-33
Does the net positive of Eugenics out weigh the negative? How so? (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I mean this in a way to give a child the best start at life. Instead of having to worry about heart disease or addiction or something else. And if people have an immunity to one thing that the other does not. We take the gene from the first person to create a medicine for the other person. I think it gets a bad rap because Hitler. To put it another way. If a person who is 80 and has an immunity to diabieties or cancer or whatever. And we can take that gene and put it into a new born so the kid never has to worry about it.

EDIT: Maybe I mistyped. I meant Eugenics in the sense that without killing anyone or anything. We can take take a gene from one person edit it. So it does not cause heart disease or cancer or addiction or whatever. Case in point if a child has a family history on both sides that he or she will have diabetes or breast cancer, or heart disease or something. Why not take that gene from myself or anyone else (without killing anyone) to give the kid a shot at a decent life since the gene will stop the diabetes or heart disease........I really really need to reword this question in a couple days. But hey at least it's getting interesting answers.

EDIT 2: This post was supposed to be altruistic. No harming anyone else. Or killing kids or whatever.

EDIT 3: Since the downvote brigade has come. Downvote the most. All this to a missed knowledge part on myself. But you guys and gals have been great for the discourse. Cause at this point there is no getting out of downvote hell lmao.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 2 days ago

You have an inaccurate idea of what eugenics is. The Wikipedia entry starts off covering the reason why it's a bullshit idea.

It's the enforcement that's the problem, not just keeping genetics in mind when procreating. That's the whole thing that makes eugenics eugenics rather than just selective breeding.

There are absolutely zero net positives to sterilizing people against their will and/or forcing people to breed.

Eugenics got a bad rap long before Hitler. It's abhorrent to any kind of sane and just society as it violates the most fundamental of human rights: body autonomy.

I'm not saying folks can't optimize their own progeny however they want. I'm saying that when you enforce your idea of what is and isn't desirable, you break the social contract. And, being real, even geneticists aren't yet fully aware of the level of detail needed to parse out what traits can be safely pruned without losing others. Then there's epigenetics, which makes eugenics even more stupid.

Nah man, it's not just a bad idea, it's impossible to implement without fucking things up. Being real here, your concept of what eugenics is, isn't exactly unheard of. And that's part of the problem. The people most behind the idea are the ones least qualified to implement it. It's a thing bandied about by jackasses wanting their idea of undesirables wiped out, and they never, ever manage to know enough about how genetics works to get close to being able to eliminate anu diseases at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •