5 ms·

>Do you think we will ever turn back to eugenics? As the word is currently used, no, but mostly because it’s seemingly used to represent, in the public conscio

by fardo 4y ago

>Do you think we will ever turn back to eugenics? As the word is currently used, no, but mostly because it’s seemingly used to represent, in the public consciousness > intentional genetic control we dislike When we do things such as “screening for down syndrome” [1], we are already actively engaged in a eugenics project, but we don’t think of it as one because it’s the kind of intentional genetic control we like. I expect many, many more “genetic controls we like” as medical and biological sciences advance, I think “eugenics” will always be viewed as a dead end. [1] https://www.pennmedicine.org/updates/blogs/womens-health/2012/august/screening-for-down-syndrome https://www.pennmedicine.org/updates/blogs/womens-health/201...

skissane 4y ago
> When we do things such as “screening for down syndrome” [1], we are already actively engaged in a eugenics project, but we don’t think of it as one because it’s the kind of intentional genetic control we like. Historically, many cases of "eugenics" involved a lack of informed consent, even blatant coercion. That screening is entirely voluntary–you have the right to say "no", and I know couples who have (due to moral objections grounded in their religious beliefs). That's a very big difference.
- chii 4y ago
  Yes this! Eugenics is only when someone else decides it for you.
  - pharmakom 4y ago
    it's not encoded in law, but we do have a society where who can have many children is determined by economic factors that are not fully under ones control.
    - chii 4y ago
      lack of economic ability is not the same as someone forcing you not to have children. And you can still have children even when facing economic hardship - lots of people have done it (think immigrant families who start out poor). I would also claim that a lot of western nations subsidize families already, so economic factors is not considered eugenics imho.
      - adrianN 4y ago
        How would you feel about a free test for $genetic_marker coupled with taxes for parents that have children with $genetic_marker? Surely that would count as "forced"?
        karottenreibe 4y ago
        GP said that we do have a society right now where economics is a eugenic factor. Please name one instance of the pattern you described in society today. I'm not aware of any tax on generic markers.
        WHATDOESIT 4y ago
        In practically any country with socialized healthcare you will be strongly encouraged to terminate a child that might turn out unhealthy, and in a lot of them you will lose "benefits" (on which you depend because you were forced to pay mandatory social insurance before, taking away your ability to save/invest by yourself) if you don't listen/go to the doctors as "you are supposed to because that's the system". Where I live in Central Europe, going to the gynecologist and listening to their recommendations is a requirement to get full parental social benefits - and the policy most certainly is also based on what's economical for the state/"the system", and only parents that were previously working can get the benefits. Additionally, you will have to pay the full price for any treatment that's outside their recommendations, this often turns out higher in absolute prices than in any US hospital - even though the people are much poorer. Then once an unhealthy child is born they often don't get the full benefits of socialized healthcare as they should according to the constitutions, the administration will say "the system works in a different way and you went outside it, so you need to take care of it yourself" and the parents are forced to pay for treatments and medical equipment by themselves because what "the system recommends" is not nearly enough (we are talking about US$ millions of additional out-of-pocket expenses in some real world cases that I follow locally). That could be interpreted as a form of tax too, especially since you are forced to pay mandatory health insurance in most of these countries.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I think this is exactly the kind of revisionist history Faro's post was talking about. "that was eugenics, this is NUgenics" Lack of informed consent was never central to eugenics
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  > That screening is entirely voluntary–you have the right to say "no" The child doesn't, though, and, if you'll excuse my frankness, I think the abortion affects his/her future the most out of all the parties involved.
  - WHATDOESIT 4y ago
    If you'll excuse my frankness, at the point of screening it's much more an idea of a child, than an actual he/she.
    - dane-pgp 4y ago
      I see what you're saying, and appreciate you sharing that perspective. We could say that before conception, everyone agrees there is no child, and at birth, everyone agrees there is a child, so there is maybe a "spectrum" between "idea of a child" and "an actual he/she". Your use of the wording "much more" sort of supports this "probability distribution function" idea of what a child is, and it seems like a helpful philosophical framing of this difficult and important question. What I would say, though, is that if society is going to pick a point along that spectrum to base policy decisions on, then there is an imbalance between the risks of placing that point too early versus too late. Too early means that some women's decisions will be unreasonably restricted, whereas too late means that some human being's lives will be unreasonably terminated. The philosophically humble thing to do under such uncertainty would therefore be to err on the side of an earlier point, and in fact the earliest point possible, lest future generations look back on us like the slave owners or eugenicists of previous centuries.

by fardo 4y ago

skissane 4y ago

> When we do things such as “screening for down syndrome” [1], we are already actively engaged in a eugenics project, but we don’t think of it as one because it’s the kind of intentional genetic control we like. Historically, many cases of "eugenics" involved a lack of informed consent, even blatant coercion. That screening is entirely voluntary–you have the right to say "no", and I know couples who have (due to moral objections grounded in their religious beliefs). That's a very big difference.

chii 4y ago
Yes this! Eugenics is only when someone else decides it for you.
- pharmakom 4y ago
  it's not encoded in law, but we do have a society where who can have many children is determined by economic factors that are not fully under ones control.
  - chii 4y ago
    lack of economic ability is not the same as someone forcing you not to have children. And you can still have children even when facing economic hardship - lots of people have done it (think immigrant families who start out poor). I would also claim that a lot of western nations subsidize families already, so economic factors is not considered eugenics imho.
    - adrianN 4y ago
      How would you feel about a free test for $genetic_marker coupled with taxes for parents that have children with $genetic_marker? Surely that would count as "forced"?
      - karottenreibe 4y ago
        GP said that we do have a society right now where economics is a eugenic factor. Please name one instance of the pattern you described in society today. I'm not aware of any tax on generic markers.
        WHATDOESIT 4y ago
        In practically any country with socialized healthcare you will be strongly encouraged to terminate a child that might turn out unhealthy, and in a lot of them you will lose "benefits" (on which you depend because you were forced to pay mandatory social insurance before, taking away your ability to save/invest by yourself) if you don't listen/go to the doctors as "you are supposed to because that's the system". Where I live in Central Europe, going to the gynecologist and listening to their recommendations is a requirement to get full parental social benefits - and the policy most certainly is also based on what's economical for the state/"the system", and only parents that were previously working can get the benefits. Additionally, you will have to pay the full price for any treatment that's outside their recommendations, this often turns out higher in absolute prices than in any US hospital - even though the people are much poorer. Then once an unhealthy child is born they often don't get the full benefits of socialized healthcare as they should according to the constitutions, the administration will say "the system works in a different way and you went outside it, so you need to take care of it yourself" and the parents are forced to pay for treatments and medical equipment by themselves because what "the system recommends" is not nearly enough (we are talking about US$ millions of additional out-of-pocket expenses in some real world cases that I follow locally). That could be interpreted as a form of tax too, especially since you are forced to pay mandatory health insurance in most of these countries.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I think this is exactly the kind of revisionist history Faro's post was talking about. "that was eugenics, this is NUgenics" Lack of informed consent was never central to eugenics
dane-pgp 4y ago
> That screening is entirely voluntary–you have the right to say "no" The child doesn't, though, and, if you'll excuse my frankness, I think the abortion affects his/her future the most out of all the parties involved.
- WHATDOESIT 4y ago
  If you'll excuse my frankness, at the point of screening it's much more an idea of a child, than an actual he/she.
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    I see what you're saying, and appreciate you sharing that perspective. We could say that before conception, everyone agrees there is no child, and at birth, everyone agrees there is a child, so there is maybe a "spectrum" between "idea of a child" and "an actual he/she". Your use of the wording "much more" sort of supports this "probability distribution function" idea of what a child is, and it seems like a helpful philosophical framing of this difficult and important question. What I would say, though, is that if society is going to pick a point along that spectrum to base policy decisions on, then there is an imbalance between the risks of placing that point too early versus too late. Too early means that some women's decisions will be unreasonably restricted, whereas too late means that some human being's lives will be unreasonably terminated. The philosophically humble thing to do under such uncertainty would therefore be to err on the side of an earlier point, and in fact the earliest point possible, lest future generations look back on us like the slave owners or eugenicists of previous centuries.