5 ms·
Something that baffles me is that if you take the position that we should select for healthy genes and not put resources into persisting unhealthy ones, it's "b
by 13of40 10y ago
Something that baffles me is that if you take the position that we should select for healthy genes and not put resources into persisting unhealthy ones, it's "bad" because that's "eugenics". But at the same time, the people who spend $200K to get therapy like this are doing it for the sole purpose of persisting their own genome. If that wasn't true, they'd just adopt or raise foster children.
- throwaway91111 10y agoI think it's the systemic approach that's the problem.
- paulryanrogers 10y ago"If that wasn't true, they'd just adopt or raise foster children" Adoption has negative connotations for some families and cultures. So it's possible there are other motives involved.
- 13of40 10y agoThat's exactly my point. They're basically being locally racist. And somehow that's not just OK, but we treat it like an inalienable right.
- paulryanrogers 10y agoWhy assume racism? Some people hope their children will be in their elder years, and adopting means the children may be more likely to bond with biological parents. Media that romanticize finding one's 'real' parents can indirectly contribute to those kinds of concerns.
- brainfire 10y agoEugenics is applying your idea of genetic fitness to other people. Reproductive treatments are applying your idea of genetic fitness to yourself. Seems clear to me why the former is "bad" and the latter is not.