Joseph 1 wrote:
> I would argue that yes, there are indeed individuals whose genetic
> contribution to the gene pool would be better off left unmade, just as there
> are individuals whose genetic contribution would be so valuable that it
> would constitute a "duty" to the species as a whole to make sure it was
> passed to further generations. But the criteria would be physical and
> mental, not ethnic.
Actually, it often makes sense to cross breed genetically distant individuals (i.e. members of different enthnicities).
For instance, lets say there are two breeds of sheep. Breed A grows wool very quickly, and breed B grows wool very thickly. And if you cross breed the two breeds, some of the offspring will have the desired characteristics of both groups. So ethnic / racial factors should not be entirely ignored.