this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024
-76 points (14.8% liked)

Asklemmy

43858 readers
1707 users here now

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~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] piyuv@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If you’re a fan of the idea, you’re either a nazi or really really ignorant/naive/misinformed.

So I’ll assume the latter and try to briefly explain to you why it’s so bad: people bad, authoritarianism inevitable, results in ‘oops you’re not “human” because you lack/have X, you must die’

Humanity, just like nature, thrives with diversity. Eugenics starts with “getting rid of nasty diseases” but it’s always 1 bad classification of “disease” away from genocide.

[–] Don_Dickle@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ok then lets say you could prevent your son from have cancer in his teens or heart disease in his twenties or addictition in his forties or alzheimers or dementia or any other type of disease it's not you conforming to society like changing looks or anything. But if done correctly tell me you would not want your son to get the best start from birth?

[–] Mesa@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Can you elaborate on "done correctly"?

[–] Don_Dickle@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Scientifically probably not. But lets say in the next 5 years we can pinpoint diseases that were terminal. Counting out the government or anyone else besides loved ones or at least just the parents?

[–] Mesa@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Would you trust your government to fairly and equitably decide who gets such treatments?

The scientific, societal, and economic aspects of eugenics are inextricable.

[–] Don_Dickle@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

No not the government because it is dumb as hell but if parents had the option to have a gurantee their child will outlive them then it should be up to them and them alone.