7 ms·
I think the thing that scares people about these concepts is that they know everyone will choose it. This article chose to use the word "profiling" People cho
by rolltiide 7y ago
I think the thing that scares people about these concepts is that they know everyone will choose it.
This article chose to use the word "profiling"
People choose to refrain from other loaded words like "eugenics"
but this is exactly what people do pursuing others that they consider attractive. nobody would say they are, with the idea of eugenics reserved for 1930s state sanctioned medical pogroms, but their actions of "choosing inheritable traits" undermine that.
- sysbin 7y agoPeople happen to do what's best for their offspring. Any kid that has parents doing the opposite will either be disappointed or angered. Being born into wealth & good genetics is already a huge advantage and society doesn't seem to care about it. I mean look at current day and the past centuries. Nothing has been done about being born into privilege vs misfortune. Similar it's not like anyone has any control over how their birth will be and it will be similar for whats to come. Aesthetics is grossly desired because psychologically they matter among the majority. Intelligence has too many advantages to list. No reason to go into why the bad traits would want to be removed.
- naringas 7y agopeople are not born into this world, we are born out of (or from) it
- sysbin 7y agoI used "born into wealth & good genetics" & "born into privilege vs misfortune" and I disagree with your interpretation.
- naringas 7y agodo you disagree with the general statement "we are born out of this world"? does that mean you think that we "are born into this world" (nevermind if we are born with good or bad fortune)?
- sysbin 7y agoI disagreed with your interpretation of what I wrote. I don't think it's worthwhile for me to have an opinion on what you're implying.
- naringas 7y agofair enough. I agree that my statement wasn't really related to what you said. I'm just nitpicky about the tacit implications of that common phrase "born into the world"
- hanniabu 7y agoWhat they won't tell you is they will also select ones that are signal greater civil obedience so you're easier to control takes tin foil hat off
- mattnewton 7y agoOne thing an adolescence of reading dystopian sci fi didn't prepare me for is the seemingly sheer incompetence of Western governments in the real world compared to the ones of Orwell and Huxley. If we needed to be further bred for complacency it would have to compete with bread and circuses for cost effectiveness.
- hcarvalhoalves 7y agoYou're comparing free-will to state policy. There's a huge difference. The state has the monopoly of force and can absolutely enforce any kind of selection, to the benefit of state heads.
- ip26 7y agoEugenics has pretty strong connotations, but eradicating tay-sachs is also eugenics. Perhaps it could be thought of as positive & negative eugenics (like positive & negative rights)? E.g. killing people and telling them who they are allowed to marry and whether they can have kids is negative (taking away), while growing embryos free of genetic diseases is positive (giving)? Just rolling the idea around in my head. Of significance to me, if we had the capability to completely eliminate diseases like tay-sachs in a positive way (e.g. embryo selection), it might be inhumane not to.
- haihaibye 7y agoPositive & negative eugenics were the terms used by Galton in the 19th century.
- rtkwe 7y agoI think the crucial moral difference here is the old eugenics was preventing people from having kids because their genes were 'bad' in some way. These new things are superficially similar but don't rely on preventing people from having kids and their goals are focused on improving particular individuals instead of it being an outside attempt to improve society as a whole.