NationStates Jolt Archive

I mean "250 years from now" eugenics, such as scanning embryos for autism and Down's Syndrome and removing them. I didn't mean Nazi eugenics.

I apologise for any confusion and strife I've caused. And this is probably as close as you'll ever get to an apology from me, so savour it.

All eugenics means is good genes really (the Nazis vilified the word). Or, of good provenance more literally. If it is a mechanism of removing various mental and physical illnesses and furthering human evolution, I am all for it.

Main Entry: eu·gen·ics
Pronunciation: yu-'je-niks
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed

Yep, it doesn't mean killing people, no need to apologize.

I mean "250 years from now" eugenics, such as scanning embryos for autism and Down's Syndrome and removing them. I didn't mean Nazi eugenics.

I apologise for any confusion and strife I've caused. And this is probably as close as you'll ever get to an apology from me, so savour it.

You're aware, as an Aspie(sp?) you're unlikely to "make the cut", right? But, I suppose it wouldn't matter to you, you'd just be a bad memory of your mothers.

If you're comfortable with that, then I guess it's fair. :)

You're aware, as an Aspie(sp?) you're unlikely to "make the cut", right? But, I suppose it wouldn't matter to you, you'd just be a bad memory of your mothers.

If you're comfortable with that, then I guess it's fair. :)
Wouldn't eugenics at its ultimate level seek to rectify the genetic flaw rather than destroy the embryo altogether?

MUST you create a new thread for everything you say? Do you think we enjoy it or something?

Wouldn't eugenics at its ultimate level seek to rectify the genetic flaw rather than destroy the embryo altogether?
If you got rid of every embryo with a flaw, you'd have no embryos. So yes, you're correct.

MUST you create a new thread for everything you say? Do you think we enjoy it or something?
The topic he brings up is hardly unmeritorious of debate. So he has a point.

If you got rid of every embryo with a flaw, you'd have no embryos. So yes, you're correct.
Indeed. It would assume a high level of technology, but if eugenics were to mean that in practice, I have no qualms with it.

Indeed. It would assume a high level of technology, but if eugenics were to mean that in practice, I have no qualms with it.
In fact, if we were to pursue eugenics in such a way, we'd probably end up using science to re-write portions of the genetic code of already full-grown beings to improve it.

Heck, if someone offered me a treatment to make me stronger, faster, smarter, and better looking(if that is even possible), then I'd be all for it :p

In fact, if we were to pursue eugenics in such a way, we'd probably end up using science to re-write portions of the genetic code of already full-grown beings to improve it.

Heck, if someone offered me a treatment to make me stronger, faster, smarter, and better looking(if that is even possible), then I'd be all for it :p

Well, we gotta ask ourselves: do we want to merely eliminate things like autism, or do we also cut out traits that are merely undesirable, like baldness?

In fact, if we were to pursue eugenics in such a way, we'd probably end up using science to re-write portions of the genetic code of already full-grown beings to improve it.
Exactly. :)

Heck, if someone offered me a treatment to make me stronger, faster, smarter, and better looking(if that is even possible), then I'd be all for it :p
Indeed. If it can make us better, why not?

Well, we gotta ask ourselves: do we want to merely eliminate things like autism, or do we also cut out traits that are merely undesirable, like baldness?
Why not go all the way? There is nothing morally wrong about eliminating baldness or improving oneself.

Well, we gotta ask ourselves: do we want to merely eliminate things like autism, or do we also cut out traits that are merely undesirable, like baldness?
Death to baldness, I say!

To think I could someday lose my beautiful, thick hair like my father lost his is unthinkable!

Why not go all the way? There is nothing morally wrong about eliminating baldness or improving oneself.
Yeah. We could even push in for personnalized aesthetic changes, not unlike today's plastic surgery, or epilation, or whatever.

Not having to shave each morning sounds like a blessing to me. Too bad this will probably remain sci-fi material during our lifetimes.

Yeah. We could even push in for personnalized aesthetic changes, not unlike today's plastic surgery, or epilation, or whatever.

Not having to shave each morning sounds like a blessing to me. Too bad this will probably remain sci-fi material during our lifetimes.
Or maybe not. Science is advancing rapidly. Advances like this could completely reverse ageing, allow people to customise their appearance and so on. It would be fun to see it happening in this lifetime.

Death to baldness, I say!

To think I could someday lose my beautiful, thick hair like my father lost his is unthinkable!

Actually, baldness skips a generation on your mother's side. Did your mother's father have baldness? Then you're fucked.

Actually, baldness skips a generation on your mother's side. Did your mother's father have baldness? Then you're fucked.
Then I won't get it. :)

Well, we gotta ask ourselves: do we want to merely eliminate things like autism, or do we also cut out traits that are merely undesirable, like baldness?

Why eliminate autism when it might be possible to combine the benefits of milder autistic spectrum disorders (ADHD and Asperger's) with a neurotypical brain, and thus create superthinkers? Imagine being able to control an ADD person's 'super focus', oh the power, oh the... Hey! That dog has a fluffy tail! *runs off*

Actually, baldness skips a generation on your mother's side. Did your mother's father have baldness? Then you're fucked.
He only got bald as he got much older. Past his fourties. Does that mean I'm fucked, but only in about 20 years?

Or maybe not. Science is advancing rapidly. Advances like this could completely reverse ageing, allow people to customise their appearance and so on. It would be fun to see it happening in this lifetime.

Yeah, cuz if I could look like I'm 16 the rest of my life, I could boink 16 year olds for the rest of my life... score!

Yeah, cuz if I could look like I'm 16 the rest of my life, I could boink 16 year olds for the rest of my life... score!
Yeah, something like that.

Yeah, cuz if I could look like I'm 16 the rest of my life, I could boink 16 year olds for the rest of my life... score!
I'd choose my actual 22 years old over 16, though. At least now I have my adult body, yet still have the endless energy of youth.

I'd choose my actual 22 years old over 16, though. At least now I have my adult body, yet still have the endless energy of youth.
So would I. Looking like a teen for the rest of my life would not be something I'd want.

Heck, if someone offered me a treatment to make me stronger, faster, smarter, and better looking(if that is even possible), then I'd be all for it :p

Wasn't there a movie made about this? Didn't it turn out with unequal rights for the unmodified or something?

Just food for thought.

It sounds good, but consider the potential reprocussions. Let's say you come from a poor family. They only have enough money to make you 78% perfect, while rich kids are made 99% perfect. People would NEVER move up in life because those richer then you would always be smarter, more charasmatic etc. Futhermore, I don't think I have to reiterate the old "if everyone's 'normal' life would be boring" shtick. I'm not saying this stuff is bad.It has the potential to do a lot of good for people with mental disorders that impair their life. We just need to think A LOT about what could happen.

Wasn't there a movie made about this? Didn't it turn out with unequal rights for the unmodified or something?

Just food for thought.
There are even books about it. Personally, I don't buy what they say. I'd rather have the power to customise my gene pool as I see fit than not have it.

Eugenics should not be used to fix something that can be done naturally, However proper incurable diseases would be good to fix.


Also; Cosmetics shouldn't be allowed, not true cosmetics like jaw shape, height etc. things like balding, skin pores etc i guess would be fine.

It sounds good, but consider the potential reprocussions. Let's say you come from a poor family. They only have enough money to make you 78% perfect, while rich kids are made 99% perfect. People would NEVER move up in life because those richer then you would always be smarter, more charasmatic etc. Futhermore, I don't think I have to reiterate the old "if everyone's 'normal' life would be boring" shtick.
Each person's version of perfection varies. You would still see diversity. And you could move up if you worked to make the money to further your...perfection. The rich are still a minority, and thus can by no means fill all jobs out there.

There are even books about it. Personally, I don't buy what they say. I'd rather have the power to customise my gene pool as I see fit than not have it.
Yeah. Every guy would like to have an extra inch or two down there, if you know what I mean.

Yeah. Every guy would like to have an extra inch or two down there, if you know what I mean.
I'd rather have an extra inch or two in me, if you know what I mean. :p

Wasn't there a movie made about this? Didn't it turn out with unequal rights for the unmodified or something?

Just food for thought.

Yeah, Gattaca. But in their vision, sex was completely eliminated in favour of basically constructing an embryo. I envision modifying an embryo post-conception.

And you could move up if you worked to make the money to further your...perfection.
Assuming this could be done during post-embryonic stages...which I doubt.

Yeah, Gattaca. But in their vision, sex was completely eliminated in favour of basically constructing an embryo. I envision modifying an embryo post-conception.
Yep. And even so, you can always work to earn more money to further your perfection, as I said.

Assuming this could be done during post-embryonic stages...which I doubt.
Technology knows no limit. Once it advances enough it may well be possible, although not in the near-future. So perhaps pre-embryonic eugenics should be disallowed until post-embryonic eugenics can take place too.

Yeah. Every guy would like to have an extra inch or two down there, if you know what I mean.
Just if you need it...

Just if you need it...
Humans are never happy with what they have. ;)

Technology knows no limit. Once it advances enough it may well be possible, although not in the near-future. So perhaps pre-embryonic eugenics should be disallowed until post-embryonic eugenics can take place too.

I hate how humans always underestimate technology. In the last 100 years, we've advanced more than in the rest of our history combined. In 4000 years, anything will be possible.

I hate how humans always underestimate technology. In the last 100 years, we've advanced more than in the rest of our history combined. In 4000 years, anything will be possible.
So do I. Give it 1000 years, and most things will be possible, let alone 4000. That is if we don't annihilate ourselves in the mean time or regress in any way. :)

I'd choose my actual 22 years old over 16, though. At least now I have my adult body, yet still have the endless energy of youth.

Yeah, I'd go for how I look now, at 21, but I'm sure some people would still assume I'm 16.

Why not go all the way? There is nothing morally wrong about eliminating baldness or improving oneself.

Define 'improved'.

A narrow band of 'good' traits leads to a narrow band of humanity.

How many truly exceptional people will never be born because of a flaw elsewhere in their genome?

I was only half way bothered by your idea of using eugenics, (especially since your idea is not viable at present) and by the fact that you obviously had no idea why it was considered such a reprehensible program (that is, that the Nazi's had designs on using eugenics to create a master race and commit genocide).

I am considerably more upset about your unconscionable view of homosexuality, and the fact that, despite so many people explaining why you were wrong, you continued to insist that homosexuality was a problem that needed to be removed from the species, and by extension that homosexuals themselves are somehow wrong or bad. You may be thinking that this is a goal to be aimed for in the future (it is not), but what it says about your attitude in the present, frankly (and I am sorry to say it, but Aspergers does not in any way mitigate it) sucks.

So I will accept your apology about not having a clue what you were talking about so not understanding why you were so offensive with the eugenics thing... but as I have not heard you back down from your prejudice against homosexuality, I have trouble finding it terribly sincere.

but as I have not heard you back down from your prejudice against homosexuality, I have trouble finding it terribly sincere.

Oh, I never backed down about that. Just because some people deal with and are happy with their sexuality, doesn't mean it is something we can't, or shouldn't, change. I think it should be up to the parent's to decide whether homosexuality, or other disorders/diseases/syndromes/anomalies/whatever should be removed.

I realize you did not... and that is terribly sad.

Once again... homosexuality is not a disease. It is not a disorder. In that 10% of the population are homosexual, it is also not an anomalie. Roughly the same percentage are left handed. Would you say that needs to be cured too?

Some people have red hair. Some have black skin. Some are tall. Some are good at sports. Some have musical talent. Some are better adapted to cold weather. Diversity. It's a good thing.

Oh, and some are not prejudiced. Those are the best ones.

I doubt that 10% of the pop. is homosexual. That would mean about 650,000,000 people, which approaches the pop. of Europe.

Look, all I'm saying is that one day, take it a century, a millenia, or ten millenia, embryo, modification will exist, and we will be able to screen out disorders, diseases and anomalies. And homosexuality will be one of them, and if the doctor told me and my wife that the embryo she was carrying would become a homosexual person, and that the trait could be removed, I'd agree to it. Simple enough?

I doubt that 10% of the pop. is homosexual. That would mean about 650,000,000 people, which approaches the pop. of Europe.

Look, all I'm saying is that one day, take it a century, a millenia, or ten millenia, embryo, modification will exist, and we will be able to screen out disorders, diseases and anomalies. And homosexuality will be one of them, and if the doctor told me and my wife that the embryo she was carrying would become a homosexual person, and that the trait could be removed, I'd agree to it. Simple enough?

Yes... and scary.
If the doctor told you the embryo's intelligence will most likely not exceed 100, would you modify that as well?
If he told you the embryo might need glasses from age 10 on due to shortsightedness, would you remove it?

Would you settle for anything less than the "perfect" baby? Would you have any tolerance for people who don't want a "perfect" child, but a natural one, which in turn might imcommodate you slightly?
How far away would that be from the movie "Gattaca", or even "Brave New World"?

If the doctor told you the embryo's intelligence will most likely not exceed 100, would you modify that as well?
If he told you the embryo might need glasses from age 10 on due to shortsightedness, would you remove it?

Would you settle for anything less than the "perfect" baby? Would you have any tolerance for people who don't want a "perfect" child, but a natural one, which in turn might imcommodate you slightly?

Why let the child, or myself for that matter, suffer? If science can fix it, let it be fixed.

I doubt that 10% of the pop. is homosexual. That would mean about 650,000,000 people, which approaches the pop. of Europe.

Look, all I'm saying is that one day, take it a century, a millenia, or ten millenia, embryo, modification will exist, and we will be able to screen out disorders, diseases and anomalies. And homosexuality will be one of them, and if the doctor told me and my wife that the embryo she was carrying would become a homosexual person, and that the trait could be removed, I'd agree to it. Simple enough?

Simple, certainly, but hopefully by the time it is possible, we will have evolved to the point where we realize it is unnecessary. Sadly, you will not get over your prejudice, and I hope for their sake that you never have a homosexual child.

Why let the child, or myself for that matter, suffer? If science can fix it, let it be fixed.

What if you knew that he would be dark skinned. Would you have that fixed? What if he were a lefty. Lefties are in the minority. How about if it were possible that your child might be inclined towards being a liberal?

What if you knew that he would be dark skinned. Would you have that fixed? What if he were a lefty. Lefties are in the minority. How about if it were possible that your child might be inclined towards being a liberal?

If he's dark skinned, my wife's cheating on me, in which case she do whatever the hell she wants with the child.

His politics are unimportant to me.

What if you were to have a child today who, in 19 years came to you and said "Dad, I am a homosexual." Would you say to him "I wish I could have fixed that before you were born"? Or would you say "I love you"?

What if you were to have a child today who, in 19 years came to you and said "Dad, I am a homosexual." Would you say to him "I wish I could have fixed that before you were born"? Or would you say "I love you"?

I probably wouldn't say anything.

Ever again?

Ever again?

Pfhhh, I dunno. I don't care.

The problem of eugenics is that if people can choose what traits they can have, it could kill the diversity of the human race. No longer do they have the excuse "I was born that way, I didn't choose to be x", because they did, or their parents did. Not a world that I'd like to live in, where those who want to be different are outcasts.

Wouldn't eugenics at its ultimate level seek to rectify the genetic flaw rather than destroy the embryo altogether?
How do we determine what is a genetic flaw and what is genetic diversity?

There is nothing morally wrong about eliminating baldness or improving oneself.Why not eliminate the stigma against bald people instead?

In 4000 years, anything will be possible.If we last that long.

I think it should be up to the parent's to decide whether homosexuality, or other disorders/diseases/syndromes/anomalies/whatever should be removed.And why shouldn't the parents have the right post-birth, as well?

Why let the child, or myself for that matter, suffer?Who's to say that the child would suffer from having below average intelligence or from needing vision correction?

The problem is that if we start manipulating genes, it's going to have unforseen consequences. For every genetic sequence that codes for X protein added or removed, that could have a seriously unforseen domino effect.

The problem of eugenics is that if people can choose what traits they can have, it could kill the diversity of the human race. No longer do they have the excuse "I was born that way, I didn't choose to be x", because they did, or their parents did. Not a world that I'd like to live in, where those who want to be different are outcasts.

This sounds very much like a bridge to cross once we get there. It's easy to sit back and pick all of the flaws in a perfectly good idea, but the reality is that there will be over 6 billion creative minds to overcome that pickle. To compare, imagine criticising the imminent release anti-biotics (back in the dark ages before it was released) with; "but then there would be too many old/sick people cluttering soceity and the gene pool. The result would be a population filled with non-productive retirees, and a developing gene strain entirely dependant upon these drugs. Better to let nature do its work, and let 'genetic diversity' decide who lives and who dies".

Dude whats wrong with Autism? Grrr.
Einstein had it you know.

In my opinion Eugenics is stupid cos...
We need faults.
It builds charecter.
If it werent for my dyspraxia i wouldnt have gotten into computers as much, and wouldve chosen Baaaad gsce's and failed em probobly

If it werent for my Asperger Syndrome i wouldnt have gone "... fuck this im not being different" and tried uuuber hard to fit in and wouldnt have met any of my current friends or my GF.
Besides, its just a syndrome that makes you really really logical and unable to interprate emotions as much. but because of it i became really really interested and so i wanna be a psychiatrist or councillor now :) so in short.
Dont mess about.
Sure, sort our heart and cancer problems
But leave shit where it is.

I doubt that 10% of the pop. is homosexual. That would mean about 650,000,000 people, which approaches the pop. of Europe.

And yet, 10% of the population is homosexual, just like 10% of the population is left-handed.

You're still limiting bio-diversity. That reduces chances of adaptation. It also eliminates the need to adapt and that would suck, horribly horribly suck, because it's what has gotten us here in the first place.

The problem is that if we start manipulating genes, it's going to have unforseen consequences. For every genetic sequence that codes for X protein added or removed, that could have a seriously unforseen domino effect.

Exactly. People tend to view to eugenics as some kind of car tuning - replace a faulty tube with a better one, and the engine will run smoother.
But it isn´t.
The same gene that furthers autism, f.e., might also play a vital part in the development of kidneys. Or play a vital part in the immune system´s answer to the virus that would kill thousands when it appears in, say, 50 years. Or 500.
We don´t know.
We simply do not know enough about genetics and the intricate organic machinery forming our body. Tampering with genes with our current knowledge would be like tampering with a Formula 1 V12 engine when you barely understand a simple two-stroke engine.

Pfhhh, I dunno. I don't care.

And that is probably the saddest thing of all. Because what it really means is that your prejudice is so strong that it would turn you away from your own child.

THIS is why I found your original apology on this thread to be insincere, and now find it to be frivolous. I don't believe that you truly CARE that eugenics is about genocide. It certainly seems that you ARE pushing for a move towards a master race, and that is unforgivable. And, as you, yourself would have been one of the first eliminated, rather pitiable too.

And that is probably the saddest thing of all. Because what it really means is that your prejudice is so strong that it would turn you away from your own child.

THIS is why I found your original apology on this thread to be insincere, and now find it to be frivolous. I don't believe that you truly CARE that eugenics is about genocide. It certainly seems that you ARE pushing for a move towards a master race, and that is unforgivable. And, as you, yourself would have been one of the first eliminated, rather pitiable too.

Hey, give the man a break. It takes balls to promote a genocide that includes yourself. Big balls. Steven Colbert's balls.

Hey, give the man a break. It takes balls to promote a genocide that includes yourself. Big balls. Steven Colbert's balls.

You do make a point... :)

Dude whats wrong with Autism? Grrr.
Einstein had it you know.

So does K-P... ;)

Allegedly

So does K-P... ;)

Allegedly

Is K-P the new einstein then? :eek:

Nice one

Is K-P the new einstein then? :eek:

Nice one

I doubt it. :D

Thank you. It's not a pick at his credibility but it's the internet, anyone can lie.

The problem is that if we start manipulating genes, it's going to have unforseen consequences. For every genetic sequence that codes for X protein added or removed, that could have a seriously unforseen domino effect.
Everything has had consequences that we didn't or couldn't predict.
Computers, for instance. With computers, people can steal large amounts of money at high speed, or take someone else's identity, much more easily than before. Does this make computers bad?
Or, looking at a much broader and much older topic, chemistry. If nobody ever bothered to seriously study chemistry, we wouldn't have had massacres with poison gasses in WWII, we might not have understood chemistry enough to produce the nuclear bomb, etc. Should we not have began the study of chemistry?

It isn't just Einstein. Tons of people who went on to do great things had mental disorders. (http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Helpline1&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=4858) I definitely support being able to stop a child from being born with a horrible disease that by default will make them unable to function at least somewhat in society (sever autism, mental retardation, etc.). But changing what politial persuasion someone has using genetics? That's wrong. We'd be building a generation of sheep.

Hey, give the man a break. It takes balls to promote a genocide that includes yourself. Big balls. Steven Colbert's balls.

Well, the original plan involved blowing my own head off after the job was done.

It isn't just Einstein. Tons of people who went on to do great things had mental disorders. (http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Helpline1&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=4858) I definitely support being able to stop a child from being born with a horrible disease that by default will make them unable to function at least somewhat in society (sever autism, mental retardation, etc.). But changing what politial persuasion someone has using genetics? That's wrong. We'd be building a generation of sheep.

A lot of evil people have had mental disorders too. Hitler, for example.

You're aware, as an Aspie(sp?) you're unlikely to "make the cut", right? But, I suppose it wouldn't matter to you, you'd just be a bad memory of your mothers.

If you're comfortable with that, then I guess it's fair. :)

2 things, I'm not convinced that Aspergers Syndrome is an illness, and I'm also not convinced that Kievian-Prussia is Aspergic.

2 things, I'm not convinced that Aspergers Syndrome is an illness, and I'm also not convinced that Kievian-Prussia is Aspergic.

1) Well, then, you're stupid. Or ignorant.

2) Believe what you want, it doesn't change fact.

1) Well, then, you're stupid. Or ignorant.
Actually I'm neither.

2) Believe what you want, it doesn't change fact.
To the extent it is true, I am aware of this fact, are you?

Actually, baldness skips a generation on your mother's side. Did your mother's father have baldness? Then you're fucked.
Actually, my grandpa on my mothers' side was spear-bald at 24 years old.
I'm 33 and i still have a FULL head of hair. Not even grays.

Yeah. Every guy would like to have an extra inch or two down there, if you know what I mean.
Nah, bigger testicles are a LOT MORE trouble than they are benefit. Trust me.
Otherwise, i don't know what you mean.

Originally Posted by Kievan-Prussia
Actually, baldness skips a generation on your mother's side. Did your mother's father have baldness? Then you're fucked.

Actually, my grandpa on my mothers' side was spear-bald at 24 years old.
I'm 33 and i still have a FULL head of hair. Not even grays.
That's because the notion that baldness skips a generation on your mother's side is at best a gross misunderstanding, at worst an outright fantasy.

For a start baldness is not soley effected by genetic action.

For a start baldness is not soley effected by genetic action.
Apparently not.

Well, we gotta ask ourselves: do we want to merely eliminate things like autism, or do we also cut out traits that are merely undesirable, like baldness?

We should go well beyond all that; yes remove all negative and undesirable traits but also carefully select genes to enhance the future generations. Bio-technology taken far enough to gain control of and speed up our evolution (in a somewhat artificial sense).

Wasn't there a movie made about this? Didn't it turn out with unequal rights for the unmodified or something?

Just food for thought.

Why should the unmodifed get equal rights as the modified? They would hardly be their equals.

We should go well beyond all that; yes remove all negative and undesirable traits but also carefully select genes to enhance the future generations. Bio-technology taken far enough to gain control of and speed up our evolution (in a somewhat artificial sense).
Positive and negative according to who's criteria?

Positive and negative according to who's criteria?

Precisely!

It sounds good, but consider the potential reprocussions. Let's say you come from a poor family. They only have enough money to make you 78% perfect, while rich kids are made 99% perfect. People would NEVER move up in life because those richer then you would always be smarter, more charasmatic etc. Futhermore, I don't think I have to reiterate the old "if everyone's 'normal' life would be boring" shtick. I'm not saying this stuff is bad.It has the potential to do a lot of good for people with mental disorders that impair their life. We just need to think A LOT about what could happen.

"Perfection" is largely relative to the perceiver, so different people will modify their children differently leading to enough diversity to keep life interesting and help society progress (especially since personality would still differ as much as now). Yes the rich would have an even more secure hold on the top; but it would be essentially in the form of an aristocracy of genetically engineered "supermen" who by virtue of their superior intelligence, charisma, and other traits would rightfully lord over the unmodifieds. This seems better than our current system.

Positive and negative according to who's criteria?

It would ideally be the decsion of the parents since that would allow for the most diversity. If it was determined by the state all of the enhanced humans would be too similar; unless this was planned for and a system was constructed based around empirical evidence suggesting what traits allow for prowess at different tasks in which case the population could be divided into different "castes" or roles for different jobs and people of each job would have similar traits to make them competent at them. If personality is determined by genes (I doubt it is) this could also be altered so everyones personality would properly fit the role they were "designed" for to further increase their competence at it and to ensure contentment.