>>5927>This is why I advocate for mandatory screening for potetnial parents.>Too many adults producing new human life with shitty geneticsFrom a biological point of view this is a bad idea because such a praxis would in effect have the result of slowly shrinking the human genetic pool. That's a path to extinction. Narrow genetics will lack the wealth of adaptations that may not be beneficial now, but prove to be a key for survival in the future.
It's also bad for society, if you deny somebody the right to reproduction, you create an evolutionary incentive to kill you. Which people as evolved organisms will do. Eugenics creates a powerful survival pressure to be violent enough to frustrate reproduction bans. Look at the 20th century when some people tried to implement eugenics in a major way it got really violent.
Also the people who decide whether genes gets a pass in the screening will be evolutionary incentivized to pick genetics based on similarity to their own genetic makeup. So you're not selecting for "better genes", you're selecting for a set of arbitrary genes.
Your premise is also flawed on a more fundamental level, there is no such thing as "better genes". Genes can be better in some environment and worse in another. So the measure of genes is how well they are adapted to the environment. But it's not as simple as that, you can't really predict what the environment will look like. Not for the life span of individual humans and certainly not for the life span of the species.
However genetic modification may be used to improve healthcare, but not by removing genes, but instead by adding fixes or by changing existing gene expression. Using modern medical technology , instead of crude methods related to selective breeding.
Modern genetic modification technology allows for reversing genetic changes if they prove to be detrimental to the patient.
If you can ensure that patient well being is the sole consideration and all other consideration are forcefully excluded with extreme prejudice, this could be good. You would also have to proceed with a moderate pace guided by patience and caution since all our current ideas about biological ideals are likely to be mostly nonsense. It has been that way with pretty much all scientific processes. The ideas we go in usually bear no resemblance with the ideas we come out after rigorous scientific processes have taken place.