(cupronickel)
actual evolution isn't a moral statement, it's not what "should be", it's a description of what *is*, it's just what happens in nature
eugenicists view evolution from a prescriptive lens, and that's just not how any of it works, just because lifeforms adapt to external stimuli over generations doesn't mean we have the right to choose what traits are "better"
@nep
I am sorry, but I still disagree.
Just, because natural adaptations to environment do happen, doesn't mean we should just give up. In fact, I would argue the oposite. We owe it to our kids to make sure they do not get bad genes.
And modern medicine makes this much worse. Since, we can support much more sick people, this is literally unsustainable process, because every sick person who does manage to reproduce thanks to insane drugs will have even sicker kids who will need even more drugs to survive.
@nep
And I don't see what's bad about that.
I even hear women say, that they don't want kids, because they don't want to pass their genes.
Why there "not being an objective and scientific standart" is a valid argument for you? There is no such standart to set, what do I want to eat today. But I still don't feel guilty in choosing burger over pizza.
i don't care about what people do to *themselves*, but when it comes to affecting other people, there needs to be an objective reason to do it
@nep
There is no objective measure of when you should offer healthcare to people.
Is there a treatment, that is too expensive for a single person? How do you set that limit?
>There is no objective measure of when you should offer healthcare to people
there is, you always should, then every person can choose to accept it or not (and at that point it stops being about affecting others, so it can be subjective)
@nep
Congratulations, you will literallydestroy the society to give Soros another week on his 33rd heart transplant.
as you age, your entire body ages, including your brain, which is impossible to transplant, but even before then you're likely to die of an emergency where you aren't able to find a compatible donor in time anyway
also, specifically using soros as an example in a thread about eugenics is shady lmao
@nep
> also, specifically using soros as an example in a thread about eugenics is shady lmao
Goodbye. If you cannot engage with the discussion without trying some dumb shaming, you aren't worth talking to ever again.
I'm simply saying that 'good genes' is silly. 99.99% of everyones genes are totally fine, and instead of some weird ethnic cleansing thing happening, what really needs to happen is people need to cut cigarettes, cut most alcohol (all would be best), and watch their diet. Do those and we'd be in better shape then any point in human history. No reproductive evolution, blah blah shit needed
Other than that, it just seems like we could make people slightly taller on average, but I'm not sure if that would translate into "health" since it doesn't really for dog and horse breeds. Logistically, I don't know how we would accomplish this outside of some hukou system (which I am open to, but for other reasons). Luwa's health advice seems like the simplest solution for a healthier population overall.
before someone can even begin to think about whether to not pass "bad genes", there needs to be criteria to determine what actually makes a gene "bad", and it is not possible to create an objective definition of it (meaning each person making that decision would just base it on their own biases)