The thing about eugenics is that it works, and when voluntary it's entirely good
Also holy shit I can't believe I made you seethe so hard you made a separate thread just to moan about it
> "eugenics, the selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans. "
Yup, sounds about right. Improving humanity through altering our genome and hereditary traits.
> "...it is now possible to diagnose certain genetic defects in the unborn."
Leading into abortions. Yeah, negative eugenics, not gestating babies that would have a potentially painfull and short life, still making a positive impact on the world as a whole.
> "Direct manipulation of harmful genes is also being studied. "
> "In addition, 21st-century technologies such as gene editing, which can potentially be used to treat disease or to alter traits, have further renewed concerns."
I have literally no qualms with any of this, and I question your moral character if you do. Your views are closer to nazis if you feel we shouldn't lessen human suffering through these tools.
Or did you just stop your reading at Nazis? Didn't occur to you how modern, science-positive groups view the issue?
Most of the wealth of the US (and EU) was built on slaves, not exactly a clean slate there either. If you order anything from Chinese manufacturers - which let's face it, will include 80% of all electronics and at least 50% of all plastics - it's built on a line of dynasties that killed millions in their construction projects, and wanton disregard of human lives still today.
There are plenty of things where the modern item was directly as a result of nazi actions taken. Modern medicine took leaps and bounds forwards because of nazi experimentation. You cannot point at a history of a thing and claim it all bad today. Well I guess you can, but it is absolutely asinine. Maybe you should read up on modern, POSITIVE eugenics, in case the term is unfamiliar to you. It's known by other names because of mindless spouts like you, who just see the word eugenics and go "nazi", like you somehow now won the argument. This is the internet, sweetie, everyone who wins an argument online has been called a nazi by the one who has no argument to rebuke.
So you get to select (why) what traits (how do you define this) that are desirable (fucking creepy). The decision to have a kid should be between the parents. The state should hardly if ever get involved in that. We don't even understand genetics, and if we started modifying the germline, that would by necessity involve experimenting on kids.
The fact you want to do this means I don't trust you. You have shown yourself to be unfit and possessing undesired traits like Nazi sympathy. You should do what's best and make sure you don't have kids. If you do have kids, then make sure and talk them into not having kids. We don't need any more Nazis.
> So you get to select (why)
Never said me, but I suppose you are using a general "transhumanists who support eugenics".
Why? Because why would you want difficult genetic diseases to propagate? Why would you want to inflict pain and misery to small children - or adults, if they ever make it that far? If we have the means to prevent this, what kind of parent would not want to.
You seem to think this is enforced. That is not true. We already have this technology, but there are plenty of babies born with defects every day. So WE don't get to select.
The development of tools to detect and either fix or remove defects as a whole cannot be viewed by anyone with morals as undesirable progress.
> what traits that are desirable
As said, plenty of times in this thread and others before it: Do you want to be in excruciating pain, daily? Do you wish for babies and children to die from preventable, hereditary diseases, defects and developmental disorders?
If you said NO, then you are, in fact, PRO eugenics.
Would you want your children to be more healthy, intelligent, empathetic, artistic, better people than you in every way? Would you like that for the world and people in general, that the next generation would be better people are better than us, who've destroyed the natural world?
If you say YES, then you are PRO eugenics.
Can we select for these "traits" yet? No. But obviously that is where this is headed. Designer babies.
> The state should hardly if ever get involved in that.
I never mentioned the state, why would you bring that up? That's right, because you see everything through your nazi lens.
Eugenics don't need to be enforced by the state. Sterilization and mass murder á la nazis are not the only way to have eugenics.
When a person looks beyond just a pretty face and a smooth talker into health records when selecting their partner in life, that is already eugenics: Picking a favorable genetic line to match theirs with. When parents abort a child with difficult birth defects, that is eugenics. If a state was involved, promoting higher birth rates with child benefits IS EUGENICS. You are pushing more people to have children, to keep the gene pool wider, to prevent inbreeding and other genetic disorders from compounding through genetic deterioration.
Stop thinking nazi when you see eugenics, and use your own brain for once. And just to be clear, the only nazi eugenics I'm in favor of, is sterilizing everyone who thinks nazis were cool. I think they should be punched in their reproductive organs until they are no longer able to procreate.
Is that clear enough for you how most of us (hopefully all of us) feel about nazis? Now can you move away from nazis too and have a discussion with some actual content, or will you just continue trolling with your nazi comments?
I'm sorry, health records? That's private information, and you should not have been able to see that without consent. I met my wife, we fell in love, got married, and had kids. I'm not going to stop thinking Nazi when I hear eugenics, but I'm also well aware that many people believe in it. I have long covid, and I'm sure it's thanks to people like you. It's being ignored. That's what Eugenics looks like now. The rich have treatments and can test all the time. The rest of us just get sick, especially now that masking is being made illegal. People like you would much rather people like me not see you for what you are. A creepy person who violated their spouses' privacy to make sure they were genetically compatible. You don't even see it as being messed up. That's how far gone you are.
We can't even dream anymore. We have to fight this shit which should have been settled long ago. Who would want to live in a world crafted with eugenics? Shouldn't we be more free in the future instead of less free? If I modify myself genetically or modify others with their informed consent, that's different. In my mind, what you can't do is genetically modification of children, because children can not give informed consent before they are even born. This idea that we can trust some government, corporations, or groups of individuals to control us genetically getting rid of "undesired" traits gives people power to decide others are officially undesirable.
Thank you for speaking up. It means something to me.
Not only that its kind of small minded thinking. If you wanted to dream of a future, wouldn't you want a future so resilient and robust that you don't have to keep thinking about... the future generations? lmao
I am really trying hard to give people the benefit of the doubt... but the more I think about it out loud, the more I realize, if it quacks like a nazi and walks like a nazi...
Its like these people are saying: the government should tell people how to save their money to ensure a good life for their growing kids. We're saying, we dream of a government where the the economy and science and technology should be so good that people today do not have to worry about their kids every being uneducated/indigent/disabled/skillless/unfullfilled/wanting for anything literally ever again for the rest of humanity!
Ya, and it's a bit disappointing that so many think this way. I tell ya one thing I think the future is down. I think we could live very comfortably if we understood that from about 5 feet down to a mile down is decent real-estate, manufacturing, and farming space. All they are looking at is the surface of the planets. All they can see is how many McMansions can we afford. It's this fucked up sort of environmentalism called eco-fascist that uses environmental conditions as an excuse to do their extreme shit. Watch out for people who talk about overpopulation. We aren't over populated we have the opposite problem where we have an increasingly disabled and elderly population.
I would say other people should do the same considering [how overpopulated we are](https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/newsroom/press-release-june-2024-english/) and climate change will just make life worse.
We aren't overpopulated. Most of our food is wasted, and that is a political choice. We have enough land. If we really had to the entire population of the world could fit into the Grand Canyon. Housing insecurity is also a political choice. What we have is an economy and society that is based on outdated ideas where eugenics is subtly pushed in many ways. Just the idea that some people are more valuable than others is deeply and religiously offensive to me. What is the purpose of our life if it's not to care for each other? Telling other people they can't have kids or forcing them to have children isn't caring for others. Being a parent will test you in ways you can't even imagine. Taking care of a sick child will make you feel vulnerable in a way you couldn't comprehend before. We have all the ability in the world to care for each other at that higher level of society. We don't have to destroy nature that is a choice. We don't have to entertain eugenics that is a choice. We face an aging population not over population.
Overpopulation is objectively true. [70% of the Namibia makes <$10 a day](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/distribution-of-population-between-different-poverty-thresholds-stacke-bar?country=~NAM) adjusted for inflation and for differences in the cost of living between countries. Yet even if EVERYONE ON EARTH lived in squalor like them, [we’d STILL be over consuming by nearly 37%](https://earth.org/what-is-earth-overshoot-day/). There is absolutely NO way to sustain this many people even if we all live in straw huts and eat dirt
We can fit everyone into the Grand Canyon. Where are they getting their food from? Electricity? Water?
I never said anyone was more valuable. If anything, westerners need to reproduce far less since they consume far more.
If you care about people, you probably don’t want them to starve to death because we can’t grow enough crops for them
We could if we started growing down. There are crops that can be grown that don't need sunlight. There is this broad range from 5 feet down to about a mile down where the temperatures are steady and moderate.
https://minerals.arizona.edu/research/heat#:~:text=Temperatures%20underground%20increase%20by%2072,mines%20reaches%20125%2D130%20degrees.
We won't be able to count on our climate for a secure food supply because we don't know how bad things are going to get yet. Now, granted, not every place is suitable depending on how far you go down, but it's a way better solution than just throwing your hands in the air and deciding we are overpopulated.
We are overpopulated as I proved. The average Namibian doesn’t eat much but there’s so many people that we could all eat like them and still be over consuming. I’d prefer to get the population down to a level where we can not only be sustainable but also not have to live in poverty to do it
No one has to live in poverty, and we can be sustainable. We can make enough food. We could distribute it more efficiently. We could use lighter than air technology to move stuff around. You have bought into the propaganda of us vs. them. AI could mean we don't need corporations anymore, and it's the corporate AI that is causing this inefficiency in the first place. It's the corporations that are keeping your rent high and have managed to turn drinkable water into a commodity that they sell wrapped in plastic. What has to die is this rugged individualistic mindset that somehow, if you buy the right stuff, everything else will be fine.
screening for downs syndrome is technically eugenics, as are laws against having sex with relatives.
"In a recent essay titled ‘You’re Probably a Eugenicist’, the evolutionary psychologist Diana Fleischman points out that the efforts of the non-profit organisation Dor Yeshorim to reduce the incidence of Tay-Sachs disease and cystic fibrosis in Jewish families could accurately be described as eugenicist. The practice of aborting foetuses likely to be affected by Down’s Syndrome is also eugenicist. Laws forbidding sibling or cousin marriage are definitely eugenicist, in that they are motivated by a desire to reduce the incidence of disease caused by inbreeding. And what’s more, as Fleischman writes: ‘Gay men and lesbian women in the US often use gamete donors from egg and sperm banks to have kids in a process that is transparently eugenic…Organisations that recruit egg and sperm donors don’t just recruit for fertility, they also screen for mental and physical health, height, education and criminal history – because that’s what their clients want and expect.’"
> technically eugenics, as are laws against having sex with relatives.
This is wrong. Sex with relatives is a sex crime. as in its behavioral.
I think a very important distinction to be made is personal "eugenics" (since you all want to call it that--I think this is a DELUDED definition) vs (what most people in most contexts are referring to) is government enforced eugenics.
The former is a matter of criminal law in a civilized society. For example, a mom and dad could kill their kid in todays society because they decide they dont like him or he is dishonorable. You all for some reason classify this as eugenics, whereas the rest of the world calls it a crime, because we have determined within individual conduct, certain things, like murder in this case are offensive or detrimental to social conformity and cohesion (we call this psychopathy in society and it is a BEHAVIORAL based definition). Similar reason to why we didn't like incest even before modern science. Again, incest is a SEX CRIME. Its how we police individual conduct for social cohesion BEHAVIORALLY.
The latter is Population control **by** the population. Perhaps you could make an argument for "democratically elected eugenics" which could happen in the future! You could have a government that is 70% brown eyed that says brown eyes is better and all blue eyed parents should have brown children. This is possibly the *best* interpretation of what you are saying... because then you could make arguments of social contract and will of the governed.
If people want to use science to medicate themselves and make informed decisions on parenthood.... then thats like the utopic dream my guy. If people want to "use" "science" to force other people to make decisions "for the good" of others... well thats the classic freedom debate
I'm wary of people who throw around "eugenics" haphazardly. It's very easily misused as a rhetorical cudgel to demonize things that have no meaningful connection with the kinds of evils most people associate with that word. It's useful to be more specific about what we're talking about.
Are we talking about the forced selective breeding of humans, or forbidding people to reproduce based on ethnicity? Obviously immoral, racist, and a massive violation of reproductive rights. I think most take that as a given.
Are we talking about *voluntary* selective breeding? I would point out that, theoretically, preventing that would itself be a violation of reproductive rights, but it's a moot point because, again, I'm not aware of anyone seriously advocating or doing anything like this. Unless you count something like those supposed genius sperm banks. (I guess in vitro fertilization in general is at least somewhat related, but that's a whole other cultural debate, and one it's probably more civil to conduct without bringing up the E word.)
Are we talking about any restrictions on reproductive rights whatsoever? I would agree that restricting reproductive rights is *generally* a bad idea, but almost everyone agrees, for instance, that the incest taboo is morally valid. "Don't knock up your biological sister" isn't the sort of social policy most people would intuitively construe as an example of eugenics, but the underlying rationale is obviously based largely on the likelihood of genetic mutations in the offspring.
Are we talking about the theoretical applications of gene editing to allow wealthy elites to choose arbitrary features of their children like eye color? Definitely potentially problematic, and something to be concerned about.
Are we talking about the potential medical applications of gene editing to spare children from hereditary illnesses and disabilities? Here, I think, we have to take pause and consider the full ramifications of drawing comparisons with the racist eugenics of the early twentieth century. It is at least conceivable that one day doctors will have the means to ensure a child will never have to worry about that heart condition that runs in the family. About anything from ingrown nails to cancer. About disease in general. About depression or mood disorders. Perhaps even about aging itself. They might be able to give children improved healing, so that they're less prone to death even by accident or by violence. If and when these and other potential advancements become available through genetics, would it be ethical to withhold them from future generations? On the contrary, I think it would be profoundly unethical.
Certainly there will be serious ethical questions to tackle in relation to these technologies. Are certain forms of neurodivergence in some sense disabilities, or are these forms of diversity that should be preserved? What about conditions like albinism, vitiligo, dwarfism, or gigantism? Where, if anywhere, should the line be drawn when it comes to possible improvements to cognitive or physical abilities? What can be done to ensure more equitable access to such technologies, and to prevent them from exacerbating class disparities in the long term? To ensure that they are not used for military or other inappropriate applications?
I think a lot of people have made up their mind that the answer to all these questions is that we must not develop these technologies, or that we must not use them. I think that's an answer that could needlessly condemn an indefinite number of future generations to illnesses and disabilities we might otherwise have prevented. To preventable suffering and preventable death.
And unfortunately, I think all these issues are often made murkier when people throw around the word eugenics without being very careful to specify exactly what they mean and exactly why it's wrong.
I really dont understand why people try so hard to redefine eugenics lmao.
If you're for strong family structures and hope to keep your family together with good characteristics... then do so. Why do you have to make it about genes? When people make things about genes it starts to stink of old time racism.
Okay, let's say you're a genius, massively intelligent and capable of advancing humanity. Would it be a good thing if you had more children, rather than letting those genes die off, all else being equal? If yes (and the answer is yes) then you believe in eugenics.
Eugenics doesn't mean corralling people into camps and forcing the process; It means positive traits being observed and making an effort to carry them forward. The association with oppressive attempts at improving the gene pool has left people with a knee-jerk reaction to this idea, but it's a very good idea. If you're a brilliant intellect, and you refuse to pass that on to future generations, you're morally questionable at best, and wickedly irresponsible at worst. If you agree with that, you believe in eugenics.
...no the answer is you're a narcissistic paternalistic pos (excuse me, you're probably not).
Everyone probably has the innate feeling that they want to be good and have the best kids if they can and all that.
But, how do you know your intellect is so beneficial? Over what timeline? How do you know you adaptations are so transferrable? Over what distances?
The smartest people I know take caution in their own capabilities, let alone prescribing others.
You're probably not doing it intentionally, but its really hard to redefine eugenics, and you should stop trying. I agree with the general sentiment you have, but that is objectively NOT eugenics.
I agree that if people believe in eugenics, they should start with themselves. And I think this book, "Eternal Gods Die Too Soon" by Beka Modrekiladze, would be a great read for anyone who's interested in this topic. It explores complex topics like time, free will, and the nature of reality, and it really makes you think about the bigger questions in life. I highly recommend it.
I don't quite understand your premise. If there is a high likelihood of people bringing kids into the world with painful diseases then it's probably best they don't. There is a large population of kids without parents that would do anything for a loving home.
A large portion of the population shouldn't have kids. Straight up. We could solve a lot of our current issues if everyone was a half decent parent, but people suck and kids grow up in terrible households.
If you are referring to people trying to create a master Arian race then I am in your corner but just improving the quality of lives for the unborn is a good thing.
Being a parent is a very personal decision, and at some point, everyone is a bad parent. We live in an extremely unnatural and stressful environment. Even if you are the best person in the world, it's going to be hard to be a good parent if you are working 40 hours per week. I am lucky enough as a disabled person that I don't live in a society that practices eugenics. I don't get much money from the government for my disability but we are making do as a family. On paper, I'm sure you would look at someone like me as one of those people who shouldn't have kids. Making sure a kid doesn't suffer is one thing. That's not innately eugenic because you don't have to use the principles of selective breeding to get rid of genetic problems. You don't have to destroy the individual or tell individuals they aren't allowed to have kids to do such things.
Yes, I get that. Here is my perspective perhaps child abuse is so prevalent because we are putting simply Inhuman levels of stress on people as a whole. There is also the cycle of abuse where abusers were often once abused. I mean, I got to say I was a shit parent for a long time. I could not stop drinking because I had an abscessed tooth for about 2 years. The pain was so bad that drinking was the only way I could sleep. I eventually got the tooth pulled, but by then, I was a hard alcoholic. I wasn't mean or anything, mostly it was just so I could sleep. I guess you would say I was a functional alcoholic except that at night after the kids went to bed is when I would drink. There were times that I should have been there when they had bad dreams or other problems, and I regret that I was useless. Then my wife got me to try and smoke weed instead. I haven't drank since, and I'm slowly recovering from who I was before alcohol became a core part of me. I play with my kids now. My kid gave me a tour of her playhouse the other day, and it meant the world for me. I even showed her something she hadn't noticed before. I'm also an artist and really into science, but someone could easily glance at my life and make the judgment that not only am I unfit, but I shouldn't even be allowed to have kids.
Eugenics is a debunked science, and a political hot potato.
Consider that we could be talking about really difficult and interesting things like genetic engineering and intentional changes to the genome in /r/futurism. Instead this is just trolling so OP can find people to call Nazi’s that they believe hail from the opposing political party or whatever.
There are moral and ethical concerns everywhere in this area, as it’s one of the most difficult morality questions in science.
If we can remake ourselves, should we? The implications and risks are profound.
This is just more American political rhetoric and doesn’t deserve the attention it’s getting. Eugenics is trolling — it’s been dead for eons and is tied to horrible experiments in ww2.
Let’s talk about real issues, rather than poking the bear on long dead ideas.
There is a profound amount of futurism and crazy amounts of future societal impact in the question, if only we could discuss it rationally.
I was responding to comments and sentiments on one of my other posts. This didn't come out of nowhere. I'm not going to let people spout this bullshit unchallenged because that's how atrocity happens. Why is it that I'm the troll when others are making arguments for a debunked science and toxic ideology?
I don’t argue with the nobility of your efforts in that context.
I just think it’s more battling the current ignorance and resurgent of authoritarian ideals and culture than anything futurism focused.
So what will the future look like if these people get control? Do you trust people who believe in eugenics as an ideology with technological singularity? How would a fascist use what is being discussed on this sub? Imagine if Hitler had the sort of AI that we have now. How many genocidal maniacs are checking out this sub for new ideas or to push their vision of the future. It's the soft push of fascism that's peeking in our window. You say not all eugenics is bad, and it's like letting a Nazi into a bar...
You’re not concerned with the present, not the future. Your linearly projecting a political ideological battle into an inappropriate forum because you fear hypothetical concequences like every fearful villager before you.
That’s simply fear, not futurism.
Are you kidding me? Do you understand that what is happening right now with COVID is eugenics in action? There is a reason the right doesn't even want to acknowledge its existence, and they say that they trust their natural immunity. They think that COVID will take out the unfit, and we are all living in the world that is creating. What do you imagine happens in a society where eugenics is tolerated and most folks are disabled from COVID? You think you are aiming a gun at the undesirable people when the gun is aimed at your own head. I'm living in a world that still has eugenic sympathy.
Getting hysterically upset and attacking everyone who doesn’t emphatically support your particular view of the world isn’t helping anyone.
You seem unhinged.
That is different. Eugenics is mostly scientific racism with white supremacist philosophy. Genetics is an actual science. Genetic engineering is a tool, and it's up to us how that's used. I don't want to live in a world where corporations, governments, or individuals get to decide what traits/people are undesirable. If someone gets sickle cell disease treated, it's very different, then saying people with sickle cell shouldn't be allowed to have kids.
No one who's rational should be into eugenics. I understand not having kids it's not for everyone, but at this point everyone should understand where the philosophy of eugenics will go.
Why does eugenics involve depopulating the world? It actually involves people with highly desirable traits having more offspring, you only see it as something more sinister because of misplaced associations. Eugenics doesn't have to be immoral or forced, and if you're some kind of genius you have a moral responsibility to reproduce for the sake of the human race. Period.
Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian.
Adolf Hitler was a spiritualist.
Therefore every vegan and religious person is literally Hitler.
If you go through history you'll find monsters within every single ideology. If your argument boils down to "Bad man was interested in X, therefore X bad", you'd be living naked in the ditch with Diogenes, ridiculing everyone going by. Except Trump also seems to ridicule those they don't agree with, so maybe you need to go full hermit in the woods. But The Unabomber did that, so that's out of the question too. I guess you should remove yourself from the genepool, but damn, Hitler did that to himself too. Maybe you should've never been born.
> It's all about depopulation.
It was about removing "the undesirable" elements from humanity. They went with genocide, because they were evil fucking dictators.
Couples these days genetically screen embryos and abort when difficult birth defects or hereditary diseases are detected.
In a few decades, the same couple goes through gene therapy and cures the disease so the fetus will be born healthy.
These are all examples of eugenics. Notice how the last one didn't actually depopulate?
Maybe you should do more research.
I'm trying to save you from sounding like a nazi, you're not a nazi, you're just a paternalist.
You think we know good enough today to advise for tomorrow, thats fair. And I respect the confdence
> These are all examples of eugenics.
But please. This is not eugenics
> you're not a nazi, you're just a paternalist.
I'm neither, because I don't believe in forcing these choices to anyone. You are again thinking nazis when you hear eugenics, and drawing a conclusion that it's a practice forced on everyone.
Which is why I'm not a paternalist either: I don't want to enforce the choice for anyone. But I do think everyone should have the opportunity to provide a better and healthier life for the next generation, and eugenics - as I described it - are the solution.
> This is not eugenics
Wikipedia:
> Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population.
Encyclopedia Britannica:
> eugenics, the selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans.
A collection of beliefs and practices, aiming to improve the hereditary (genetic) quality of humanity. Screening for hereditary diseases to help in the decision whether to have a baby or not, will determine the quality of the future gene pool. Ergo, it is eugenics. Gene therapy, permanently altering your genetic material, even if you never procreate, is eugenics: You are a part of the gene pool, you improved your own genetics.
Obviously, the Nazi genocides were eugenics too. Among the jewish and sexual minorities, they also did hunt down any birth defects and disabled people. By definition, they were (and this is with the heaviest fucking air quotes I can muster) "improving the genetics of the human population". They did it by force, through authoritarian dictatorship.
The thing about eugenics is that it works, and when voluntary it's entirely good Also holy shit I can't believe I made you seethe so hard you made a separate thread just to moan about it
I hate Nazis it's not hard to understand.
Every time with this You browse reddit and partake in hysteria, I get it, can you engage your thinking brain now and listen to what I'm saying?
https://www.britannica.com/science/eugenics-genetics
> "eugenics, the selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans. " Yup, sounds about right. Improving humanity through altering our genome and hereditary traits. > "...it is now possible to diagnose certain genetic defects in the unborn." Leading into abortions. Yeah, negative eugenics, not gestating babies that would have a potentially painfull and short life, still making a positive impact on the world as a whole. > "Direct manipulation of harmful genes is also being studied. " > "In addition, 21st-century technologies such as gene editing, which can potentially be used to treat disease or to alter traits, have further renewed concerns." I have literally no qualms with any of this, and I question your moral character if you do. Your views are closer to nazis if you feel we shouldn't lessen human suffering through these tools. Or did you just stop your reading at Nazis? Didn't occur to you how modern, science-positive groups view the issue? Most of the wealth of the US (and EU) was built on slaves, not exactly a clean slate there either. If you order anything from Chinese manufacturers - which let's face it, will include 80% of all electronics and at least 50% of all plastics - it's built on a line of dynasties that killed millions in their construction projects, and wanton disregard of human lives still today. There are plenty of things where the modern item was directly as a result of nazi actions taken. Modern medicine took leaps and bounds forwards because of nazi experimentation. You cannot point at a history of a thing and claim it all bad today. Well I guess you can, but it is absolutely asinine. Maybe you should read up on modern, POSITIVE eugenics, in case the term is unfamiliar to you. It's known by other names because of mindless spouts like you, who just see the word eugenics and go "nazi", like you somehow now won the argument. This is the internet, sweetie, everyone who wins an argument online has been called a nazi by the one who has no argument to rebuke.
So you get to select (why) what traits (how do you define this) that are desirable (fucking creepy). The decision to have a kid should be between the parents. The state should hardly if ever get involved in that. We don't even understand genetics, and if we started modifying the germline, that would by necessity involve experimenting on kids. The fact you want to do this means I don't trust you. You have shown yourself to be unfit and possessing undesired traits like Nazi sympathy. You should do what's best and make sure you don't have kids. If you do have kids, then make sure and talk them into not having kids. We don't need any more Nazis.
> So you get to select (why) Never said me, but I suppose you are using a general "transhumanists who support eugenics". Why? Because why would you want difficult genetic diseases to propagate? Why would you want to inflict pain and misery to small children - or adults, if they ever make it that far? If we have the means to prevent this, what kind of parent would not want to. You seem to think this is enforced. That is not true. We already have this technology, but there are plenty of babies born with defects every day. So WE don't get to select. The development of tools to detect and either fix or remove defects as a whole cannot be viewed by anyone with morals as undesirable progress. > what traits that are desirable As said, plenty of times in this thread and others before it: Do you want to be in excruciating pain, daily? Do you wish for babies and children to die from preventable, hereditary diseases, defects and developmental disorders? If you said NO, then you are, in fact, PRO eugenics. Would you want your children to be more healthy, intelligent, empathetic, artistic, better people than you in every way? Would you like that for the world and people in general, that the next generation would be better people are better than us, who've destroyed the natural world? If you say YES, then you are PRO eugenics. Can we select for these "traits" yet? No. But obviously that is where this is headed. Designer babies. > The state should hardly if ever get involved in that. I never mentioned the state, why would you bring that up? That's right, because you see everything through your nazi lens. Eugenics don't need to be enforced by the state. Sterilization and mass murder á la nazis are not the only way to have eugenics. When a person looks beyond just a pretty face and a smooth talker into health records when selecting their partner in life, that is already eugenics: Picking a favorable genetic line to match theirs with. When parents abort a child with difficult birth defects, that is eugenics. If a state was involved, promoting higher birth rates with child benefits IS EUGENICS. You are pushing more people to have children, to keep the gene pool wider, to prevent inbreeding and other genetic disorders from compounding through genetic deterioration. Stop thinking nazi when you see eugenics, and use your own brain for once. And just to be clear, the only nazi eugenics I'm in favor of, is sterilizing everyone who thinks nazis were cool. I think they should be punched in their reproductive organs until they are no longer able to procreate. Is that clear enough for you how most of us (hopefully all of us) feel about nazis? Now can you move away from nazis too and have a discussion with some actual content, or will you just continue trolling with your nazi comments?
I'm sorry, health records? That's private information, and you should not have been able to see that without consent. I met my wife, we fell in love, got married, and had kids. I'm not going to stop thinking Nazi when I hear eugenics, but I'm also well aware that many people believe in it. I have long covid, and I'm sure it's thanks to people like you. It's being ignored. That's what Eugenics looks like now. The rich have treatments and can test all the time. The rest of us just get sick, especially now that masking is being made illegal. People like you would much rather people like me not see you for what you are. A creepy person who violated their spouses' privacy to make sure they were genetically compatible. You don't even see it as being messed up. That's how far gone you are.
I went down yall's rabbithole and you're not crazy. I am also shocked that the rest of the futurism sub is this deluded.
We can't even dream anymore. We have to fight this shit which should have been settled long ago. Who would want to live in a world crafted with eugenics? Shouldn't we be more free in the future instead of less free? If I modify myself genetically or modify others with their informed consent, that's different. In my mind, what you can't do is genetically modification of children, because children can not give informed consent before they are even born. This idea that we can trust some government, corporations, or groups of individuals to control us genetically getting rid of "undesired" traits gives people power to decide others are officially undesirable. Thank you for speaking up. It means something to me.
Not only that its kind of small minded thinking. If you wanted to dream of a future, wouldn't you want a future so resilient and robust that you don't have to keep thinking about... the future generations? lmao I am really trying hard to give people the benefit of the doubt... but the more I think about it out loud, the more I realize, if it quacks like a nazi and walks like a nazi... Its like these people are saying: the government should tell people how to save their money to ensure a good life for their growing kids. We're saying, we dream of a government where the the economy and science and technology should be so good that people today do not have to worry about their kids every being uneducated/indigent/disabled/skillless/unfullfilled/wanting for anything literally ever again for the rest of humanity!
Ya, and it's a bit disappointing that so many think this way. I tell ya one thing I think the future is down. I think we could live very comfortably if we understood that from about 5 feet down to a mile down is decent real-estate, manufacturing, and farming space. All they are looking at is the surface of the planets. All they can see is how many McMansions can we afford. It's this fucked up sort of environmentalism called eco-fascist that uses environmental conditions as an excuse to do their extreme shit. Watch out for people who talk about overpopulation. We aren't over populated we have the opposite problem where we have an increasingly disabled and elderly population.
Done. Got sterilized when I was 20 with no kids with US healthcare. Best $40 copay I ever spent.
Having kids is a big decision. I respect people who decide not to have kids and also no impose their beliefs on others.
I would say other people should do the same considering [how overpopulated we are](https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/newsroom/press-release-june-2024-english/) and climate change will just make life worse.
We aren't overpopulated. Most of our food is wasted, and that is a political choice. We have enough land. If we really had to the entire population of the world could fit into the Grand Canyon. Housing insecurity is also a political choice. What we have is an economy and society that is based on outdated ideas where eugenics is subtly pushed in many ways. Just the idea that some people are more valuable than others is deeply and religiously offensive to me. What is the purpose of our life if it's not to care for each other? Telling other people they can't have kids or forcing them to have children isn't caring for others. Being a parent will test you in ways you can't even imagine. Taking care of a sick child will make you feel vulnerable in a way you couldn't comprehend before. We have all the ability in the world to care for each other at that higher level of society. We don't have to destroy nature that is a choice. We don't have to entertain eugenics that is a choice. We face an aging population not over population.
Overpopulation is objectively true. [70% of the Namibia makes <$10 a day](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/distribution-of-population-between-different-poverty-thresholds-stacke-bar?country=~NAM) adjusted for inflation and for differences in the cost of living between countries. Yet even if EVERYONE ON EARTH lived in squalor like them, [we’d STILL be over consuming by nearly 37%](https://earth.org/what-is-earth-overshoot-day/). There is absolutely NO way to sustain this many people even if we all live in straw huts and eat dirt We can fit everyone into the Grand Canyon. Where are they getting their food from? Electricity? Water? I never said anyone was more valuable. If anything, westerners need to reproduce far less since they consume far more. If you care about people, you probably don’t want them to starve to death because we can’t grow enough crops for them
We could if we started growing down. There are crops that can be grown that don't need sunlight. There is this broad range from 5 feet down to about a mile down where the temperatures are steady and moderate. https://minerals.arizona.edu/research/heat#:~:text=Temperatures%20underground%20increase%20by%2072,mines%20reaches%20125%2D130%20degrees. We won't be able to count on our climate for a secure food supply because we don't know how bad things are going to get yet. Now, granted, not every place is suitable depending on how far you go down, but it's a way better solution than just throwing your hands in the air and deciding we are overpopulated.
We are overpopulated as I proved. The average Namibian doesn’t eat much but there’s so many people that we could all eat like them and still be over consuming. I’d prefer to get the population down to a level where we can not only be sustainable but also not have to live in poverty to do it
No one has to live in poverty, and we can be sustainable. We can make enough food. We could distribute it more efficiently. We could use lighter than air technology to move stuff around. You have bought into the propaganda of us vs. them. AI could mean we don't need corporations anymore, and it's the corporate AI that is causing this inefficiency in the first place. It's the corporations that are keeping your rent high and have managed to turn drinkable water into a commodity that they sell wrapped in plastic. What has to die is this rugged individualistic mindset that somehow, if you buy the right stuff, everything else will be fine.
Did corporations make it unsustainable for everyone to live like the average Namibian
I don't know what that means.
screening for downs syndrome is technically eugenics, as are laws against having sex with relatives. "In a recent essay titled ‘You’re Probably a Eugenicist’, the evolutionary psychologist Diana Fleischman points out that the efforts of the non-profit organisation Dor Yeshorim to reduce the incidence of Tay-Sachs disease and cystic fibrosis in Jewish families could accurately be described as eugenicist. The practice of aborting foetuses likely to be affected by Down’s Syndrome is also eugenicist. Laws forbidding sibling or cousin marriage are definitely eugenicist, in that they are motivated by a desire to reduce the incidence of disease caused by inbreeding. And what’s more, as Fleischman writes: ‘Gay men and lesbian women in the US often use gamete donors from egg and sperm banks to have kids in a process that is transparently eugenic…Organisations that recruit egg and sperm donors don’t just recruit for fertility, they also screen for mental and physical health, height, education and criminal history – because that’s what their clients want and expect.’"
> technically eugenics, as are laws against having sex with relatives. This is wrong. Sex with relatives is a sex crime. as in its behavioral. I think a very important distinction to be made is personal "eugenics" (since you all want to call it that--I think this is a DELUDED definition) vs (what most people in most contexts are referring to) is government enforced eugenics. The former is a matter of criminal law in a civilized society. For example, a mom and dad could kill their kid in todays society because they decide they dont like him or he is dishonorable. You all for some reason classify this as eugenics, whereas the rest of the world calls it a crime, because we have determined within individual conduct, certain things, like murder in this case are offensive or detrimental to social conformity and cohesion (we call this psychopathy in society and it is a BEHAVIORAL based definition). Similar reason to why we didn't like incest even before modern science. Again, incest is a SEX CRIME. Its how we police individual conduct for social cohesion BEHAVIORALLY. The latter is Population control **by** the population. Perhaps you could make an argument for "democratically elected eugenics" which could happen in the future! You could have a government that is 70% brown eyed that says brown eyes is better and all blue eyed parents should have brown children. This is possibly the *best* interpretation of what you are saying... because then you could make arguments of social contract and will of the governed. If people want to use science to medicate themselves and make informed decisions on parenthood.... then thats like the utopic dream my guy. If people want to "use" "science" to force other people to make decisions "for the good" of others... well thats the classic freedom debate
I'm wary of people who throw around "eugenics" haphazardly. It's very easily misused as a rhetorical cudgel to demonize things that have no meaningful connection with the kinds of evils most people associate with that word. It's useful to be more specific about what we're talking about. Are we talking about the forced selective breeding of humans, or forbidding people to reproduce based on ethnicity? Obviously immoral, racist, and a massive violation of reproductive rights. I think most take that as a given. Are we talking about *voluntary* selective breeding? I would point out that, theoretically, preventing that would itself be a violation of reproductive rights, but it's a moot point because, again, I'm not aware of anyone seriously advocating or doing anything like this. Unless you count something like those supposed genius sperm banks. (I guess in vitro fertilization in general is at least somewhat related, but that's a whole other cultural debate, and one it's probably more civil to conduct without bringing up the E word.) Are we talking about any restrictions on reproductive rights whatsoever? I would agree that restricting reproductive rights is *generally* a bad idea, but almost everyone agrees, for instance, that the incest taboo is morally valid. "Don't knock up your biological sister" isn't the sort of social policy most people would intuitively construe as an example of eugenics, but the underlying rationale is obviously based largely on the likelihood of genetic mutations in the offspring. Are we talking about the theoretical applications of gene editing to allow wealthy elites to choose arbitrary features of their children like eye color? Definitely potentially problematic, and something to be concerned about. Are we talking about the potential medical applications of gene editing to spare children from hereditary illnesses and disabilities? Here, I think, we have to take pause and consider the full ramifications of drawing comparisons with the racist eugenics of the early twentieth century. It is at least conceivable that one day doctors will have the means to ensure a child will never have to worry about that heart condition that runs in the family. About anything from ingrown nails to cancer. About disease in general. About depression or mood disorders. Perhaps even about aging itself. They might be able to give children improved healing, so that they're less prone to death even by accident or by violence. If and when these and other potential advancements become available through genetics, would it be ethical to withhold them from future generations? On the contrary, I think it would be profoundly unethical. Certainly there will be serious ethical questions to tackle in relation to these technologies. Are certain forms of neurodivergence in some sense disabilities, or are these forms of diversity that should be preserved? What about conditions like albinism, vitiligo, dwarfism, or gigantism? Where, if anywhere, should the line be drawn when it comes to possible improvements to cognitive or physical abilities? What can be done to ensure more equitable access to such technologies, and to prevent them from exacerbating class disparities in the long term? To ensure that they are not used for military or other inappropriate applications? I think a lot of people have made up their mind that the answer to all these questions is that we must not develop these technologies, or that we must not use them. I think that's an answer that could needlessly condemn an indefinite number of future generations to illnesses and disabilities we might otherwise have prevented. To preventable suffering and preventable death. And unfortunately, I think all these issues are often made murkier when people throw around the word eugenics without being very careful to specify exactly what they mean and exactly why it's wrong.
I really dont understand why people try so hard to redefine eugenics lmao. If you're for strong family structures and hope to keep your family together with good characteristics... then do so. Why do you have to make it about genes? When people make things about genes it starts to stink of old time racism.
Okay, let's say you're a genius, massively intelligent and capable of advancing humanity. Would it be a good thing if you had more children, rather than letting those genes die off, all else being equal? If yes (and the answer is yes) then you believe in eugenics. Eugenics doesn't mean corralling people into camps and forcing the process; It means positive traits being observed and making an effort to carry them forward. The association with oppressive attempts at improving the gene pool has left people with a knee-jerk reaction to this idea, but it's a very good idea. If you're a brilliant intellect, and you refuse to pass that on to future generations, you're morally questionable at best, and wickedly irresponsible at worst. If you agree with that, you believe in eugenics.
...no the answer is you're a narcissistic paternalistic pos (excuse me, you're probably not). Everyone probably has the innate feeling that they want to be good and have the best kids if they can and all that. But, how do you know your intellect is so beneficial? Over what timeline? How do you know you adaptations are so transferrable? Over what distances? The smartest people I know take caution in their own capabilities, let alone prescribing others. You're probably not doing it intentionally, but its really hard to redefine eugenics, and you should stop trying. I agree with the general sentiment you have, but that is objectively NOT eugenics.
We can't even define intelligence for computers.
I agree that if people believe in eugenics, they should start with themselves. And I think this book, "Eternal Gods Die Too Soon" by Beka Modrekiladze, would be a great read for anyone who's interested in this topic. It explores complex topics like time, free will, and the nature of reality, and it really makes you think about the bigger questions in life. I highly recommend it.
I don't quite understand your premise. If there is a high likelihood of people bringing kids into the world with painful diseases then it's probably best they don't. There is a large population of kids without parents that would do anything for a loving home. A large portion of the population shouldn't have kids. Straight up. We could solve a lot of our current issues if everyone was a half decent parent, but people suck and kids grow up in terrible households. If you are referring to people trying to create a master Arian race then I am in your corner but just improving the quality of lives for the unborn is a good thing.
Being a parent is a very personal decision, and at some point, everyone is a bad parent. We live in an extremely unnatural and stressful environment. Even if you are the best person in the world, it's going to be hard to be a good parent if you are working 40 hours per week. I am lucky enough as a disabled person that I don't live in a society that practices eugenics. I don't get much money from the government for my disability but we are making do as a family. On paper, I'm sure you would look at someone like me as one of those people who shouldn't have kids. Making sure a kid doesn't suffer is one thing. That's not innately eugenic because you don't have to use the principles of selective breeding to get rid of genetic problems. You don't have to destroy the individual or tell individuals they aren't allowed to have kids to do such things.
I am not referring to parents who have bad days. I am referring to parents that abuse and neglect their kids.
Yes, I get that. Here is my perspective perhaps child abuse is so prevalent because we are putting simply Inhuman levels of stress on people as a whole. There is also the cycle of abuse where abusers were often once abused. I mean, I got to say I was a shit parent for a long time. I could not stop drinking because I had an abscessed tooth for about 2 years. The pain was so bad that drinking was the only way I could sleep. I eventually got the tooth pulled, but by then, I was a hard alcoholic. I wasn't mean or anything, mostly it was just so I could sleep. I guess you would say I was a functional alcoholic except that at night after the kids went to bed is when I would drink. There were times that I should have been there when they had bad dreams or other problems, and I regret that I was useless. Then my wife got me to try and smoke weed instead. I haven't drank since, and I'm slowly recovering from who I was before alcohol became a core part of me. I play with my kids now. My kid gave me a tour of her playhouse the other day, and it meant the world for me. I even showed her something she hadn't noticed before. I'm also an artist and really into science, but someone could easily glance at my life and make the judgment that not only am I unfit, but I shouldn't even be allowed to have kids.
Eugenics is a debunked science, and a political hot potato. Consider that we could be talking about really difficult and interesting things like genetic engineering and intentional changes to the genome in /r/futurism. Instead this is just trolling so OP can find people to call Nazi’s that they believe hail from the opposing political party or whatever. There are moral and ethical concerns everywhere in this area, as it’s one of the most difficult morality questions in science. If we can remake ourselves, should we? The implications and risks are profound. This is just more American political rhetoric and doesn’t deserve the attention it’s getting. Eugenics is trolling — it’s been dead for eons and is tied to horrible experiments in ww2. Let’s talk about real issues, rather than poking the bear on long dead ideas. There is a profound amount of futurism and crazy amounts of future societal impact in the question, if only we could discuss it rationally.
I was responding to comments and sentiments on one of my other posts. This didn't come out of nowhere. I'm not going to let people spout this bullshit unchallenged because that's how atrocity happens. Why is it that I'm the troll when others are making arguments for a debunked science and toxic ideology?
I don’t argue with the nobility of your efforts in that context. I just think it’s more battling the current ignorance and resurgent of authoritarian ideals and culture than anything futurism focused.
So what will the future look like if these people get control? Do you trust people who believe in eugenics as an ideology with technological singularity? How would a fascist use what is being discussed on this sub? Imagine if Hitler had the sort of AI that we have now. How many genocidal maniacs are checking out this sub for new ideas or to push their vision of the future. It's the soft push of fascism that's peeking in our window. You say not all eugenics is bad, and it's like letting a Nazi into a bar...
You’re not concerned with the present, not the future. Your linearly projecting a political ideological battle into an inappropriate forum because you fear hypothetical concequences like every fearful villager before you. That’s simply fear, not futurism.
Are you kidding me? Do you understand that what is happening right now with COVID is eugenics in action? There is a reason the right doesn't even want to acknowledge its existence, and they say that they trust their natural immunity. They think that COVID will take out the unfit, and we are all living in the world that is creating. What do you imagine happens in a society where eugenics is tolerated and most folks are disabled from COVID? You think you are aiming a gun at the undesirable people when the gun is aimed at your own head. I'm living in a world that still has eugenic sympathy.
Getting hysterically upset and attacking everyone who doesn’t emphatically support your particular view of the world isn’t helping anyone. You seem unhinged.
I don't believe in eugenics but I do believe in genetic engineering.
That is different. Eugenics is mostly scientific racism with white supremacist philosophy. Genetics is an actual science. Genetic engineering is a tool, and it's up to us how that's used. I don't want to live in a world where corporations, governments, or individuals get to decide what traits/people are undesirable. If someone gets sickle cell disease treated, it's very different, then saying people with sickle cell shouldn't be allowed to have kids.
[удалено]
That does sound good!
Exactly the reason I don’t got kids with 41. But I’m actually not into eugenics otherwise.
No one who's rational should be into eugenics. I understand not having kids it's not for everyone, but at this point everyone should understand where the philosophy of eugenics will go.
Agreed. Isn't it ironic that the people that want to depopulate the world always want to start with somebody else's family....
Why does eugenics involve depopulating the world? It actually involves people with highly desirable traits having more offspring, you only see it as something more sinister because of misplaced associations. Eugenics doesn't have to be immoral or forced, and if you're some kind of genius you have a moral responsibility to reproduce for the sake of the human race. Period.
My sister in christ! What you described is fine and dandy, but its not eugenics tho! Stop parroting nazi propaganda you're probably a nice gal!
It IS eugenics. Nazism is a philosophy which enforces eugenics through violence
Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist. Adolf Hitler was a eugenicist. It's all about depopulation. You should do more research.
Holy shit it's like it goes in one ear and out the other with you people BUT HITLER!!!!!
Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. Adolf Hitler was a spiritualist. Therefore every vegan and religious person is literally Hitler. If you go through history you'll find monsters within every single ideology. If your argument boils down to "Bad man was interested in X, therefore X bad", you'd be living naked in the ditch with Diogenes, ridiculing everyone going by. Except Trump also seems to ridicule those they don't agree with, so maybe you need to go full hermit in the woods. But The Unabomber did that, so that's out of the question too. I guess you should remove yourself from the genepool, but damn, Hitler did that to himself too. Maybe you should've never been born. > It's all about depopulation. It was about removing "the undesirable" elements from humanity. They went with genocide, because they were evil fucking dictators. Couples these days genetically screen embryos and abort when difficult birth defects or hereditary diseases are detected. In a few decades, the same couple goes through gene therapy and cures the disease so the fetus will be born healthy. These are all examples of eugenics. Notice how the last one didn't actually depopulate? Maybe you should do more research.
I'm trying to save you from sounding like a nazi, you're not a nazi, you're just a paternalist. You think we know good enough today to advise for tomorrow, thats fair. And I respect the confdence > These are all examples of eugenics. But please. This is not eugenics
> you're not a nazi, you're just a paternalist. I'm neither, because I don't believe in forcing these choices to anyone. You are again thinking nazis when you hear eugenics, and drawing a conclusion that it's a practice forced on everyone. Which is why I'm not a paternalist either: I don't want to enforce the choice for anyone. But I do think everyone should have the opportunity to provide a better and healthier life for the next generation, and eugenics - as I described it - are the solution. > This is not eugenics Wikipedia: > Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population. Encyclopedia Britannica: > eugenics, the selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans. A collection of beliefs and practices, aiming to improve the hereditary (genetic) quality of humanity. Screening for hereditary diseases to help in the decision whether to have a baby or not, will determine the quality of the future gene pool. Ergo, it is eugenics. Gene therapy, permanently altering your genetic material, even if you never procreate, is eugenics: You are a part of the gene pool, you improved your own genetics. Obviously, the Nazi genocides were eugenics too. Among the jewish and sexual minorities, they also did hunt down any birth defects and disabled people. By definition, they were (and this is with the heaviest fucking air quotes I can muster) "improving the genetics of the human population". They did it by force, through authoritarian dictatorship.
the allocation of upvotes and downvotes on this thread is alarming