Eugenics can be kinda broad, but Eugenics as we know it is typically defined by scientific and culture endeavors amid relatively primitive scientific means. In fact eugenics seems to be viewed differently from generation to culture to scientific possibility. It's been a medical philosophy, social and cultural one among others.
For example to improve genetic quality of humans at some point was only achievable by selective breeding, sterilization of people or just plain mass execution.
These days the hot button issue is genetically modifying, turning some things off and others on, while the baby is being formed. This may have some existentially debatable implications but it isn't "horrific" than say, mass execution or forced sterilization.
In the future, it's conceivable that the idea behind eugenics would be viewed through a lens of not only more civilized science, but more civilized culture.
Genetically "fixing" a child shown to have down syndrome in it's early development in the womb could be considered a eugenics-esque concept, and I doubt anyone would bat an eyelash at it.
Then again, words seem to change with times as well, while the history of eugenics lends itself to kind of a broad definition it's also conceivable that the word itself could grow into only meaning more negative aspect of genetic manipulation thus becoming a bad word, fixing down syndrome in a fetus = a medical must while manipulating gene's for enhanced superiority ala "gattaca" = eugenics.
For example to improve genetic quality of humans at some point was only achievable by selective breeding, sterilization of people or just plain mass execution.
These days the hot button issue is genetically modifying, turning some things off and others on, while the baby is being formed. This may have some existentially debatable implications but it isn't "horrific" than say, mass execution or forced sterilization.
In the future, it's conceivable that the idea behind eugenics would be viewed through a lens of not only more civilized science, but more civilized culture.
Genetically "fixing" a child shown to have down syndrome in it's early development in the womb could be considered a eugenics-esque concept, and I doubt anyone would bat an eyelash at it.
Then again, words seem to change with times as well, while the history of eugenics lends itself to kind of a broad definition it's also conceivable that the word itself could grow into only meaning more negative aspect of genetic manipulation thus becoming a bad word, fixing down syndrome in a fetus = a medical must while manipulating gene's for enhanced superiority ala "gattaca" = eugenics.
