The fact that it’s morally wrong (and IMHO objectively evil) does not mean that it wouldn’t be an efficient policy purely from a strict utilitarian angle. Assuming we could actually identify the genetic markers that signal a higher likelihood of preferable traits even if on the whole it would only be e.g. 80% accurate that might still be useful. Individual outliers could just be ignored at minimal cost.
Of course it would be inefficient because it is an extreme oversimplification of what is desirable (which is arguable) and whether or not certain markers would achieve it.
The big mistake that racists and bigots make is in overvaluing whatever they think their own strengths are and undervaluing strengths they don't have.
True. But there are some “low hanging fruits” e.g. if not outright eradicating then at least significantly reducing the prevalence of congenital diseases.
Of course giving the government the right to prevent some individuals from having children is an extremely slippery slope. States that are willing and capable of engaging in such things e.g. ( Communist China back in the 70s ) also tend to be run by extremely misguided and delusional people.
We already test for things like Downs Syndrome which doesn't mean that we stop pregnancy but it tells the parents what to expect.
Since we can do gene therapy to some degree already I imagine we'll fix things that are already known health problems for an individual.
Eventually other things will become possible, including modifications that are not about health. That's where dragons be. We'll at least need rules about modifications that aren't 99% understood and "guaranteed" to do what is wanted. We will also want to ensure some level of genetic diversity - not allowing everyone to make their kids blue eyed.
