In this case…or any case like it….if the the label eugenicist is being handed out…label away.

The danger does not lie in having a general idea that some traits may be more desirable than others and that a population with more people with certain traits may be better off. The danger comes in thinking that governments would be capable of turning this very general idea into something that doesn't turn into a dystopia nightmare.

Any definition you can work with works for me. I don‘t mean to be vague or hard to answer to I just have no real substantial ideas of what uniqueness could be in humans, and I mostly end up just saying we‘re not under most definitions. Just need anything to stimulate thought right now if you know what I mean.

I blocked you at first but I can't now for 24 hours now that I unblocked you so that I could respond to a point conflating anti-natalism with eugencs. You'll be blocked again tomorrow. Don't harass me.

[removed]

There's nothing wrong with positive eugenics, ie encouraging high quality people to breed and discouraging dysgenic breeding (eg incest or people with genetic disorders). What's wrong is negative eugenics, ie using state force to sterilise or punish people for it.

>1st way to delete your OG comment.
>
>2nd you are still ignoring the premise. The premise is that we are all eugenicists in inconsistent ways.
>
>3rd, this is not about cultural taboos surrounding incest, it is about the genetic effect of incest, which is very often birth defects.
>
>4th This is an apology of eugenics and not Nazism. this article is ultimately making a humanist argument for eugenics by arguing that it is basically mainstream medicine, especially in terms of abortion.
>
>5th please read the entire article. I didn't even write it, I just think it's interesting. You seem to want people to to dismiss it because it appears to you an apology of Nazism. It is very clearly not.

You are spreading propaganda and delete your opinions when it is challenged. This is closer to nazism than anything advocated for in the article.

This is more interesting than your comment alleging that the post is promoting nazism.

[deleted]

>The scientific consensus on behavioral genetics should allow us to appreciate that genes and reproduction will have a huge effect on the flourishing of future generations. Those who reflexively denounce any attempt at changing the genetic composition of the next generation—whether through genetically informed dating apps or government incentives—are defending the status quo at the expense of potentially valuable progress and causing harm we cannot fully appreciate.

​

So, it's ok to be a nazi?

To be fair, cultural taboos surrounding incest are more likely rooted in Abrahamic religious influence, which has a divided stance on the subject given that Abraham purportedly married his half sister. In other words, your attempt to link the taboo to a latent drive to improve genetic health is not very convincing.

This apology is as vacuous as the sick idea that humans should be controlled as livestock

Nazism is when no more child cancer patients

This article says that eugenics is still very much practices, albeit in inconsistent ways.

1st way to delete your OG comment.

2nd you are still ignoring the premise. The premise is that we are all eugenicists in inconsistent ways.

3rd, this is not about cultural taboos surrounding incest, it is about the genetic effect of incest, which is very often birth defects.

4th This is an apology of eugenics and not Nazism. this article is ultimately making a humanist argument for eugenics by arguing that it is basically mainstream medicine, especially in terms of abortion.

5th please read the entire article. I didn't even write it, I just think it's interesting. You seem to want people to to dismiss it because it appears to you an apology of Nazism. It is very clearly not.

Anti-natalists can have a variety of rationales for their choices -- a belief that one has an ethical obligation to not bring children into the world being one of them, is not the same as the belief in a class of people that should neither procreate or be eradicated. One is megalomaniacal.

That's not even touching the absurdities baked into the idea of "improvements." Superiority is very much a subjective evaluation. Genetic fitness isn't the same as one culture's preferential vision of what it considers a superior human being.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Do you think there would be anything of value going on if no one had the ability to feel? Do you think that escaping from danger without feeling anything isn't fundamentally different from being filled with fear during it? What would good and bad even mean if they weren't inextricably tied to pain and pleasure? If feelings didn't and couldn't exist, everything would truly be meaningless. It wouldn't matter at all what you choose to do or what is happening in the world.

This reminds me that eugenics were a huge thing up until like the 20s

[deleted]

If that was really your takeaway from the article you've grossly misunderstood it. How did you get to that?

Yeah, the point is there is a huge ethically middle ground in-between Nazism and Incest, a middle ground that reasonable people already occupy, but we are afraid to have conversations about policy and ideas that could benefit the future because we are afraid of being called Nazis.

I, for example, have decided not to have children because of various psychological disorders that run on both sides of my family, as well as actual gene damage from my grandfather studying uranium before we understood how dangerous it is. There is a high chance for my children to have disabilities, so I've decided not to have any. And I encourage other people in similar situations to voluntarily not reproduce and consider adoption. This is definitely a "eugenics" mindset, but I don't think encouraging people to consider the welfare of their potential children before having them to be Nazi behavior.

Did you even read the article?

The premise of this article is not that it is ok to be a nazi.

The premise is that "we are all eugenicists—but in selective, inconsistent, and often hypocritical ways."

To quote the article, so people don't read this comment and completely dismiss what the article was getting at.

"When someone says that screening embryos for genetic diseases, giving educated women incentives to have children (like free child care for college educated women), or offering subsidized abortions for women addicted to drugs is "eugenics" they are absolutely using the term correctly."

The overarching message of this article is that it is not Nazism to get an abortion because the fetus will be born with painful lifelong disabilities. In fact, most progressives would argue that should be the woman's right to get an abortion in this situation.

Likewise, it is not Nazism to ban incest because it increases the likelihood of cognitive disorder (in offspring).

Did you just read the title and maybe the first two paragraphs and comment?

I’m getting into the world of philosophy, and am looking for some must-read books. I’ve been listening to The Art Of Living by Thich Nhat Hahn and love it, and feel like it aligns with a lot of thoughts I’ve already had, but put into fleshed out words. Any suggestions welcome!

[deleted]

Oh, I misread you. Often meaning and purpose are used as synonymous terms. I assumed that's how you were using them, so when you went on for a few paragraphs about how nothing has objective purpose I assumed you also believed that everything is meaningless.

Still, I don't think you've actually presented a good argument for suffering being objectively bad. "Pinch yourself," you say. Well, I did pinch myself. Many times, willingly, even knowing it would hurt, though not to an unreasonable degree. What exactly is that supposed to prove? Is an aversion to something a sign that the something is intrinsically bad according to you?