Iron
-
It's always lovely to be reminded that eugenics remains a popular idea so long as you don't call it that.
We already practice eugenics. Its a term that covers a lot of things. There's a line between good eugenics and bad eugenics. I'd say secretly bputting birth control in drugs to control population is bad eugenics.
-
am i reading too much into a shitpost or is this essentially saying "sterilize drug users"
I disagree with the eugenics involved here. but the real solution is free healthcare with accessible birth control.
-
Your interpretation presupposes malice and lack of transparency.
Almost anything can be made to look really bad with that attitude.
malice is irrelevant
-
This is only because the word "eugenics" has been made a bad word because people assume that anything called "eugenics" must be similar to the horrible things the Nazis did. It's the non-central fallacy -- such things are eugenics only in the same way that Martin Luther king is technically a criminal (he did violate the law by protesting) or abortion is murder (a "human being" does "die").
Polygenic scoring on embryos is legal and eminently doable if you're wealthy enough to afford it; it's a very effective way to eliminate the risk of debilitating genetic diseases like Down's Syndrome, and can greatly reduce the risk of things like Alzheimer's or some types of cancer. It also can improve the IQ of your child by up to ~8 points or so, which correlates (plausibly causally) with higher education and income in life. So basically, it's an effective way to help make your child more privileged. Right now it's only affordable by the very wealthy though, but perhaps in ten years it will be very cheap.
Notice though that it's unrelated to race pseudoscience and murder, even though race pseudoscientists and nazis like to talk about genetics and IQ.
jsomae, do you want Gattaca ? Because that’s how you get Gattaca !
And next for sale we have this worker with very small hands, through multiple generation of human breeding we have developped this fine pure bred specimen perfectly adapted to reaching into tight spaces and machinery, its mind is docile and obedient and doesn't get spooked easily by the loud sound of working high speed hydraulic presses. Very agile with tools and can read schematics but no artistic ability nor speech as a side effect of the genetic modification, on the plus side, they cannot form unions.
-
This is only because the word "eugenics" has been made a bad word because people assume that anything called "eugenics" must be similar to the horrible things the Nazis did. It's the non-central fallacy -- such things are eugenics only in the same way that Martin Luther king is technically a criminal (he did violate the law by protesting) or abortion is murder (a "human being" does "die").
Polygenic scoring on embryos is legal and eminently doable if you're wealthy enough to afford it; it's a very effective way to eliminate the risk of debilitating genetic diseases like Down's Syndrome, and can greatly reduce the risk of things like Alzheimer's or some types of cancer. It also can improve the IQ of your child by up to ~8 points or so, which correlates (plausibly causally) with higher education and income in life. So basically, it's an effective way to help make your child more privileged. Right now it's only affordable by the very wealthy though, but perhaps in ten years it will be very cheap.
Notice though that it's unrelated to race pseudoscience and murder, even though race pseudoscientists and nazis like to talk about genetics and IQ.
There are other hazards and i don't trust this society to deal with any of them in healthy ways.
-
I disagree with the eugenics involved here. but the real solution is free healthcare with accessible birth control.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea of eugenics is that someone controls who can re-produce. Using drugs is a personal choice, and there are already drugs that screws up your re-production system.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea of eugenics is that someone controls who can re-produce. Using drugs is a personal choice, and there are already drugs that screws up your re-production system.
it is eugenicsy if people in power arbitrarily decide that all drug (only those that poor people use) users shouldn't breed.
I do think that people in objectively shitty conditions should wait to get better before having children. but straight up sneaking birth control in their drugs? that's eugenics,.give poor people access to free healthcare? that's better.
-
jsomae, do you want Gattaca ? Because that’s how you get Gattaca !
And next for sale we have this worker with very small hands, through multiple generation of human breeding we have developped this fine pure bred specimen perfectly adapted to reaching into tight spaces and machinery, its mind is docile and obedient and doesn't get spooked easily by the loud sound of working high speed hydraulic presses. Very agile with tools and can read schematics but no artistic ability nor speech as a side effect of the genetic modification, on the plus side, they cannot form unions.
Imagine if we got genetic engineering back when everybody inherited their parent's job. People named Smith would look like dwarves.
-
We already practice eugenics. Its a term that covers a lot of things. There's a line between good eugenics and bad eugenics. I'd say secretly bputting birth control in drugs to control population is bad eugenics.
This isn't an ethnic group or permanent, though. I think the bigger ethical issue is that birth control can have dangerous side effects.
-
Rendering people infertile (even temporarily) without their informed consent is unethical. Doing it to a class of people due to your perception that people like them shouldn’t breed is eugenics. This would qualify. The black socks thing probably would too, but it sounds ridiculous because that’s a class of people nobody would realistically target for elimination from the breeding pool.
Offering free birth control to drug users- fine! Dosing them without their consent- no bueno.
What about just telling them that the meth is laced with birth control now?
-
What about just telling them that the meth is laced with birth control now?
Seems more dangerous and less feasible than just offering free birth control. Handing out meth to addicts is a bad idea, even if it’s laced with something beneficial. Most women take b.c. willingly, no need to mix them together to coerce them.
-
It's always lovely to be reminded that eugenics remains a popular idea so long as you don't call it that.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Looks like it’s time to reinvent the Torment Nexus from famed science fiction novel “Don’t Invent The Torment Nexus”. Maybe it will go well this time!
-
"no no you see, in this case, eugenics is justified!"
i don’t care. it’s still wrong.
Eugenics would be doing this because you believe drug users have "inferior" genetics which shouldn't be allowed to propagate through the population, but this clearly isn't how the joke is meant. You get to have children once you're off the meth, thank you.
-
no, because MMR vaccines have been proven to be safe, and you are informed that your child must be vaccinated to go school; it’s not like the kid is vaccinated against their knowledge once they get there
birth control pills can have side effects, sometimes very detrimental, and in this hypothetical scenario they’re hidden in the meth, so you don’t even know it’s there
Who says they are hidden? Other than your imagination
-
it is eugenicsy if people in power arbitrarily decide that all drug (only those that poor people use) users shouldn't breed.
I do think that people in objectively shitty conditions should wait to get better before having children. but straight up sneaking birth control in their drugs? that's eugenics,.give poor people access to free healthcare? that's better.
But the post does not say "sneakily". In fact, this could be a great anti-drug campaign, choose between having kids or drugs. Post also said meth, which makes me imply hard drugs only, not weed
-
no, because MMR vaccines have been proven to be safe, and you are informed that your child must be vaccinated to go school; it’s not like the kid is vaccinated against their knowledge once they get there
birth control pills can have side effects, sometimes very detrimental, and in this hypothetical scenario they’re hidden in the meth, so you don’t even know it’s there
Once again, the hypothetical that it's hidden, is only in your head, that sign doesn't say "hide birth control in meth", it's also fucking unrealistic, if it were to happen the only way it happens if it's legalized, controlled meth that has birth control added to it, or rather it could be that the users can get meth as long as they also take the birth control when they get the meth.
Also your worry about birthcontrol side effects with fucking meth users is goddamn laughable.
It's like going back to ww2 and telling the soldiers not to smoke because it's bad for their health, like the fucking bullets and explosives are way more detrimental to their health, don't you think?
-
Rendering people infertile (even temporarily) without their informed consent is unethical. Doing it to a class of people due to your perception that people like them shouldn’t breed is eugenics. This would qualify. The black socks thing probably would too, but it sounds ridiculous because that’s a class of people nobody would realistically target for elimination from the breeding pool.
Offering free birth control to drug users- fine! Dosing them without their consent- no bueno.
Pretty sure that as of recent years, meth is often mixed with fentanyl without being disclosed to a user or probably even a dealer.
But it also funny to see how people say that this should be done yet they somehow forget that (allegedly) it is not government that sells drugs but drug cartels that do. I bet they wouldn't mix birth control into drugs at all. Why would they? That in best case for them does nothing for a higher price of production, and in worst case it will deter customers. Shit's never going to happen.
-
Imagine if we got genetic engineering back when everybody inherited their parent's job. People named Smith would look like dwarves.
Yes, most humans would be genetically designed living tools to serve the few real, pure bred, unmodified humans
For them liberation would only mean death, not that they could imagine life in different way
for copyright reasons, they would also all be sterile of course -
I mean, this is a good idea for a big reason other than genes though, people who are currently addicted to meth shouldn't be having kids, not from a gene perspective but as an unfit parent and as an unsafe pregnancy standpoint.
While I agree with you, the problem is, that it opens the door for a lot of other forms of eugenics. Once we decided that Meth users shouldn't have kids we can quickly expand the definition of who is "allowed to have kids". People who take LSD? Those psychopaths. Stoners? Homeless people? Black people?
It gives a certain group of people power over one of the most intimate secsectors of someone's private life. No one can guarantee, that at some point we are not the ones being included in the definition of "unfit for parenting" simply because we have the wrong political views or something like that.
-
This is not eugenics and wouldn't be permanent. People shouldn't be having unplanned pregnancies while addicted to hard drugs. If you cant stop using meth long enough to conceive then how are you gonna stop uaing meth during the pregnancy? Or once the baby is born? I have no problem with drug use and think it should be legalized but i think this would be a good concession to make if it were legalized. If you wanna have a baby just stop using meth. Otherwise go nuts.
It should be done with deception.
I agree mothers shouldn't do meth or alcohol or tobacco or bisphenol A
The solution isn't sterilization it's healthcare
And if we can't have it, if we can provide it to everyone
then we just deserve the consequences of our actions as a whole
