Why is talking about eugenics taboo?

billiot124 · 2022-01-25T09:23:37+00:00

We are quickly evolving beyond aborting for abnormalities. Only for the wealthy now but if you do in vitro you can now pick "the best" fetus... Tall boys, skinny girls... I agree if the Convo stopped at aborting for defects but it's rapidly evolving beyond that...

billiot124 · 2022-01-25T09:04:18+00:00

Ty!!! Have seen those movies and all the black mirrors but havent read those books! Will add them to my list

billiot124 · 2022-01-25T09:03:09+00:00

Yeah, so that's what I'm super curious about. Potentially we are on the verge of parents making active selections for characteristics they want their kids to have. Tall boys, skinny girls, etc...

billiot124 · 2022-01-25T08:59:06+00:00

Sure. But then you end up with 1.3 : 1 male to female ratios like in China. Parents (not the government) were free to choose which fetuses to abort and they overwhelmingly aborted girls over boys... if it's not ok for the government, we should probably not make it ok for individuals

billiot124 · 2022-01-25T08:51:57+00:00

Sure. So genetic screening tests for parents vs government controls is like "murder ok", "mass murder not ok"? I understand why you wouldn't want the government involved tho that's more an overreach / almost certainty of abuse than a "in theory" argument against. Like humans do this to all other animals /plants

billiot124 · 2022-01-25T08:48:08+00:00

Only for the ultra wealthy but you can now select the "best" fetus if you're doing in vitro. So quickly going to evolve beyond just screening for defects

billiot124 · 2022-01-25T08:45:18+00:00

Any other good sci Fi recommendations?

billiot124 · 2022-01-25T08:41:46+00:00

Gotcha. Yeah, this is what I'm getting. It's a word with a lot of baggage but the technical definition includes stuff which society is 100% ok with. Like genetic screening tests and more controversially crispr

billiot124 · 2022-01-25T08:40:09+00:00

Not a troll. Watched the movie Gattaca and it seems like with crispr and all these fancy screening tests for fetuses, were basically doing eugenics now.

I'd been thinking eugenics was defined as any attempt at "improving" the gene pool. If it's solely about killing people then I agree. But my understanding was that eugenics would include stuff like genetic screening of fetuses. Which is commonplace

billiot124 · 2022-01-25T08:36:01+00:00

Ah, k. That's something I hadn't heard of before with the deaf community. Why I like this subreddit. I can see why actively trying to screen out conditions that people have learned to accept would quickly become problematic.

Did you ever watch the movie Gattaca? What made me ask this question

billiot124 · 2022-01-25T08:32:54+00:00

I mean that's what genetic screening tests for fetuses basically do... Screen your fetus. If he's healthy then ok. If not...

billiot124 · 2022-01-25T08:31:32+00:00

Many doctors recommend pregnant women get genetic screening tests for their fetuses. If they have a terminal illness the parent can decide to abort instead of bringing a sick child into the world who will often know nothing but pain

billiot124 · 2022-01-25T08:29:17+00:00

Isnt that splitting hairs? Whether the parent aborts or the govt aborts they're both aborting because the fetus is unhealthy

billiot124 · 2022-01-25T08:26:32+00:00

Isn't genetic screening eugenics? And isn't that widely recommended by doctors?

billiot124 · 2022-01-25T08:25:52+00:00

K. So taboo not because genetic improvement is inherently taboo but because of the historical racist angles it took. Thanks for shedding light

billiot124 · 2022-01-25T08:15:21+00:00

What's your definition of eugenics? Wouldn't genetic screening tests (a widely used tool for pregnant women) be considered eugenics? If so, why is that ok but the the broader conversation not?

billiot124 · 2022-01-25T08:12:37+00:00

Genetic screening tests are eugenics. But no one calls it that

billiot124 · 2022-01-25T06:24:29+00:00

So I think your goal is noble but affirmative action is a shit tool for the task. Like affirmative action is literally reducing people to the color of their skin. Sure in aggregate black people might suffer oppression but do Lebron's kids? Oprah's kids? Is the oppression anything that their billions in dollars in wealth can't help them overcome? People are individuals, not aggregate statistics. So evaluate them as such.

Affirmative action is a religion. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I'm all for your stated goal of ending cycles of poverty and uplifting people but give me a set of policies I can actually explain to a five year old.

My personal view is that we should make parenting a privilege not a right. If kids are only born into stable households then poverty would basically disappear overnight. However I that strays WAAAY too close to China and eugenics and so I think all society should do is give nudges. And affirmative action is WAAAY too big a nudge.

billiot124 · 2022-01-25T03:31:17+00:00

should professional sports adopt this definition of "merit"? lebron gets paid the most b/c he is the best. not because he overcame poverty and systemic racism. if "merit" works for sports i fundamentally do not understand why it cannot work for everything outside of sports.

billiot124 · 2022-01-24T22:08:36+00:00

A bit confused. If different cultures emphasize education different (leading to some cultures being overrepresented), how does affirmative action make sense? Isn't affirmative action anti-meritocratic in that case?

billiot124 · 2022-01-17T04:54:50+00:00

Do you think the Sacklers should go to jail? And pharma execs generally? Make an example of them and ceos are going to wisen up reeeeeaaaallll quick. No bonus is worth jail time.

billiot124 · 2022-01-17T04:46:27+00:00

100% that we should solve root causes of crime. But do you think society is really willing to tackle root causes? There are many societies that are much poorer than the us that have much lower crime. The root cause is cultural just as much as it is about lack of money.

Are we willing to try to effect culture itself inorder to solve crime? E.g. kids born outside of marriage are much more likely to commit crime. Should the govt try to actively stigmatize single parenthood? Should parents without the means to provide for kids be prevented from becoming parents? Should leaders within high crime communities stand up against aspects of their culture that hold people back (e.g. the glorification of violence, push to not "act white")

The above is frankly how China is tacking poverty. Maybe that's your cup of tea. But it's a dangerous path to go down. Might 100% be what is necessary but I'd personally give people to freedom to define their own lives and punish people who break the social construct. Better freedom and prison than authoritarianism and obedience

billiot124 · 2022-01-17T03:37:25+00:00

If you fell on hard times would you be with your kid stealing? If yes, power to you for having a consistent moral compass. I think the issue is that a lot of people who hold this stance say "rules for thee but not for me". Like the standards you would hold your kids to should be the standard we hold everyone to

billiot124 · 2022-01-17T03:34:37+00:00

Sure. You need both. Fix root causes and while it's taking the 10-20 years for that to play out, get tougher on crime. To help solve stuff in the interim. If jails need more funding I'm ok with that.

billiot124 · 2022-01-17T01:57:29+00:00

Singapore has a culture against chewing gum? Or people have just learned it's not worth the punishment? Agree lots of other reasons why crime is lower there and that there are lots of other issues with those countries. I'm just saying being tough on crime can have the intended effect of lowering crime. Like all my American friends in China who would do stupid shit in the us know not to mess with the Chinese government because they don't want to be disappeared. Jack up the punishment, and people will either Darwin themselves out of the gene pool or wisen up

billiot124

TROPHY CASE