throwaway_789

3 ms·

1.
by throwaway_789 11y ago
> Malthus was wrong with his prediction, but he wasn't wrong with noticing obvious limits to growth. It takes special effort to consciously stop noticing it. Malthus premised his hypothesis on an assertion that there were obvious li
2.
by throwaway_789 11y ago
Strawman. Strong environmental protections and positive population growth can coexist. And, of course, we should be striving in our generation to solve these existential challenges, rather than squandering our time optimizing sales funne
3.
by throwaway_789 11y ago
> reproduction ... is most likely going to fuck up the planet Malthusian fallacy. The idea of a "population bomb" has been indoctrinated into the modern mind of certain political orthodoxies since the late 1960's. It has
4.
by throwaway_789 11y ago
No, eugenics really should be tainted forever. Cystic fibrosis can be heritably cured without eugenics, e.g. hopefully within a few decades via gene editing something like CRISPR. Let us not use specious arguments about curing rare Mendel
5.
by throwaway_789 11y ago
Eugenics has an unacceptably high -- and excruciatingly documented -- risk of mutating into a demographic weapon wielded by racial groups that have attained dominance by historical coincidence against other racial groups. It is a long-dorm
6.
by throwaway_789 11y ago
Unlikely. The perceived benefits of eugenics would be too tantalizing for those social engineers in control of "licensing" the right to reproduce. Robust markets for DNA sequencing and clinical already exist. It'd be a van
7.
by throwaway_789 11y ago
That wouldn't lead to eugenics, it would very much already be eugenics.
8.
by throwaway_789 11y ago
That would be eugenics. The how-to gusto and historical tone-deafness of three commenters in this chain are flabbergasting.