How Do Eugenics Address The Line Between Utopia And Dystopia

Eugenics: Addressing the Line Between Utopia and Dystopia Many biologists/geneticists are in favor of eugenics due to the possibility of advancing the human race, limiting disease, and decreasing the occurrence of negative mutations, while others believe eugenic practices are unethical, useless, and have more potential for harm. Eugenic practices have proven to be extremely controversial, so I will focus on discussing the potential impacts of eugenics on the human body, society, and morality. Modern eugenic practices consist of two types of gene alteration: negative genetic engineering, which is the process of removing genes to combat disease, and gene therapy, which improves one 's genetic make-up (Hix, 2009, para. 4). Both methods of eugenics are equally controversial and equally promising.
Gene therapy has been used to

However, genetically altering humans to be more intelligent could result in economic and social failure. If every person on earth was highly intelligent, who would work at a gas station, grocery store, or any other service job? Who would work as a farmer, mechanic, or plumber? In order for an economy to function properly, there must be a hierarchical system of jobs. Even if everybody was amazingly intelligent, there are not enough jobs for everyone to be a scientist or engineer. A smarter mankind could create a huge demand for workers in the service industry, a demand that may not be met due to a lack of willing workers. Without a functioning service industry, the economy would likely collapse.
Eugenic practices also have massive moral implications and force people to answer some difficult ethical questions. In relation to the idea of using eugenics to increase mankind’s intelligence, who would have the authority to decide which people are smart enough to reproduce and which aren 't? In cases of disability, who would have the authority to prohibit a mother from giving birth to a child with autism, down syndrome, or asperger