I got upvoted a couple times, then downvoted a couple times, I guess there's a bit of an even split between smart people on whether or not you should be "punished" for talking about these kinds of realities. I think for the sake of marketing, the powers that be will want a new word, for what we're going to be doing as a society to the human genome. Something that means eugenics, but sounds different, somehow safer, and altogether moral, and encompasses traditional eugenics, but also extends to edits made to already living organisms through tools like CRISPR.
How about... Life-Safe Code. DNA is effectively code, code is editable for the betterment of people, riiiight? And it's Life-Safe - like if you wanted to oppose Life-Safe Code you're saying "I want code that isn't safe for life to promulgate", which should help diminish the effectiveness of any rhetoric towards enshrining inherent rights that protect people's read/write/execution permissions over their own genetic code. And if you want Free Lifeware, or whatever, well, do you have problems with seatbelts? Because clearly there is a major inconsistency to your worldview if you accept seatbelts but won't promote the deployment of Life-Safe Code to all humans by any means deemed necessary.
We could engineer new sub-races of human beings, starting from ethnic templates that are already healthier and more Life-Safe, and edit them responsibly to optimize them for performance, health and safety in their specific work environments, phasing out all but a small helpful "stock" of the "heirloom races" to copy-paste from as needed like a genetic palette. All disease could be completely eliminated, with Life-Safe Code and a healthy, well-maintained walled-garden of people-platforms. "Terroristic" enemies of the state-corp agglomeration who politically threaten our health and safety with their enclaves of unedited harmful genomes could all be converted into slug-things (a form fitting of their pathetic, childish tantrums) with a totally sound-proof membrane over their mouth; after all they have a right to speak, but there's nothing about a right to be heard.
How about... Life-Safe Code. DNA is effectively code, code is editable for the betterment of people, riiiight? And it's Life-Safe - like if you wanted to oppose Life-Safe Code you're saying "I want code that isn't safe for life to promulgate", which should help diminish the effectiveness of any rhetoric towards enshrining inherent rights that protect people's read/write/execution permissions over their own genetic code. And if you want Free Lifeware, or whatever, well, do you have problems with seatbelts? Because clearly there is a major inconsistency to your worldview if you accept seatbelts but won't promote the deployment of Life-Safe Code to all humans by any means deemed necessary.