Hybrid vigour occurs when you breed two highly homogyzogus parents for a number of different traits together to get the best of both worlds. However, the random mating of two people who will be homogyzous for one trait, hetereozygous for others, and have a whole lot of traits with more complex inheritance patterns, just because they are appreciably "different", will not increase health. You have no idea whatsoever what you are doing in this case. It would be like me knocking up your sister after a one night stand compared to controlled pedigree dog breeding.
If you can explain how the benefits of being heterozygous for any of the disorders I listed outweigh the consequences then you will have won this debate. But until then, you have not.
As I have consistently pointed out, the probability of there being an advantage to being heterozygous for the cystic fibrosis gene, for example, does not outweigh the disadvantages. Not by a country mile. The reason these disorders persist in the population is not because they convey some advantage but because the heterozygous individual often does not have such severe symptoms if any and may be able to reproduce. This is not an argument against evolution, only that any useful mutation would take a while to spread in any given population unless the environment drastically changed. Bargining on that chance occuring during our lifetimes is not rational because it is very low indeed. That is why I posted the meteorite analogy.
Why you people can't understand what I'm trying to tell you is utterly beyond me...
That you are optimisitic about genetic technology is highly hypocritical considering what you have stated earlier. As I have pointed out, enhancement will also lead to a loss of genetic diversity, and along with it a whole set of societal problems created by the population being unnaturally healthy. Be consistent.
I think the central point of contention is what we consider "eugenics".
I am all for gene therapy (that doesn't eliminate the actual genes in the next generation till we know for sure we know what we are doing). I agree with family planning. I agree with distributing contraception. I agree with encouraging people in overburdened areas to not have children. I agree with rewarding people for having fewer children.
I even think that making it manditory for people to stop having children to continue receiving welfare is not unreasonable.
What I am opposed to is forced sterilization or mass genocide. I know that you said that this is not what you are advocating. But if you paint with a brush that say things like: things that reduce effective working life, you are painting with a very broad brush. This includes mental disorders. This includes autism. Hell, this even includes pregnancy.
If it is not forced, if it is not en mass, and people are simply informed of disorders they could pass on and allowed to make decisions, who would be opposed to that?
The probabilities change drastically if you move from
1) individuals making informed decisions about their own progeny and being given incentive to reproduce less, to
2) individuals being forced into being sterilized (by law or whatever) for simply having conditions that reduce working life.
I know that you didn't explicitly say you wanted to eliminate many people based on traits alone, but many people interpreted this as your intention because of the other things you posted. Just thinking about things in such a broad brush is problematic.
If this has all been a case of "violent agreement", we can leave it at that and have a good laugh.
Based on the reps I've received, I have to say that many people believed you were painting with too broad a brush, and strongly implying some form of force based on phenotype (not genes, not behavior).