  Liberal eugenics proponents are generally sympathetic to these concerns –indeed, some of them, have explored directly issues related to collective action problems (Anomaly 2020) – and have tried to respond to them. Some argue for constraints on the types of traits that parents should be allowed to select or edit (Agar 2004; Green 2007). Some characteristics, e.g., homosexuality, dark skin, will only be harmful to the individual in a morally defective social environment. What is needed in such a case, proponents argue, is to change attitudes and social practices instead of people’s genomes. For instance, Agar acknowledges that it would be preferable to eliminate racism (2004: 155), but given how entrenched it is in many societies, he considers whether we might want to allow some genetic interventions (e.g., engineering lighter skin tone) that could help individuals avoid suffering from it. On this view, the use of reprogenetic technologies to select or edit certain traits could be helpful at least in the short term, as it would help reduce some near-term suffering, and the social solutions are distant and rather unlikely. Ultimately, however, he claims that we should not allow this kind of genetic engineering – not simply because it seems to collude with a morally defective social environment, but because it reinforces and perhaps exacerbates that environment (it undermines work toward changing the morally defective social environment) (2004: 156–157). Liberal states remain neutral about what constitutes the good life, but impose certain restrictions (laws, policies) and offer education or aid (public health campaigns, food stamps) in the name of ensuring that citizens are safe, relatively stable, and have equal opportunity to pursue their goals.