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

As long as you don’t use the word eugenics explicitly apparently you can sell anyone on anything.

permalink
report
reply
17 points
*

They literally say “Word beginning with ‘eu’ and ends with ‘genics’” inside the article pimping them out.

With a sprinkling of ‘Orchid doesn’t like us to use that word’ as if ‘Nazis do not like to be called Nazis’ is a valid complaint.

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

No they acknowledge that the technology could be used that way. But there’s a lot of actual medical problems we can catch this way. Imagine you carry the Huntington’s gene. How much would you pay to make sure you don’t pass that down to your kids?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Imagine you carry the Huntington’s gene. How much would you pay to make sure you don’t pass that down to your kids?

Nothing. That’s what health insurance is for. Also practically noone has any issues with preimplantation diagnostics when it comes to things that are clearly genetic diseases, what rubs people the wrong way is a) selecting by bullshit criteria, e.g. sex, eye colour, curliness of hair, whatever, b) making designer babies the default at the expanse of erm wild ones, worst of all, c) the combination.

And ethics aside the arguments should be obvious it’s also a bad idea from the POV of the honest eugenicist: Humanity’s genetic diversity is already low as it is it would be fatal to allow things like fashions to narrow it down even more.

Humanity is already shaping its own selection criteria, we might need to start doing something extra to avoid evolving ourselves into a corner by non-PID means. Random example: C-Sections. No mother or baby should die in childbirth, yet, the selective pressure towards more uncomplicated births getting removed might, over many many many generations, leave us with very few women who would survive a natural birth which doesn’t sound like a good situation for a species to be in, to be reliant on technology to even reproduce. Thus is might become prudent to artificially select for e.g. wide-hip genes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Yeah, but nobody here is suggesting racial criteria. This article is specifically about screening for health issues. Reading more into it, it seems like they’ve paired big data with genetic screening to lay odds on health problems that aren’t just a single gene going the wrong way.

Edit to add, there’s no such thing as an ethical Eugenicist. The theory was based on racism and sterilizing “undesirables”. This isn’t Eugenics.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

It’s still eugenics, you just used more words to describe it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Eugenics isn’t inherently bad, but humans suck and will make it bad.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points
*

No. Eugenics is race theory as much as it’s anything scientific. It was about making sure the “correct” races had children. I don’t know what the name for this is in science but Eugenics isn’t about making kids healthier, it’s about making them whiter.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 12K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 577K

    Comments