FundMECFS @ FundMECFSResearch @lemmy.blahaj.zone

---

Read more

Posts

290

Comments

2,307

Joined

1 yr. ago

feddit.fr?? so cool

It’s important to separate the personal from the political here. You’re right that not every instance of genetic selection is equivalent to Nazi-style eugenics. But you say that eugenics is “not inherently bad” without really looking at proper definitions or recognising the deep social and historical baggage it carries, especially in how it’s been used to justify racism, ableism, and state violence, and that risks repeating the same logic that allowed those atrocities in the first place.

Choosing not to pass on genetic diseases through voluntary IVF and screening isn’t the same as state-led population engineering which is what eugenics often refers to politically. The key difference is consent and context.

When you talk about selecting against diseases like sickle-cell anaemia, you also have to ask: who defines what counts as a “horrible illness”? Who decides which lives are worth living? (For example, your example of sickle cell anemia comes with the caveat that this illness makes one immune to malaria, which is why it evolved in a significant chunk of the subsaharan african population. Yet Sickle cell anemia was also a favourite scapegoat by 20th century eugenicists to argue that african genes were “inferior”).

Historically, eugenics has disproportionately targeted disabled people, people of colour, poor people, communities with less power. Even modern-day genetic screening isn’t free from those power dynamics. So, no, it’s not “propaganda” to be against eugenics, it’s a necessary ethical stance informed by history and lived experience.

And the IVF example isn’t really eugenics as it is understood. For example, here is the wikipedia definition of eugenics:

Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/ yoo-JEN-iks; from Ancient Greek **εύ̃ (eû) 'good, well' and **-γενής (genḗs) 'born, come into being, growing/grown')[1] is a set of largely discredited beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population.[2][3][4] Historically, eugenicists have attempted to alter the frequency of various human phenotypes by inhibiting the fertility of those considered inferior, or promoting that of those considered superior.

So a better example of eugenics is for example the nazi slaughter of 80% of people with schizophrenia. Thinking that by “removing the bad genes” schizophrenia will go away. Yet modern day germany has an average rate of schizophrenia, so that didn’t work. (Ignoring that fact it was literally genocide and is morally apprehensible in nearly every way).

Unfortunately Reddit has plenty of racists these days. Like I’d say the average redditor is somewhat racist now. Which wasn’t the case 5 years ago.

Honestly, good for them. If you’re starving to death, you get food Now.

Out of all his ideas, not the worst.

I’d rather see the billions harvard get go into more local affordable places and benefit more people.

Than being pumped into a mega elite zionist private uni.

(Of course the chance he will actually do this is near zero, he’ll just siphon off the funds to make himself richer. But in theory, good idea.)

Eugenics..

Don’t be suprised if they add gas chambers to RFK’s wellness farms.

They did a recent south korea video which was super neolib biased.

It has been neoliberal biased for ages. For example this is a 2021 article calling out their neoliberal bias. https://aninjusticemag.com/the-inescapable-neoliberal-bias-behind-kurzgesagt-in-a-nutshell-215eb1e9b70f?gi=9574bf28f4a0

But it has undoubtedly gotten a lot worse recently. That south korea video was abymaly blind and baked in unrealistic capitalist assumptions.

Yeah we’ve had so many posts like this past couple days

Big respect to researchers who publish and share statistically insignificant results.

Instead of doing what is far too common in science, manipulating the data until you find “significance” through twisted interpretations.

The beauty of meme culture. No copyright, no bullshit. We build on each other’s work.

The only place I’ll stream from is the archive.

Wikipedia is already very neoliberal biased urgh I don’t wanna see what would happen if those twats got to it

Probably the most realistic of the side effects

Labour: Let’s cull disabled people, let the poor starve, and increase trans suicides.

Also Labour: Guys I nationalised a small railway company, the leftists have got to be on my side now right?

I would say as someone who has spent significant time in the UK, US, and Australia. That irl, people outside the US swear far more. Maybe USians are taking out their frustrations online since they don’t let themselves do it as much irl?

Lets not give stateless capitalists the label “anarcho” that they try to claim.

Anarchism is the abolishing of systems of domination. You cannot be capitalist and be anarchist. It’s an inherent contradiction. At it’s most basic, anarchism is the abolishment of the state and capitalism. That’s why it’s often called “Libertarian Socialism”.

I know this is a funny joke but the fact this keeps on being repeated can be quite hurtful to actual people with brain damage who are often quite mobility impaired and active in leftist disability rights movements.

This is cool, thanks for teaching me some of those terms.

But i mean as someone who has lived around europe you can’t really make oversimplified assumptions like that because there is too much people families moving around and stuff. It’s way too heterogenous.

Maybe this could have worked a hundred years ago

The good ending