A few years ago someone asked Michael Woodley on the Jolly Heretic whether dysgenics could be reversed by gene-selection technologies. Woodley replied that the answer is almost certainly no, because we have no reason to believe modern people would deliberately choose to have children expressing group-oriented, self-sacrificing traits, especially knowing the group is a bunch of individualistic, materialistic, psychopathic narcissists. We have a lot of reasons to expect individualistic, materialistic, psychopathic narcissists would prefer to have children who will be optimally suited for individual reproductive success at that contemptible group’s expense, which is to say children who are individualistic, materialistic, psychopathic narcissists but also really good looking. And we have precedent:
“Much of modern breeding has been focused predominantly on what dogs look like,” Evan MacLean, an expert on canine cognition at the University of Arizona who was not involved in the study, said in an email. But, he emphasized, “Long before we were breeding dogs for their appearances, we were breeding them for behavioral traits.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/08/science/dog-breed-genetics.html
H/T iSteve. So there you have it, the best-case scenario is human BAP-posting on a scale that would make Sodom and Gomorrah look modest. The worst case, God forbid, is if women are allowed to design their babies, which would result in the human equivalent of purse dogs.
This is what happens when your society’s morality is ontologically grounded in cummies. I.e. Eugenic selection is downstream of true belief in the afterlife. I suppose the only remaining question, this century, is whether belief in the afterlife is 100% downstream from the material economic conditions that drive conflicts between tribes and genetic competitors. Is pain ultimately the only teacher the crowd can understand?
Aeoli Pera 
“Selecting for xyz genes” doesn’t seem as straightforward as many think it to be anyway.
The same gene that causes sickle-cell anemia in Africans also is a gene that helps protect against malaria, which would be close to indispensable in such a tropical environment.
People don’t know what they’re fucking with.
Good point.
<the internet is a eugenic tool in dysgenic hands,/a good example of.
bad people literally can't be given anything "good" to use at their own behest because they are incapable of doing anything good just like a shit apple will stay a shit apple
teach a beaver how to drive a car, one day he will relapse into dam building-itz over…
is there EVEN a work of fiction where for example demons dream of having an angel child ie the bad people realize they are bad and try to aspire to be good preferably sacrificing their entire civilization and everyone in it for just one child? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
I disagree because I agree: modern people are so narcissistic that they will select for traits that actually increase the perceived ‘supply’ (to bolster their false self/sense of grandiosity) from their offspring. That means beauty, yes, but also intelligence and a willingness to put up with the narcissist’s shit.
Some will indeed believe ‘its a dog eat dog world and I want a, a, a, sociopathic traits’. But that will actually be the fathers that want competent sons who become doctors and high level investment bankers and other brands of rich sociopath.
The elites will indeed intentionally select for psychopathy like always.
The tiger moms will force husbant to pay the doctor for good grades for bahbee.
So… we will just have to see which psychological needs win out (and of course, the practical limitations of the technology- IE, it very well may be the case that European genes that increase intelligence could also increase group-orientation, and this could never not be the case as they are encoding for proteins and the structure just is what it is- unless they make a ‘vaccine’ that eats that brain area or something, like how they are trying to ‘solve’ depression).