  Some have denied that social injustice could result from selecting or editing for particular traits that increase people’s chances at a better life (Savulescu 2001). To the extent that those traits contribute to inequality, the argument goes, it is unlikely that they could promote wellbeing (Savulescu 2001, 424). This claim seems, however, either irrelevant or false (de Melo-Martin 2017). Prospective parents choosing certain traits for their children could do so without realizing that they are actually undermining their children’s wellbeing (see Anomaly 2020, a proponent of liberal eugenics, who explicitly acknowledges coordination problems resulting from prospective parents’ choices – although he does not discuss choices that might increase sexism or racism). For instance, in a sexist society where parents systematically select for boys, it might be the case that the wellbeing of those boys could diminish because of the effects in society of fewer females. However, parents will realize this only once the choices contributing to injustice have already been made. But quite likely the claim is simply false. Consider racists societies. It is implausible that the selection of fair-skinned children in such societies would ever contribute to either a decrease in wellbeing for fair-skinned selected children or a decrease in social injustices against those with darker skin (Sparrow 2007).