4 ms·
Sure, if you want to define eugenics strictly in terms of selecting for features, but I think there's a difference between "selecting for A" vs "selecting for !
by optymizer 3y ago
Sure, if you want to define eugenics strictly in terms of selecting for features, but I think there's a difference between "selecting for A" vs "selecting for !B", with the latter not limiting the existence of A, C, D, etc. On paper these might seem equivalent, but when applied by a society it becomes the difference between "let's breed blond haired blue eyes people" vs "let's not have kids with Down syndrome" and I think "eugenics" has been primarily used to describe the former application.
- AmericanChopper 3y agoYou’re still choosing who gets to live based on their immutable characteristics. Which I would say is still bad, but not for entirely the same reasons as the Nazi program was. And as I mentioned in another response, if this technology eventually becomes very sophisticated, how do you prevent some sort of gattaca-like situation emerging? You’re still discriminating upon who gets to live, and “at least it’s not racist” doesn’t seem like a particularly compelling defence of that idea to me. It also doesn’t impact the myriad of other potential downstream issues.