Even leaving aside the moral question, designing an ideal human is not going to work very well.

The entire concept of free markets and capitalism is based on the deeper philosophy that no one person or group has the omniscience (never mind the moral right) to control the economic decisions for the rest of humanity.

The same is true of biology. The catch to designing an organism to be "fittest" is that there are no fixed parameters for that term, any more than there is a fixed "value" for an economic transaction. "Fittest" is what ends up alive and breeding at the other of nature's onslaught on life, and you often only understand why in hindsight. If then.

Evolution works because when something unforeseen happens, there is enough variation within lifeforms that some of them have a good chance of having a trick to handle it. A lifeform with little or no variation, such as a designed lifeform, will not do well at all.

"Don't put all your eggs in one basket" is a farm saying. Agricultural products have been designed and engineered to a fare-thee-well, long before anybody knew what a "gene" was. But if someone came up with the "perfect" strain of corn, and declared that we should plant only this kind of corn, all the smart farmers would throw him out a window. Having worked around commercial agriculture in my younger days, I know how carefully they try to avoid overly-specialized forms, or overplanting single varieties. How they alter the crops from year to year. Over-specialization in agriculture gives you things like the Potato Blight. Farmers, from organic ones working five acres, to industrial ones farming entire counties, know this.

Add to this the fact that, frankly, science still doesn't have a decent grasp on how genetics actually works. There are many open questions, and what they have learned in recent years is that there's a hell of a lot more to how DNA operates than the simple idea that one gene controls one specific thing. "Junk" DNA may not be junk at all.

While I support genetic research and engineering to try and cure diseases or obvious mutations of normal genes (when you have a fatal genetic disorder, the risk is worth it), I think manipulating genes to get a "better" human is not only counter to how adaptability works in nature, but not even effectively definable.

IMO, "designer humans," in the near term, would going to result in freaks of nature like purebred dogs, who would probably succumb en masse to the first odd disease that comes along. Who needs it?

Get a good solar UV uptick, and would your lily-white Alphas survive? Or the so-called "mud people" in the South? The wonderful genetic variation of the human species is, and has been, its greatest strength. It's why we occupy most of the planet, and why global pandemics will never kill all of us.

It's hard for me to make this idea clear, for the same reasons that it's hard for me to explain how a free market really works. The idea that seeming disorder can result in better things than a controlled and designed system seems alien to human thinking.