I suspect you’re ranting, but I’ll bring up some practical issues.
I’m wouldn’t call it ‘ranting’ but I certainly don’t expect “should not be allowed to reproduce” to be taken literally, nor do I often (ever?) observe cases where people mean such claims as anything other than “I disapprove of that behavior and the type of genetic or cultural heritage that produces it”.
But following up on on the topic of eugenics. Any authority who considered they had the right to say who will reproduce and who will not is unlikely to pass my ‘kill test’. That is to say I would (if convenient) kill them. And kill anyone who tried to stop me from killing them if necessary. The means by which they gained the power in question would not necessarily matter (ie. it would not pass the kill test just because people voted on it).
Mind you, there are situations in which I would approve of eugenics. Most of them do not involve ‘authority’ in any conventional human sense. For example… bizarre situations in which:
FAI is not possible (or available in time)
I personally have access to advanced nanotechnology (eg. I have an Asgard core
There is something which provokes the need for me to take overwhelming unilateral action.
If reproduction is not limited it will contribute to existential threat. Perhaps:
Unconstrained breeding will produce people who are likely to create a uFAI before an FAI is possible.
We are progressing along the inevitable competitive equilibrium of a hardscrabble frontier.
Unconstrained breeding will result in humans devolving and losing that which is valuable about our species (with current selection pressure it probably would, not that it matters.)
Without breeding constraints (either number or in quality) humanity will not even survive to reach for the stars or use the universe in some sort of eudemonic manner.
Basically I consider the ability to dictate reproduction over the course of several generations to be equivalent to seizing absolute control and forming a stable singularity. And then act accordingly.
I’m wouldn’t call it ‘ranting’ but I certainly don’t expect “should not be allowed to reproduce” to be taken literally, nor do I often (ever?) observe cases where people mean such claims as anything other than “I disapprove of that behavior and the type of genetic or cultural heritage that produces it”.
But following up on on the topic of eugenics. Any authority who considered they had the right to say who will reproduce and who will not is unlikely to pass my ‘kill test’. That is to say I would (if convenient) kill them. And kill anyone who tried to stop me from killing them if necessary. The means by which they gained the power in question would not necessarily matter (ie. it would not pass the kill test just because people voted on it).
Mind you, there are situations in which I would approve of eugenics. Most of them do not involve ‘authority’ in any conventional human sense. For example… bizarre situations in which:
FAI is not possible (or available in time)
I personally have access to advanced nanotechnology (eg. I have an Asgard core
There is something which provokes the need for me to take overwhelming unilateral action.
If reproduction is not limited it will contribute to existential threat. Perhaps:
Unconstrained breeding will produce people who are likely to create a uFAI before an FAI is possible.
We are progressing along the inevitable competitive equilibrium of a hardscrabble frontier.
Unconstrained breeding will result in humans devolving and losing that which is valuable about our species (with current selection pressure it probably would, not that it matters.)
Without breeding constraints (either number or in quality) humanity will not even survive to reach for the stars or use the universe in some sort of eudemonic manner.
Basically I consider the ability to dictate reproduction over the course of several generations to be equivalent to seizing absolute control and forming a stable singularity. And then act accordingly.