4 ms·

Stop. Seriously. Stop. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the reason you're getting downvoted is because you're advocating something that is basical

Stop. Seriously. Stop. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the reason you're getting downvoted is because you're advocating something that is basically eugenics wearing modern clothing. The practice of eugenics is generally associated with Nazis. Yes, those Nazis. Not just the modern ones, but the Hitler 1920s-1945 ones who started a World War. They used "superior genetics" as a justification for many of their actions before, during, and after the war. Don't be a Nazi. Accept that this is fresh research, that genetics may set someone out on a different path but that there are many other factors that affect their life and choices. In this study[0], there is no human research, and the definition of monogamy is limited to a single mating season. It's also looking at gene expression, which means that a gene that everyone has is either turned on or off. For reference, genes are expressed differently in various parts of your body, and is a fairly good test for various types of cancer. [0]: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/01/02/1813775116 https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/01/02/1813775116

user13243458 8y ago
This kind of fear mongering about genetics wont do anyone any good. Biological determinism is reality.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rjf72 8y ago
I think the leap to eugenics there is not warranted. Eugenics is about enforced selective breeding. Enforcement being the key. Imagine you are tall and want a child that is also tall and so actively seek out a tall partner. That's obviously not engaging in eugenics, but an enforced prohibition on short individuals procreating would indeed be eugenics. I would very much oppose any government ever enforcing genetic criterion on a mass level. But I see no qualms about individuals themselves having genetic preferences. Your argument might be that well nobody would want somebody with [undesirable trait x] so it would exclude these individuals from the collective gene pool, yet we see in real life that that's not how things work. Being short is not very desired, is genetically linked, and is immediately visible. Yet in spite of all of that, in practice it in no way stops people from living great lives, raising families, and finding great partners.
- everybodyknows 8y ago
  Dictionary tells us that the term applies even in the absence of enforcement per se: https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Eugenics https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Eugenics
  - Sniffnoy 8y ago
    The dictionary will tell you only tell you about words, not the reality that the words are meant to reflect. You cannot deduce, from what word a thing is called, whether that thing is good or bad. You must address the thing itself, and not assume that, just because it is called by the same name as some other thing, that they are the same. (See e.g. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncentral-fallacy-the-worst-argument-in-the-world https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen... for more on this.)
matte_black 8y ago
People are afraid of eugenics and it’s antiquated association to Nazis, but humans practice eugenics everyday. We select people who are most likely to be within our social class, we select based on appearance and intelligence (and thus, earning potential) or things like height and fertility. Because genes make up who we are, nearly every filter we create is somehow tied to a person’s genetics. Eugenics doesn’t have to be barbaric and racist. I’m not calling for genetic based dating to be forced on everyone, or to become law. I’m simply calling for a platform to be built that allows people to come together based on desirable genes and give them the best chance of making genetically gifted children. We owe it to future generations. Someday, when the technologies are ready and I have more money, I would be glad to form a team and take a shot at building this platform, if someone else hasn’t beaten me to it.
stickfigure 8y ago
I think this whole discussion is pretty pointless because it will inevitably turn out that behavior is incredibly complicated and can't be pinned to a DNA arrangement. But... I don't like your reasoning. It sounds like: Hitler was a vegetarian. Don't be Hitler. We already legally enforce certain kinds of eugenics. Most of the world prohibits sex between siblings. Right up until very recently many US states had marriage blood test requirements to prevent certain sexually transmitted and genetic diseases. There are a couple horrifying genetic diseases I wouldn't object to banning - google Lesch–Nyhan syndrome or Harlequin-type ichthyosis if you'd like to spend the rest of your evening crying. It doesn't even sound like he's proposing a legal requirement. People pick mates for all sorts of dumb reasons. Hell, I know people that believe in zodiac signs. As long as it's voluntary, let them play the genetic dating game. If someone thinks that a few genes are going to bring a happy marriage, the joke's on them.
- pdpi 8y ago
  > It sounds like: Hitler was a vegetarian. Don't be Hitler. To me it read more like the Nazi comparison was meant as a wake up call, and the bulk of the argument is in the second paragraph: "In this study[0], there is no human research, and the definition of monogamy is limited to a single mating season. It's also looking at gene expression, which means that a gene that everyone has is either turned on or off. For reference, genes are expressed differently in various parts of your body, and is a fairly good test for various types of cancer." On a separate note, this wasn't a "Hitler was a vegetarian" thing. Pseudoscientific rationalisation for why some humans are morally superior to others is precisely that sort of context where Godwin's Law doesn't apply.

user13243458 8y ago

This kind of fear mongering about genetics wont do anyone any good. Biological determinism is reality.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

rjf72 8y ago

I think the leap to eugenics there is not warranted. Eugenics is about enforced selective breeding. Enforcement being the key. Imagine you are tall and want a child that is also tall and so actively seek out a tall partner. That's obviously not engaging in eugenics, but an enforced prohibition on short individuals procreating would indeed be eugenics. I would very much oppose any government ever enforcing genetic criterion on a mass level. But I see no qualms about individuals themselves having genetic preferences. Your argument might be that well nobody would want somebody with [undesirable trait x] so it would exclude these individuals from the collective gene pool, yet we see in real life that that's not how things work. Being short is not very desired, is genetically linked, and is immediately visible. Yet in spite of all of that, in practice it in no way stops people from living great lives, raising families, and finding great partners.

everybodyknows 8y ago
Dictionary tells us that the term applies even in the absence of enforcement per se: https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Eugenics https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Eugenics
- Sniffnoy 8y ago
  The dictionary will tell you only tell you about words, not the reality that the words are meant to reflect. You cannot deduce, from what word a thing is called, whether that thing is good or bad. You must address the thing itself, and not assume that, just because it is called by the same name as some other thing, that they are the same. (See e.g. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncentral-fallacy-the-worst-argument-in-the-world https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen... for more on this.)

matte_black 8y ago

People are afraid of eugenics and it’s antiquated association to Nazis, but humans practice eugenics everyday. We select people who are most likely to be within our social class, we select based on appearance and intelligence (and thus, earning potential) or things like height and fertility. Because genes make up who we are, nearly every filter we create is somehow tied to a person’s genetics. Eugenics doesn’t have to be barbaric and racist. I’m not calling for genetic based dating to be forced on everyone, or to become law. I’m simply calling for a platform to be built that allows people to come together based on desirable genes and give them the best chance of making genetically gifted children. We owe it to future generations. Someday, when the technologies are ready and I have more money, I would be glad to form a team and take a shot at building this platform, if someone else hasn’t beaten me to it.

stickfigure 8y ago

I think this whole discussion is pretty pointless because it will inevitably turn out that behavior is incredibly complicated and can't be pinned to a DNA arrangement. But... I don't like your reasoning. It sounds like: Hitler was a vegetarian. Don't be Hitler. We already legally enforce certain kinds of eugenics. Most of the world prohibits sex between siblings. Right up until very recently many US states had marriage blood test requirements to prevent certain sexually transmitted and genetic diseases. There are a couple horrifying genetic diseases I wouldn't object to banning - google Lesch–Nyhan syndrome or Harlequin-type ichthyosis if you'd like to spend the rest of your evening crying. It doesn't even sound like he's proposing a legal requirement. People pick mates for all sorts of dumb reasons. Hell, I know people that believe in zodiac signs. As long as it's voluntary, let them play the genetic dating game. If someone thinks that a few genes are going to bring a happy marriage, the joke's on them.

pdpi 8y ago
> It sounds like: Hitler was a vegetarian. Don't be Hitler. To me it read more like the Nazi comparison was meant as a wake up call, and the bulk of the argument is in the second paragraph: "In this study[0], there is no human research, and the definition of monogamy is limited to a single mating season. It's also looking at gene expression, which means that a gene that everyone has is either turned on or off. For reference, genes are expressed differently in various parts of your body, and is a fairly good test for various types of cancer." On a separate note, this wasn't a "Hitler was a vegetarian" thing. Pseudoscientific rationalisation for why some humans are morally superior to others is precisely that sort of context where Godwin's Law doesn't apply.