Accurate.(files.catbox.moe)

Killing off people elderly people could potentially lead to eugenic effects downstream. Not everything is simple and easy to understand as you want it to be.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

Anekdoteles@feddit.de

9 points

1 year ago

Funny comment for somebody with the nick ‘KillAllPoorPeople’, but wrong in my eyes, nonetheless. Eugenic is preselection of who gets born by either prenatal measurements or hindering those who are able to reproduce. Killing off people who will have no chance to reproduce anyways is from an eugenic point of view insignificant. There is no longterm downstream effect, only the possibility of some moral change.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world

-10 points

1 year ago

“I cannot personally think of a scenario where something is true, therefore, it can not and can never be true.” - every great philosopher and scientist

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

Anekdoteles@feddit.de

6 points

1 year ago

‘I have an opinion and make either the evidence, my perception of it or the terms we are discussing fitting it’

- every troll always

There is no way to see senicide as a eugenic strategy without changing what eugenic means. But, as you point out, I might be wrong. So feel free to score your goal without moving the post.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world

0 points

1 year ago

“People in my family live long, but if we live long we will be executed, I don’t think we should have children.”

See how easy that was to come up with one obvious example?

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

Anekdoteles@feddit.de

1 point

1 year ago

That is not eugenics, because the people are not removed from the genepool as a result of eugenic thought, but by people with non-eugenic intentions under the influence of a specific policy that is not inherently eugenic. I see that as a circular argument. They can chose to reproduce. Also note, that this policy would not improve the genepool, but dramatically weaken it, as it would lead to - if somehow a significant amount of people would share your non-sequitur train of thought - only those reproducing who can be sure that their offspring dies early, e.g. families who have certainty that there offspring dies at 50 of cancer. Prenatal diagnostics would turned into the opposite it is used for, where only defective children would be born. You make a case for the opposite of eugenics.

report

[ - ]

2 points

1 year ago

But is it how you’d start a “eugenics program”? I’m also not sure quite what you mean. Lead to it politically, or through some social knock on effect or?

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

Spzi@lemm.ee

1 point

1 year ago

Killing off elderly people could potentially lead to eugenic effects downstream.

Can you illustrate how, in an example? You seem to be decisive this is true, but it isn’t obvious to me and I didn’t see an explanation yet.

If possible, try to link your explanation to concepts used in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics, so that we don’t talk past each other.

From my possibly still uneducated point of view, what happens to elderly people (who don’t procreate) can not alter the gene pool.

permalink

report

parent

Europe

!europe@feddit.de

Create post

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

Community stats

3
Monthly active users
3.2K
Posts
34K
Comments

Community moderators

poVoq@slrpnk.net