4 ms·
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 c
by 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 agoDictionary 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 agoThe 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.)