Richard DawkinsVerified account

@RichardDawkins we had a child by IVF and the eggs and sperm were screened for everything. Eugenics? She is pretty special! :0)

@RichardDawkins I guess over the long term, it could reduce genetic diversity, if people always pick the trivially "good" genes.

@keefjudge @richarddawkins How would you feel about DEMANDING an able-bodied child? Uh huh. What about one who's heterosexual?

@RichardDawkins Do you think the word "Eugenics" is tainted? Should science try to re-brand non-random genetics under a new term?

@RichardDawkins Careful, Richard...

@richarddawkins None for the individual. Variety preservation for the group. Randomness protects from biases. // @elquedicemiau

@Naikodemus, are you a Mass Effect Reaper? #Suddenly, #fear. // @RichardDawkins

@elquedicemiau Nope. As far as I know. // @richarddawkins

@RichardDawkins is there a worry about the effect that this would have on the gene pool as a whole if everyone were to do it?

@RosiSexton @RichardDawkins Would everyone really choose blue eyes? James is a nice name. Do we all choose it for our sons?

@Ga1act0r @RichardDawkins eyes, not so much. But what about genes claimed to be "associated with" obesity, depression or lower intelligence?

@RosiSexton @RichardDawkins Excellent point. Seems like society has to make sensible choices based upon scientific reasoning.

@Ga1act0r @RichardDawkins I don't know what the answer is, but something to consider carefully, for sure.

@RosiSexton @RichardDawkins There are easy ones (cystic fibrosis), harder ones (blue eyes) and difficult ones (unfounded results).