-77
top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] 13esq@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

I just wanted to say that you shouldn't be getting downvoted. You've asked a question that isn't editorialised, appears to made in good faith and asks the opinions of others.

You've prompted some very good answers here.

[-] piyuv@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

If you’re a fan of the idea, you’re either a nazi or really really ignorant/naive/misinformed.

So I’ll assume the latter and try to briefly explain to you why it’s so bad: people bad, authoritarianism inevitable, results in ‘oops you’re not “human” because you lack/have X, you must die’

Humanity, just like nature, thrives with diversity. Eugenics starts with “getting rid of nasty diseases” but it’s always 1 bad classification of “disease” away from genocide.

[-] Don_Dickle@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago

Ok then lets say you could prevent your son from have cancer in his teens or heart disease in his twenties or addictition in his forties or alzheimers or dementia or any other type of disease it's not you conforming to society like changing looks or anything. But if done correctly tell me you would not want your son to get the best start from birth?

[-] Mesa@programming.dev 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Can you elaborate on "done correctly"?

[-] Don_Dickle@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

Scientifically probably not. But lets say in the next 5 years we can pinpoint diseases that were terminal. Counting out the government or anyone else besides loved ones or at least just the parents?

[-] Mesa@programming.dev 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Would you trust your government to fairly and equitably decide who gets such treatments?

The scientific, societal, and economic aspects of eugenics are inextricable.

[-] Don_Dickle@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

No not the government because it is dumb as hell but if parents had the option to have a gurantee their child will outlive them then it should be up to them and them alone.

[-] solidgrue@lemmy.world 29 points 4 days ago

WTF kind of question is this?

Is it a thing? OK, yeah? A concept of an idea, maybe.

Is it anything approaching moral, ethical or humane? No.
Nooo.
Nope.
Nuh-uh.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

[-] 13esq@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It's an uncomfortable question, but a question that appears to be made in good faith and OP shouldn't be getting downvoted. I do not see the benefit of "burying" this question and the many well written answers in this thread show that.

Yeah it's one of those things that in theory it could make sense, it could be. However since we are humans, there does not exist any way that would not be morally abhorrent to some group of people. There's zero way that in doing it this way wouldn't destroy x group of people. And that's why it can never be done. Eugenics is just too close to genocide.

[-] revv@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 4 days ago

It's impossible for me listen to someone arguing in favor of eugenics without hearing, "we've gotta get rid of those people- you know the ones in talking about, right?" Fuck that noise.

It's always some narcissistic asshole who thinks they're the prototype for a new master race.

[-] tkk13909@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 days ago

"It's obvious who those people are. There mentally and physically screwed up." Ok, like you? "What? No"

[-] weeeeum@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Theoretically, to produce the happiest and healthiest humans, yes. In practice, NEVER.

Aside from near inevitable genocide of existing races, that would occur with the excuse of "purification", there would be further discrimination against the "impure" populace. Immediate class division would occur between those who are genetically modified/improved, and those who were conceived naturally, without any scientific intervention.

Companies would only be willing to hire the "improved" humans, and the rest of us will be left to rot in slums.
It would be unrestrained fascism, scientifically endorsed under the guise of "improving humanity". All calls from the impure and insignificant would be ignored, as they would be perceived as obstructing scientific and humanitarian advancement. I believe it would be amongst the greatest humanitarian catastrophes that could occur.

I feel bad that this post is being downvoted, as it is a discussion that needs to occur. Eugenics can be perceived as an advancement to human biology, but when considering human behavior, it would be a rebirth of fascism.

That being said, I would support doctors advising those with genetically linked, debilitating illnesses, not to reproduce. Keyword though, advisement, not mandate.

[-] lath@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

While eugenics might sound good on paper, they might not work that well in practice. Also on paper it is said that these genetic differences that often show up as disabilities are a natural barrier against super plagues that might wipe us all out in one go.

Fine tuning ourselves into more perfect, single characteristic beings would actually make us far more vulnerable to extinction.

[-] Sundial@lemm.ee 15 points 4 days ago

No. Read dystopian novels like Brave New World and you'll understand why.

[-] mintdaniel42@futurology.today 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Or maybe just a german history book

[-] TootSweet@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago

Where do you get these questions?

[-] kat_angstrom@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago

I believe that it exists as a concept. That's what you're asking, right?

[-] BlushedPotatoPlayers@sopuli.xyz 9 points 3 days ago

It depends... Are we speaking about keeping only tall blonde kids? Or aborting a fetus with 95% Down syndrome? Angelman's? Some other even worse? Stopping a possibility fatal pregnancy? Where do you put the line?

[-] 13esq@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Good point well made. In the UK Down's syndrome is now commonly screened for with an option for the parents to abort and there's very few people that see a problem with that, is that eugenics?

Most people would agree "I only want a child with blonde hair" is too far, but as for preventing suffering, as you say, it's a tough line to draw.

[-] Zementid@feddit.nl 2 points 2 days ago

Is "pre implantation diagnostic" eugenics? Future Crispr modifications of human DNA is a whole other level of discussion... related to eugenics, but a can of worms I won't open.

[-] Windex007@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago

No but I'm all-in on phrenology

[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Eugenics is mostly associated with selective breeding so that's a no in that regard. I do think modifying our children genetically will become more common place and will be an important part of future off earth colonies.

[-] RBWells@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Like Gattaca?

I do not think people have enough information to even do a good job of it, we'd accidentally make everyone prone to some disease and wipe out humanity, we don't have a great track record with selectively breeding plants and animals. So no.

In the way it has been done ever in real life? Oh hell no. Some vague idea that certain people are worth more than others based only on their looks, and a push to make a better world by making them the only model for humanity?

So no. I don't trust people to use it for good, and if it was somehow used for good, would probably still have unintended disastrous consequences.

[-] Don_Dickle@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

I would have wrote it in the title buy my idea of eugenics is getting rid of all bad diseases like if they found out a gene caused cancer, or a kid will have heart disease before they are twenty or hell if they will be an addict before they are thirty. Or maybe they can't see right so they edit the gene that prevents them from seeing correctly. Stuff like that not just blonde hair and blue eye.

[-] RBWells@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I don't think of selective gene editing of one person as eugenics and do think we will get that, we have some versions of it for born people already. Editing it out of humanity? No that's probably a bad idea. One of my kids works in genetics and was horrified when I joked about her making designer babies like in Gattaca, so I don't think science thinks it a good idea. Push on one thing, another pops up.

You might enjoy Octavia Butler's Xenogenesis and Patternist books, if you like thinking about this stuff.

[-] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 7 points 4 days ago

We have entire communities for unpopular opinions and shitposting, yet you chose to post here on ML?

[-] theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

No, since it would require draconian control over people's lives.

[-] SLfgb@feddit.nl 6 points 3 days ago

Yea. It exists and is a terrible idea. Like it's a creepy ideology that rears its head in too many places.

Selective breeding of humans is not and never was a good idea. It comes with forced sterilisation, marriage bans, stigmatisation of characteristics contributing to naturally occuring diversity, supremacist thinking and fascist pseudo-scientific tendencies.

[-] GameWarrior@discuss.online 1 points 3 days ago
[-] deadcatbounce@reddthat.com 1 points 3 days ago

Mean reversion.

[-] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago

Used to be a bigger fan, but for the same reason I became more libertarian I'm not so sure it's a practical philosophy. The biggest issue is that as soon as someone decides what is or isn't good genetics you get a lot of bias. The majority of the human experience is social anyways.

[-] random_character_a@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Don't approve, because we can't study it without injecting adjectives or racism,

It's raising it's ugly head again because AI is finding new "correlations".

[-] Archer@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago
[-] 13esq@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago
this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024
-77 points (14.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43492 readers
1489 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS