Obviously, as long as it defines what is normal. What is healthy? What is rational? You claim to know these. Two conditions in which I am willing to decide what someone needs regardless of their wants is when they are unable to communicate what they want (e.g. animals) or I am responsible of imposing my will over them (e.g. parenting). And both can sometimes be mildly arrogant.
Regardless of what I think, I have certain needs, because of my very biology and physiology. I can train myself to eat less, if I want to, but eventually I will die if I continue to refuse food. That is not to say that people should be force-fed, but that I don't see why we should do the opposite: forcefully deny them of food (and the rest: water, shelter, nurturing environment, etc...). I'd say providing those needs is very compassionate, rather than arrogant, and the opposite behaviour is violent and despotic.
How is eugenics decoupled from reality? It's a fact that eliminating the weak from the gene pool will result in a healthier population. There is nothing unscientific about that.
There is, and a lot. First of all, their definition of weak is highly speculative and not scientifically supported. Some eugenics programs
wanted to get rid of homosexuals. What is the scientific rational behind that? Secondly, the goal is to maximise well being, which includes social relations, how well we interact with each other and how we feel. If, for example, somebody feels remorse because other people actuated a eugenic program of somebody they know, they will feel sorrow, despair, and other negative emotions, which result in an unstable psycho-physical condition, and that can be measured, studied and verified scientifically.
Just because the mainstream view of science is very narrow and simplistic, it doesn't mean that it reflects what science really is. If you think that there is nothing scientifically wrong with eugenics programs, it means that you have a very limited understanding of what science is.
I think it's the same two fallacies. (1) You can't actually know what healthy is, and (2) you don't know enough about how it all works.
Yes we do. We don't know what healthy is
in its entirety, but the same goes for aerodynamics, physics, medicine, engineering, etc. I don't see you complaining about people building cellphones, flatscreens and giving you antibiotics.
Suppose you claim to have the perfect individuals according to a particular model and the technology to perfectly clone them.
The premise is wrong. Perfect individual? Perfection is an empty word, you might have a desirable condition, given certain factors, What you might have, theoretically, is a collection of desirable individual types, given different environments and conditions.
And you know that with sexual reproduction, it would take billions of people, millions of whom will suffer from disease before any positive trait is introduced to the population, would you take that risk? What would the RBE movement do?
I don't understand the question. First of all, cloning humans is not a good idea, both morally and scientifically. Secondly, what do you want to achieve with this?
And I respect that. We almost share the same motives. Though if you don't trust people enough to control an unrestricted free market to act for the betterment of mankind, how do you suppose the same people to voluntarily work for that in a collective? I think it requires exactly the same intellectual achievement for the individuals.
Because of what history shows us. According to classical economics theories, FOSS, Creative Commons, Open Source Ecology, Open Hardware initiative, the Rep Rap, Couchsurfing, Just for the love of it, etc. should not exist.
Yet they do.
This, and many other things, prove that people naturally want to work towards the betterment of society, if they are given a chance.