3 ms·
As it always does, it will boil down to how rigorous they are about the science. Eugenics fails not because it's controversial or immoral but because it's wron
by otakucode 8y ago
As it always does, it will boil down to how rigorous they are about the science. Eugenics fails not because it's controversial or immoral but because it's wrong and is based upon fundamental misunderstandings of how DNA works. There are certainly types of research that will benefit from being able to be published without worrying about committing career suicide. Several years ago a relatively new sex researchers did a study that showed significant reduction in depression among women who has unprotected sex with their male partner over women using condoms. This is simple biology, but it destroyed his career. The number of people worried that the public are too stupid to be trusted to make their own decisions and scared that such 'dangerous information' might lead to less frequent condom use and wider spread of STDs was much greater than the number of people who were glad to know some more about human biology.
- asianthrowaway 8y agoHow is eugenics wrong (in the scientific sense, not the moral sense)? It seems to work pretty well with plants and some animals (dogs, horses, etc.)
- genericone 8y agoIf you take morality from everything, nothing is wrong, nothing has ever been wrong, nothing will ever be wrong, everything simply has-been/is/will-be. That's not the kind of world people want to live in.
- asianthrowaway 8y agoOh don't get me wrong, I personally oppose eugenics from a moral standpoint. I was just quibbling with the assertion that eugenics does not work because of a "misunderstanding on how DNA works". If that's the case I'd like him to explain how we have crops and domesticated animals.
- monk22 8y agolook at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passing_of_the_Great_Race https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passing_of_the_Great_Race the argument is based on pseudo-science saying the "nordic" race is superior therefore killing babies of every other race is ok
- asianthrowaway 8y agoThat book is about the application of eugenic policies to spread the nordic race, which the author alleges is superior to other races. I agree that it is pseudoscientific in regard to its theories of racial superiority, but it does not refute the validity of eugenics as a scientific practice. In fact, you may not realize it, but most western countries already implement eugenic policies. For instance, in my country, most fetuses which are identified as suffering from Down syndrome are aborted, and that practice is encouraged by doctors. This has led to a significant decrease in the number of people affected with that condition. You may not think of it this way, but that is a form of eugenics.
- ataturk 8y agoWhat is interesting is how many Americans agreed with eugenics! The Nazis were heroes for quite awhile. Hitler was Time Magazine man of the year.
- otakucode 8y agoDoes it, now? How are the hips on that 'perfect' golden retriever? To be more detailed, genes are not single-purpose. The same gene which confers a 'strength' is almost guaranteed to also confer a 'weakness'. Often this weakness is not even evident until an environmental change occurs, at which point the species with the greatest genetic diversity will survive while the one 'optimized' for the prior conditions will die off. Belief in eugenics requires some very particular things, such as, say, physical strength being completely unrelated genetically to metabolic function - which it's not. This doesn't even account for the multitude of things which, if we were to seek to genetically 'optimize' people, we would be inadvertently optimizing or eliminating. Plainly put, eugenics is bad science and a bad idea rooted in ignorance and, most dangerously, a willingness to take shortcuts with scientific rigor that substitute intuition for actual knowledge.