You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
14 points

I believe that it exists as a concept. That’s what you’re asking, right?

permalink
report
reply
-15 points

I believe in the right hands that some types of eugenics can do a world of good. I know hitler and japanese did it and it got an ugly label. But what about if we could tell a parent this child will have no diseases his entire life at the stage of birth? Kind of like Gataca

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Gattaca was taking a lot of license for the sake of the movie. A lot of diseases are multifactorial and while genes might play a role, they’re not the only factor and often not even the main factor. The movie ignored things like epigenetics, early life exposures, lifestyle, age, sex, and just plain variance that are all factors that can play into chronic diseases.

That being said, allowing parents to make decisions based on genetic testing isn’t itself eugenics. Eugenics is a top-level idea revolving around the idea of improving the quality of human genetics as a whole. And that requires an institutional judgement of what are good quality genes and bad quality genes, which necessitates us saying some people are better quality than others and opens up the door to racism/homophobia/transphobia/ableism/etc. Eugenics is always bad, while personal medical decisions based on genetics can be reasonable.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

All other concerns aside, I think if we start controlling genes we’ll end up writing our genes into a corner.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I just think of south Korean beauty standards and how I have a hard time differentiating all the kpop artists due to the homogeneous beauty standard being universally applied.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Until some folks can’t afford to cleanse their genes and are denied the right to have children for “safety reasons” and suddenly, fertility and genetics are under state control.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

Assuming your honesty and good faith on asking this question, the real treasure on our gene pool is it’s diversity. Eugenics would, by definition, reduce it. You could assume that it’s a low price to pay for health, longevity, strength, intelligence, beauty and so on, but it’s not that simple. Even some diseases (out or the possibility to develop it) can be beneficial under the right circonstances, e.g. sickle cell anemia can improve resistance to malaria.

It would be great to be able to prevent most diseases before it happens and treat it if it happens (for free, in a universal health care system), but eliminate the genes would be a very bad idea, a healthy specie needs it’s diversity to avoid extinction, and we sometimes feel like we are above that risk, but we are not that special.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Asklemmy

!asklemmy@lemmy.ml

Create post

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it’s welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Icon by @Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de

Community stats

  • 10K

    Monthly active users

  • 5.9K

    Posts

  • 319K

    Comments