The suggestion that we could/should modify behavior via genetic treatments is less like a revival of eugenics than like a revival of "treatments" such as sterilization and electroshock or insulin shock "therapies" that were very frequently mandated for "deviant persons" - in the not too distant past. Those who were not of "an age of understanding" by about 1945 or so likely have never heard of them, but beginning ca. 1920 or so they were the "holy grail" of psychiatric treatment.

Functionally, the way these wonderful new treatments work is:

"Nobody understands them so they must be magic."
"Since they're magic, they'll do whatever we want them to when we use them."
"Since we believe in them, we can use them on anyone who disagrees with us."

Court ordered sterilization/castration of a broad range of "deviants" was fairly common in the US and in most parts of Western Europe in the 1920s through about 1935 or so. It was (and in some places is) firmly believed that "all deviancy is of sexual origin (because sex is filthy) so sterilization will cure it all." In some illiterate or semi-literate areas, the practice persisted well into the 1950s. (Kansas has the record for most involuntary sterilizations - absolute or per capita - of any state in the US. 'nuff said there.)

Of course anyone who's read one of the several "pissy cat" threads here will know immediately that this is fallacious reasoning, but few people had their pets "fixed" way back then. Even now, proposals appear fairly regularly in some state legislatures to mandate sterilization for "certain classes of criminals" in the belief that this is some sort of "magic cure."

Electric shock and the later insulin shock therapies have a similar history, and "persons of deviant personality" were subjected to legislative and court sanctioned involuntary "treatment." The time frame is about the same as for involuntary sterilizations.

Involuntary therapy is in some disrepute in more recent times. In one recent case (that I don't believe has been decided in court) an accused is incompetent to stand trial if he doesn't take his meds. If he takes his medication, his handlers haved decided he would be competent for trial. Can the court order administering of his meds if he refuses to take them? If he's not competent for trial, he's likely not competent to make the decision whether to take his meds for the expected therapeutic benefit to the patient; but if medication is for the purpose of making him competent for trial it could violate his right not to testify against himself?

With existing societal limitations on involuntary treatments, it is unlikely that the proposed genetic therapy could be required for the persons Donuel would want treated without there consent.

It thus becomes a question of whether those who hate would choose to not hate. I'd propose that Donuel voluneer to approach Fred and Family - our leading Kansas "haters" - to suggest the treatment to them. Many of us would like to see them get better, although there are several other candidates who could be suggested.

[The link is to a book of about 120 pages. This is one of several sites where it's posted. If you really want to understand hate, reading the whole thing will contribute to your understanding. There are explanatory notes that give some of the flavor, quick looks may work too.]

John