Eugenics as a concept isn’t bad, we just keep letting assholes pilot it.
I firmly believe that it isn’t ethical to bring a child into the world knowing it’s going to have a condition that will effect it’s quality of life severely and likely continue to do so for generations to come. We have the tech to predict, modify, and avoid tons of issues. We already do it regularly with Downs. It would take tragically little effort to do the same for things like sickle cell, psoriasis, color blindness, even some mental illnesses.
It’s only a problem because someone inevitably says, “that’s brilliant! And while we’re at it we can get rid of the Jews/blacks/gays/etc!”
There are some extreme cases I think most people could agree on, like some of the more serious diseases you mentioned. Racist/murderous eugenicists opearte on the opposite side of the spectrum. But what about traits in between that some people think are detrimental but others don’t? I’ not fundamentally disagreeing with you, just curious where you would draw the line and how you think that line should be socially determined and regulated?
For starters, I think it should be something backed entirely by science with very little political involvement in the discussion. Following that, I think it should start strictly with things we can identify perfectly and from there should be strictly things that decrease the lifespan by more than 30 years or that totally prevent a normal standard of living. No one needs to be sterilized because they have glasses, but I’d argue that colorblindness should go given that we color code our infrastructure.
Simultaneously we need to pair this with a cultural movement to glorify the idea of adoption and proactive sterilization while establishing a system to provide safe and curated ivf or surrogacy to those who can’t ethically reproduce. It’s not their fault they were born this way and their sacrifice is a heroic venture, they deserve to pass on their cultural lineage as much as anyone.
I think eugenics is bad if it gets taken too far. If you take it little steps at a time it will probably be ok. But if you do it too much so that you lose diversity then if one guy dies from a disease of some sort, everybody will eventually die
It’s not ethical to irresponsibly create children, but it’s also not ethical to prevent people from doing so. That most you can do is make that information easily available to people and encourage them to act responsibly.
While I agree with this, US and to a lesser degree global politics is making a very good argument that easily available information has no impact on peoples ability to act responsibly.
Exactly, and that provides a great example as to how fucking stupid previous “eugenicists” are. Everyone talks shit on eugenics because Nazis pretended to believe in eugenics.
Eugenics as a concept isn’t bad, we just keep letting assholes pilot it.
I firmly believe that it isn’t ethical to bring a child into the world knowing it’s going to have a condition that will effect it’s quality of life severely and likely continue to do so for generations to come. We have the tech to predict, modify, and avoid tons of issues. We already do it regularly with Downs. It would take tragically little effort to do the same for things like sickle cell, psoriasis, color blindness, even some mental illnesses.
It’s only a problem because someone inevitably says, “that’s brilliant! And while we’re at it we can get rid of the Jews/blacks/gays/etc!”
The problem really is whats at stake.
When you get somthing wrong, what are the consequences? Extermination.
Even with the best of intentions, huge, horrible mistakes can be made.
Agree, and point well made.
We selectively breed animals to weed out genetic problems and to encourage certain traits. But humans are doomed to self selection.
There are some extreme cases I think most people could agree on, like some of the more serious diseases you mentioned. Racist/murderous eugenicists opearte on the opposite side of the spectrum. But what about traits in between that some people think are detrimental but others don’t? I’ not fundamentally disagreeing with you, just curious where you would draw the line and how you think that line should be socially determined and regulated?
For starters, I think it should be something backed entirely by science with very little political involvement in the discussion. Following that, I think it should start strictly with things we can identify perfectly and from there should be strictly things that decrease the lifespan by more than 30 years or that totally prevent a normal standard of living. No one needs to be sterilized because they have glasses, but I’d argue that colorblindness should go given that we color code our infrastructure.
Simultaneously we need to pair this with a cultural movement to glorify the idea of adoption and proactive sterilization while establishing a system to provide safe and curated ivf or surrogacy to those who can’t ethically reproduce. It’s not their fault they were born this way and their sacrifice is a heroic venture, they deserve to pass on their cultural lineage as much as anyone.
I’ve considered this, it could be as simple as a cash reward if you have X trait and get sterilized.
I think eugenics is bad if it gets taken too far. If you take it little steps at a time it will probably be ok. But if you do it too much so that you lose diversity then if one guy dies from a disease of some sort, everybody will eventually die
It’s not ethical to irresponsibly create children, but it’s also not ethical to prevent people from doing so. That most you can do is make that information easily available to people and encourage them to act responsibly.
While I agree with this, US and to a lesser degree global politics is making a very good argument that easily available information has no impact on peoples ability to act responsibly.
There isn’t a Jew or gay gene
Exactly, and that provides a great example as to how fucking stupid previous “eugenicists” are. Everyone talks shit on eugenics because Nazis pretended to believe in eugenics.