3 ms·

Because it's a form of eugenics, however far down the spectrum it may be. edit: I mean to imply here that the overton window is shifted, basically.

llmthrow103 1y ago
Dating apps and services with a beauty/salary standard and long prison sentences for the worst criminals are also a form of eugenics. Many kinds of societal and political changes have a eugenic or dysgenic effect on the population, and I'd prefer to live in a society that has more eugenic policies.
- smeej 1y ago
  People in privileged or powerful positions often would.
  - llmthrow103 1y ago
    People have an aversion to the word "eugenics" because it's often connected to atrocity propaganda from World War II. I'm not suggesting that every country should have genetic purity tests and policies on the level of Israel, just that we should understand that policies affect what kinds of people are more likely to be produced.
    - gabaix 1y ago
      What policies post World War II have had eugenic effects on the population?
      - bregma 1y ago
        The policy forced sterilization of indigenous people that went on from the postwar period up until the start of the 21st century is an excellent example.
- kulahan 1y ago
  No they aren't, because they're not directed at anyone in particular.
russdill 1y ago
There's a huge range of chromosomal anomalies. You don't see the vast majority of them because the pregnancy self terminates. It's something the human body is already doing. People with down syndrome are great people who live rich lives. But along with developmental disabilities they suffer from a great many health problems and have severely shortened life spans. Perhaps the future is such therapies will be able to initially focus on these secondary effects. I don't think methods of preventing chromosomal anomalies are eugenics, since such anomalies are already not inheritable.
advisedwang 1y ago
It's not eugenics, because Down syndrome is not inherited. There is no Down's genes to eliminate. Terminating down syndrome babies doesn't reduce the rate of Down syndrom in the next generation, and nobody is doing it for that goal.
- ghssds 1y ago
  Down syndrome can totally be inherited. If a mother has Down syndrome, the risk of passing the genetic condition onto their future children is 35% to 50%.
  - dumah 1y ago
    Only a few percent of Down’s syndrome cases result from Robertson translocations and may be inherited. If the mother carries the translocation, the rate of recurrence isn’t much more than 10%. If it’s the father, it’s significantly less.
derektank 1y ago
Correcting what is essentially a developmental defect (albeit a defect that occurs in the germ cells rather than in the womb) isn't eugenics. It's not caused by any genes carried by the parents, it's caused by a failure in the development process, specifically meiosis. Would preventing fetal alcohol syndrome be eugenics? It's caused by changes in gene expression from alcohol exposure after all.
- calf 1y ago
  Using a loaded term such as "defect" is exactly eugenics sophistry.
  - djeastm 1y ago
    Is "birth defect" a eugenically-charged word? I've never heard it used in such a manner, just as a matter of fact.
    - shlant 1y ago
      don't seriously engage with people who would rather morally grandstand and tone police than have important conversations
      - calf 1y ago
        Stating something is sophistry is not tone policing. Pointless to explain this to those who lack critical thinking skills in the first place. Rather, it is you who are doing the policing from a self-assured conservativism so common to the HN crowd, it is time someone pointed this out. There's no good faith engagement under such a context.
  - derektank 1y ago
    If you want to call it an error, or simply a change, I'm happy to make the argument on those terms. Changes in the development process that leave a child disabled for life, but which can be prevented, such as FAS through alcohol abstinence, spina bifida through folic acid intake, and (if this research can be translated into a treatment) Down Syndrome through the targeted removal of the superfluous chromosome, should be prevented. And don't tell me kids with these conditions aren't disabled, because that dog won't hunt.
Tade0 1y ago
The main evil of WW2 eugenics was preventing certain people from having children based on arbitrary rules. Aborting a fetus with trisomia so that the couple can try again for a healthy child is nothing like that.
- laurent_du 1y ago
  It's no less arbitrary than deciding that gypsies, who engage in petty crime and mistreat their children, forcing them to become beggars and thieves themselves, should not reproduce. If anything, Down kids probably bring more good to society than gypsy kids. And forced sterilization is arguably more ethical than forced abortion. Same things goes for alcoholics and drug users. Privately, most people agree with this position. The idea that eugenics is inherently bad is very unsound and doesn't withstand scrutiny.
  - Tade0 1y ago
    Can't agree here. Regarding gypsies it boils down to the culture and rates of stunting, as evidenced by families who broke off the former and prevented the latter. The way people with trisomia function in society is also a product of our nurturing culture. It's only recently, when such people started living longer lives thanks to advances in medical science, that their intellectual development gained more attention and it was revealed that they can actually be more independent than commonly believed. That being said it all requires a huge amount of effort and if a person with trisomia has siblings, they're very likely to be deprived of attention. Additionally, if they're a first child, they're the only one due to this. That is what makes it a net negative.
    - frumper 1y ago
      > if they're a first child, they're the only one due to this Are you saying people don't have more kids after having a first kid with Trisomy 21?
landl0rd 1y ago
When you consider with which woman to conceive children, consciously or unconsciously, you are engaging in eugenics. It’s fine. Forced sterilizations aren’t but we’re not talking about those. There isn’t a set of magic words people use (eugenics, isms/phobias) where the person accused of said word must prove that’s not the case before he can continue. “It’s eugenics” isn’t a reason to shut someone down.
- kulahan 1y ago
  I don't disagree, but this doesn't change general opinion on the topic. People don't like discussing the idea that we should just delete anyone not up to standard.
  - akie 1y ago
    A 3 month old fetus is not a person and therefore doesn't count under "anyone"
    - HPsquared 1y ago
      That's a bit arbitrary though, isn't it? I mean, are newborn babies really people? The Romans didn't think so. I don't see the big philosophical difference. They can't earn money or pay taxes, and are 100% dependent on parental care and resources. And how about sleeping people? I mean they're unaware of their surroundings. Are sleeping people real people? Sure, they'll inevitably wake up in a few hours, if nothing goes wrong. Same as how a fetus will inevitably develop into an adult and be fully conscious, if nothing goes wrong.
      - bboozzoo 1y ago
        > Same as how a fetus will inevitably develop into an adult and be fully conscious, if nothing goes wrong. Unless it dies in pain and suffering hours, days, months or a few years after birth due to a defect that we already know can never be cured or fixed by other means. Somehow societies that are least interested or capable in providing any aid to these traumatized families revel the most in their suffering.

llmthrow103 1y ago

Dating apps and services with a beauty/salary standard and long prison sentences for the worst criminals are also a form of eugenics. Many kinds of societal and political changes have a eugenic or dysgenic effect on the population, and I'd prefer to live in a society that has more eugenic policies.

smeej 1y ago
People in privileged or powerful positions often would.
- llmthrow103 1y ago
  People have an aversion to the word "eugenics" because it's often connected to atrocity propaganda from World War II. I'm not suggesting that every country should have genetic purity tests and policies on the level of Israel, just that we should understand that policies affect what kinds of people are more likely to be produced.
  - gabaix 1y ago
    What policies post World War II have had eugenic effects on the population?
    - bregma 1y ago
      The policy forced sterilization of indigenous people that went on from the postwar period up until the start of the 21st century is an excellent example.
kulahan 1y ago
No they aren't, because they're not directed at anyone in particular.

russdill 1y ago

There's a huge range of chromosomal anomalies. You don't see the vast majority of them because the pregnancy self terminates. It's something the human body is already doing. People with down syndrome are great people who live rich lives. But along with developmental disabilities they suffer from a great many health problems and have severely shortened life spans. Perhaps the future is such therapies will be able to initially focus on these secondary effects. I don't think methods of preventing chromosomal anomalies are eugenics, since such anomalies are already not inheritable.

advisedwang 1y ago

It's not eugenics, because Down syndrome is not inherited. There is no Down's genes to eliminate. Terminating down syndrome babies doesn't reduce the rate of Down syndrom in the next generation, and nobody is doing it for that goal.

ghssds 1y ago
Down syndrome can totally be inherited. If a mother has Down syndrome, the risk of passing the genetic condition onto their future children is 35% to 50%.
- dumah 1y ago
  Only a few percent of Down’s syndrome cases result from Robertson translocations and may be inherited. If the mother carries the translocation, the rate of recurrence isn’t much more than 10%. If it’s the father, it’s significantly less.

derektank 1y ago

Correcting what is essentially a developmental defect (albeit a defect that occurs in the germ cells rather than in the womb) isn't eugenics. It's not caused by any genes carried by the parents, it's caused by a failure in the development process, specifically meiosis. Would preventing fetal alcohol syndrome be eugenics? It's caused by changes in gene expression from alcohol exposure after all.

calf 1y ago
Using a loaded term such as "defect" is exactly eugenics sophistry.
- djeastm 1y ago
  Is "birth defect" a eugenically-charged word? I've never heard it used in such a manner, just as a matter of fact.
  - shlant 1y ago
    don't seriously engage with people who would rather morally grandstand and tone police than have important conversations
    - calf 1y ago
      Stating something is sophistry is not tone policing. Pointless to explain this to those who lack critical thinking skills in the first place. Rather, it is you who are doing the policing from a self-assured conservativism so common to the HN crowd, it is time someone pointed this out. There's no good faith engagement under such a context.
- derektank 1y ago
  If you want to call it an error, or simply a change, I'm happy to make the argument on those terms. Changes in the development process that leave a child disabled for life, but which can be prevented, such as FAS through alcohol abstinence, spina bifida through folic acid intake, and (if this research can be translated into a treatment) Down Syndrome through the targeted removal of the superfluous chromosome, should be prevented. And don't tell me kids with these conditions aren't disabled, because that dog won't hunt.

Tade0 1y ago

The main evil of WW2 eugenics was preventing certain people from having children based on arbitrary rules. Aborting a fetus with trisomia so that the couple can try again for a healthy child is nothing like that.

laurent_du 1y ago
It's no less arbitrary than deciding that gypsies, who engage in petty crime and mistreat their children, forcing them to become beggars and thieves themselves, should not reproduce. If anything, Down kids probably bring more good to society than gypsy kids. And forced sterilization is arguably more ethical than forced abortion. Same things goes for alcoholics and drug users. Privately, most people agree with this position. The idea that eugenics is inherently bad is very unsound and doesn't withstand scrutiny.
- Tade0 1y ago
  Can't agree here. Regarding gypsies it boils down to the culture and rates of stunting, as evidenced by families who broke off the former and prevented the latter. The way people with trisomia function in society is also a product of our nurturing culture. It's only recently, when such people started living longer lives thanks to advances in medical science, that their intellectual development gained more attention and it was revealed that they can actually be more independent than commonly believed. That being said it all requires a huge amount of effort and if a person with trisomia has siblings, they're very likely to be deprived of attention. Additionally, if they're a first child, they're the only one due to this. That is what makes it a net negative.
  - frumper 1y ago
    > if they're a first child, they're the only one due to this Are you saying people don't have more kids after having a first kid with Trisomy 21?

landl0rd 1y ago

When you consider with which woman to conceive children, consciously or unconsciously, you are engaging in eugenics. It’s fine. Forced sterilizations aren’t but we’re not talking about those. There isn’t a set of magic words people use (eugenics, isms/phobias) where the person accused of said word must prove that’s not the case before he can continue. “It’s eugenics” isn’t a reason to shut someone down.

kulahan 1y ago
I don't disagree, but this doesn't change general opinion on the topic. People don't like discussing the idea that we should just delete anyone not up to standard.
- akie 1y ago
  A 3 month old fetus is not a person and therefore doesn't count under "anyone"
  - HPsquared 1y ago
    That's a bit arbitrary though, isn't it? I mean, are newborn babies really people? The Romans didn't think so. I don't see the big philosophical difference. They can't earn money or pay taxes, and are 100% dependent on parental care and resources. And how about sleeping people? I mean they're unaware of their surroundings. Are sleeping people real people? Sure, they'll inevitably wake up in a few hours, if nothing goes wrong. Same as how a fetus will inevitably develop into an adult and be fully conscious, if nothing goes wrong.
    - bboozzoo 1y ago
      > Same as how a fetus will inevitably develop into an adult and be fully conscious, if nothing goes wrong. Unless it dies in pain and suffering hours, days, months or a few years after birth due to a defect that we already know can never be cured or fixed by other means. Somehow societies that are least interested or capable in providing any aid to these traumatized families revel the most in their suffering.