeding is a less polite way of saying arranged marriage which used to work quite well for most white Europeans about 300 years ago."
NO IT ISN'T!

Arranged marriage was nearly always done for reasons unrelated to genetic traits.

"So forget trying to impose restrictions on our right to improve the human population so our children can have better lives."
That's a right you don't have because it impinges on the rights of others. And (as I have explained) it would be ineffective at giving our children better lives anyway. Technology makes eugenics obsolete.

This article tries to paint a benign picture of eugenics i.e. it's about improvement of people, but it doesn't state who decides, or is the writer simply naive?

Like those supporting eugenics, the later fertility management or family planning seems all fine, but it's not about pro-life vs pro-choice but a class issue, who gets to choose?

Eugenics was of course identified with and as being created by Nazis, but the roots and science originally came from US (and UK), with US magnates leading the way:

'The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics'..... But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Eugenics was the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in twenty-seven states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.' http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796

Not unlike the population growth movement, masquerading as concerned environmentalists for humanity.....

"Aidan, selective breeding is a less polite way of saying arranged marriage which used to work quite well for most white Europeans about 300 years ago."
YES IT IS!

"Why Marriages Fail Today" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct3w-OTg-BE

Take royals, senior aristocrats off the table & everybody else doing arranged marriage was nearly always doing it for reasons directly related to genetic traits.

"The History of Eugenics & Everything "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWSx46u1q0I

"So forget trying to impose restrictions on our right to improve the human population so our children can have better lives."
That's a right you do have, because it is about protecting your daughters from dead beat husbands. And (as I have explained) it would be very effective at giving our children better lives in every way.

Technology does NOT make eugenics obsolete because it is not here yet & it will take at least a century to prove it is safe.

Q, would you like to be reasonable with moderates like myself, or promote a more robust approach from extremists?

Andras Smith, yes leftists always have been evil, but that is not what the article is talking about which is the opposite of Eugenics, namely paying people with genetic defects to breed prolifically & should we be more sensible?

imacenteristmoderate,

Moderates like yourself? I can't imagine any real moderates being anything like you. I thought your name was deliberately ironic – now I wonder if you also consider yourself a centrist despite all your silly anti-left rants?

Links to propaganda videos don't really help your case.

"That's a right you do have, because it is about protecting your daughters from dead beat husbands. And (as I have explained) it would be very effective at giving our children better lives in every way."
Firstly, deadbeat husbands are often like that for reasons other than genetics. Secondly its effectiveness would be virtually zero. And thirdly, when your children grow up your right to protect them is superseded by their right to make their own decisions.

Genetic improvement is a very slow process. Even if technological intervention takes a century to prove it's safe, and even if nobody tries it before it's proved safe (which is less likely), that's still very fast compared to the natural rate of change.

Meanwhile, ignoring compassion and instead relying on genetics would set us back millennia!