• thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      the points i was making in the latter paragraphs is that even if there is nothing morally wrong and you’re not forcing anything it’s still an inherently flawed view of genetics. breeding the smartest, kindest and most capable people to have those traits you’ll still just end up with unhealthy offspring.

        • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          ok, so what is your definition of eugenics?

          because the dictionary definition is “the selection of desired inheritable traits to improve future generations”. that is what I’m saying is an inherently flawed ideology and practice. if you mean something different you might choose a different word.

            • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              i never said Eugenics means to kill the undesirables,i never said it was morally wrong. i said it was factually wrong and that it misunderstands genetics. yes, it’s societally common to think that there is merit to the idea that we could improve our species by selecting partners based on what we want out children to be like. I’m saying that it is misguided. not morally reprehensible, just not realistic.

              please calm down, in not calling you a dick or anything. I’m just saying that eugenics doesn’t have scientific or factual merit. it’s a common misconception that genetics works that way.