4 ms·

We also got eugenics based on “science”

• yakshaving_jgt 6y ago
  Eugenics was an idea pondered by the ancient Greeks. I’m not defending it, but it’s not the brainchild of a certain genocidal political party that many people seem to think it is.
  • throwaway2048 6y ago
    Not sure how that changes anything about it being psuedoscientific garbage
    • lopmotr 6y ago
      What do you mean? It's selective breeding for humans the same as we do for farm animals and cats and dogs. It's not pseudoscientific.
      • TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
        No - it's pseudo moral. It's reviled because proponents are reliably racist idiots who don't even understand the limits of the science - or why breeding humans like farm animals really isn't such a great idea.
        • catalogia 6y ago
          The GP didn't seem to claim it was moral. Making nerve gas isn't moral either, but that has nothing to do with whether making nerve gas is pseudochemistry.
        • pluto9 6y ago
          > It's reviled because proponents are reliably racist idiots It's reviled because it's inherently immoral. Its proponents are indeed usually racist idiots, but even if they had the best of intentions, it would still be immoral.
    • mistermann 6y ago
      Is part of it not based on breeding, which we have done with plants and animals?
• lopmotr 6y ago
  We've successfully applied it to animals so it works. Just because it's against your sense of morals doesn't mean it's not based on real science.
  • shash 6y ago
    The problem with eugenics isn’t the idea of selective breeding, but the conflation of mostly irrelevant traits or uninheritable traits with important and inheritable ones. Leading to a loss of genetic diversity and concentration of genetic diseases. “If done right”, but I doubt it can ever _be_ done right...
    • alexashka 6y ago
      Huh? You can cherry pick an attempt to do something in any discipline and then go on to doubt if it can ever be done right. What you said is not even an argument - it is just an expression of personal preference towards specific actions. I like apples, you like bananas, where do we go from here? I heard somewhere that there are three types of information: facts, fiction and fiction masquerading as facts. It seems to me that you're engaging in the third type, as are many others who hear an opinion that seems to make sense and aligns with their preconceived preferences, which they then go on to repeat with an incredible level of certainty. I'd argue 99% of what people say is of this variety, which is a problem because it is so pervasive, that hardly anyone seems to notice. It's like we're in the matrix, maaan.
      • shash 6y ago
        > What you said is not even an argument - it is just an expression of personal preference towards specific actions. Which is the whole point. Eugenics is “fiction masquerading as fact”, as you put it. The core hypothesis (selective breeding works) is sound, but the traits that historical Eugenicists were trying to breed into the populace were all subjective, fictional correlates of what they thought were desirable. It’s not about MY preconceived preferences, but about what preconceived preferences the person running the eugenics experiment has. When I say it can’t be done “right”, what I mean is that what constitutes the “eu-“ part of eugenics, meaning “good” or “best” is inherently subjective, and the choices of a particular experiment may end up being counterproductive to the goal of creating the “best” humans.