4 ms·

By advocating for selective breeding and genetic engineering, eugenics promotes the idea that some individuals are inherently superior to others based on their

By advocating for selective breeding and genetic engineering, eugenics promotes the idea that some individuals are inherently superior to others based on their genetics, which is a dangerous and discriminatory notion. Furthermore, eugenics often relies on subjective criteria to determine which traits are desirable or undesirable. This can lead to the marginalization and discrimination of certain groups based on factors such as race, ethnicity, or disability. Eugenics has a long history of being used to justify discriminatory policies, such as forced sterilization, segregation, and genocide, which have caused immense harm and suffering to countless individuals and communities. Finally, eugenics assumes that genetic factors are the primary determinants of an individual's traits and abilities, ignoring the complex interplay between genetics and environment. This reductionist view of human biology is not only scientifically flawed but also ignores the importance of environmental factors such as education, social support, and access to resources in shaping an individual's life outcomes.

jag3421 4y ago
Your argument is riddled with strawmen. Eugenics is clearly helpful if you have a strategy selected (breeding for intelligence, strength, etc) and is witnessed in horse breeding, dog breeding, etc, and why top dollar is paid for the offspring of prize winning horses when they are studded out. You should instead attempt to make a compelling argument how it does not apply to humans. That would be worth reading, instead of strawman arguments.
- notch898c 4y ago
  I'm sure my account will be banned soon, so let me just leave one pondering here: Does many generations of slavery and the associated genetic selection for winning survival strategies impose shifting genetic attributes to the surviving population? --------- re: below [due to rate limiting] Appreciate the honest reply. >The death rates for slaves was 1.8% Ah but I suspect this was after arrival in the mainland. There was a "seasoning" process in the "west indies" where as much as 50% of slaves perished before arriving to market. And I don't think that includes the long voyage across the Pacific nor between capture and initial sale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasoning_(slavery) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasoning_(slavery)
  - robopsychology 4y ago
    It's my understanding during slavery, assuming we're thinking American Black slavery here and not something else like Egyptian slavery etc, slaves were allowed to have their own families which they picked and were not selected for some sort of "superior" trait in children. The death rates for slaves was 1.8% and for whites was 1.2%, so I don't think that would have been a factor either. I wonder if any previous human civilization did actually select slaves that were stronger to try birth stronger slaves... horrifying to think about really, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been done.
    - zamnos 4y ago
      > Slave breeding was the practice in slave states of the United States of slave owners to systematically force the reproduction of slaves to increase their profits.[1] It included coerced sexual relations between male slaves and women or girls, forced pregnancies of female slaves, and favoring women or young girls who could produce a relatively large number of children. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_S...

jag3421 4y ago

Your argument is riddled with strawmen. Eugenics is clearly helpful if you have a strategy selected (breeding for intelligence, strength, etc) and is witnessed in horse breeding, dog breeding, etc, and why top dollar is paid for the offspring of prize winning horses when they are studded out. You should instead attempt to make a compelling argument how it does not apply to humans. That would be worth reading, instead of strawman arguments.

notch898c 4y ago
I'm sure my account will be banned soon, so let me just leave one pondering here: Does many generations of slavery and the associated genetic selection for winning survival strategies impose shifting genetic attributes to the surviving population? --------- re: below [due to rate limiting] Appreciate the honest reply. >The death rates for slaves was 1.8% Ah but I suspect this was after arrival in the mainland. There was a "seasoning" process in the "west indies" where as much as 50% of slaves perished before arriving to market. And I don't think that includes the long voyage across the Pacific nor between capture and initial sale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasoning_(slavery) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasoning_(slavery)
- robopsychology 4y ago
  It's my understanding during slavery, assuming we're thinking American Black slavery here and not something else like Egyptian slavery etc, slaves were allowed to have their own families which they picked and were not selected for some sort of "superior" trait in children. The death rates for slaves was 1.8% and for whites was 1.2%, so I don't think that would have been a factor either. I wonder if any previous human civilization did actually select slaves that were stronger to try birth stronger slaves... horrifying to think about really, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been done.
  - zamnos 4y ago
    > Slave breeding was the practice in slave states of the United States of slave owners to systematically force the reproduction of slaves to increase their profits.[1] It included coerced sexual relations between male slaves and women or girls, forced pregnancies of female slaves, and favoring women or young girls who could produce a relatively large number of children. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_breeding_in_the_United_S...