3 ms·

While I find the statement in bad taste and guilty of classism I can't find the racist and/or eugenics aspects anywhere. He talks about rich and poor, not race

• paganel 4y ago
  > He talks about rich and poor Looking at the current distribution of wealthy vs poor countries and people is kind of disingenuous and rationalistic to ignore the racist undertones. More exactly saying "we'll choose the wealthy people vs the poor ones if it will come to that" while ignoring that most of the wealthy people across the globe are of one "race", while the other peoples are of other "races", is, yes, racist. About eugenics, whenever cold numbers only come into play in decisions like these I think it's safe to call it that, i.e. eugenics. Choosing wealthy people against poor people based on numbers alone is eugenics. You're choosing the more "worthy" ones, as that Beckstead guy explicitly said. More to the point, saying that people A should have more chances to live compared to people B, because people A is more worthy ("has the potential to create more long-term value"), is the definition of eugenics.