• Disinformation_Bot@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    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?

    • Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      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.