• 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.