3 ms·
Because it leads to human rights atrocities, and there is no way to define “better” genes objectively.
by dcwca 9y ago
Because it leads to human rights atrocities, and there is no way to define “better” genes objectively.
- matte_black 9y agoEugenics doesn’t inherently lead to human rights violations. You can define better genes objectively by looking at genes of people that live the longest and with the least health issues. Natural selection is poor at selecting for traits that lead to longevity.
- rapind 9y agoBecause longevity isn't essential to our survival. You're suggesting that diverting energy away from other traits in favour of longevity would have no negative impact. IMO there are all sorts of possible negative side effects that might emerge. Like a longer life making us more cautious, individualistic, and short sighted (not personally but on a species scale). You could argue this is already happening due to environmental comforts and medical advances. In fact dramatically tweaking a trait like longevity for a new generation would likely have a massive impact on their personality and culture... talk about a generation gap.
- dcwca 9y ago> Eugenics doesn’t inherently lead to human rights violations Right, but it does in practice. What if we found that Japanese people lived the longest? Would we only allow Japanese to breed? Or bias towards them? How would you qualify how “Japanese” someone’s genes are? Can you not see how this leads to a toxic culture of racism?
- apcragg 9y agoI can't believe this person is honestly advocating for eugenics. That should have died in 1945.
- wellboy 9y agoTheoretically, maybe it doesn't but practically, it has terrible consequences, especially in countries where human rights aren't a thing anyway, it will lead to dystopian concepts. I would suggest to read up on eugenics a bitZ