Discussion Eugenics

[Doctors HATE them]

Something that's been bothering me for a while now is the way people say "that's eugenics" as a gotcha. Basically, I don't think people who can't care for kids shouldn't have them; this includes poor people. I feel that children should not be put through the trauma of poverty and that this is an effective way to mitigate it.
Every time I or someone else online shares this opinion, the comments/replies are full of people calling it eugenics and saying it's terrible to do that to people. I don't really understand that. These people say that it's better to focus on lifting poor people out of poverty and helping them with systems to allow them to have children regardless of economic status, but I don't think these are contradictory at all. What's stopping us from helping poor people, but not letting them have kids in the meantime. It will take a while to help every poor person, but it won't take long to pass a law that helps kids. Why not just pass a law banning having children below a certain income and then get to helping those people out of poverty?
I'd also like to address the idea that this would inevitably encompass race. I think that eugenics led to that in the past due to the extremely widespread racism and classism of the time. Those who developed the ideas of eugenics thought that poor people and minorities were filthy and unfit. I think that because this "new eugenics" (for lack of a better term) comes from a place of helping children, has temporariness written into it, and exists in a world that is less racist and classist (although racism and classism are still present everywhere, I don't think they are as strong or overt) that the switch to race wouldn't happen. Is this too utopian of me to think?

 

[Deleted member 8119]

Is this too utopian of me to think?

Unfortunately.

Many poor people has children to take care of them when they're old, to put them to work, or to find some purpose, as there is usually nothing to do on those sites or are plagued with tradition. That "abuse" comes second to many people's minds. If this sounds fucked up, mind that many people has a completely different outlook on life and persons than we do.

Also consider those same countries are pillars of our economy, as they export materials, work, etc. Not that much stuff is made locally, and it's common practice to import there to save money, in expense of human rights.

Basically, you'll face opposition from society, who benefits from it, and those poor people, who will cry about "but what about MEEEEEEEEE???" despite often being way more kids they can't absolutely maintain, and often, don't care about, as their needs are usually above.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

Why not just pass a law banning having children below a certain income and then get to help those people out of poverty?

Ah yes, this in no way could end up being done for nefarious purposes. There is no way this could end up spiralling out of control and lead to the government enforcing similar policies on other marginalized communities. Intersectionality? Never heard of it! This is definitely not going to end up becoming a racist shitshow because this isn't meant to specifically target BIPOC communities, just poor people, and as we all know the government does not have a history of finding excuses to do things, like forcibly sterilizing BIPOC communities. This most definitely would help poor communities instead of just fueling classism and most definitely would help a lot with the poverty rate in comparison to just focusing on making actual systematic changes to help the poor. It's temporary! For how long you ask? Well, we don't an answer on that yet. It could for a few years, a few decades, or maybe even for several millenia... but we'll make sure to stop it eventually. There's no way these "new eugenics" would just end up being abused by the government to get rid of people they don't like.

Truly an amazing 10/10 1000IQ take!/s

 

[Doctors HATE them]

Ah yes, this in no way could end up being done for nefarious purposes. There is no way this could end up spiralling out of control and lead to the government enforcing similar policies on other marginalized communities. Intersectionality? Never heard of it! This is definitely not going to end up becoming a racist shitshow because this isn't meant to specifically target BIPOC communities, just poor people, and as we all know the government does not have a history of finding excuses to do things, like forcibly sterilizing BIPOC communities. This most definitely would help poor communities instead of just fueling classism and most definitely would help a lot with the poverty rate in comparison to just focusing on making actual systematic changes to help the poor. It's temporary! For how long you ask? Well, we don't an answer on that yet. It could for a few years, a few decades, or maybe even for several millenia... but we'll make sure to stop it eventually. There's no way these "new eugenics" would just end up being abused by the government to get rid of people they don't like.

Truly an amazing 10/10 1000IQ take!/s

Yeah this brings me to another point I made in another post. Long story; I have autism and I'm a minority and I don't think the world will ever change to accommodate for people like me. White people and neurotypical people don't care enough about us to make any meaningful changes. Especially for neurodivergent people, we will always be a minority and never have any real voice just due to how many of us are naturally in the population. Is it even ethical to keep pumping out people just to make them fight for the right to be themselves? This applies to race too. If people end up dying then that's saving future generations in its own way. I for one hate having to adapt to a white neurotypical America and standing out no matter how hard I try. I can't be the only one who feels this way.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

Yeah this brings me to another point I made in another post. Long story; I have autism and I'm a minority and I don't think the world will ever change to accommodate for people like me. White people and neurotypical people don't care enough about us to make any meaningful changes. Especially for neurodivergent people, we will always be a minority and never have any real voice just due to how many of us are naturally in the population. Is it even ethical to keep pumping out people just to make them fight for the right to be themselves? This applies to race too. If people end up dying then that's saving future generations in its own way. I for one hate having to adapt to a white neurotypical America and standing out no matter how hard I try. I can't be the only one who feels this way.

Okay cool, you being autistic doesn't mean shit. No matter what your race is, economic background is, gender is, sexual orientation is, etc, people in power will always find some sort of way to put a particular demographic of people down. Trying to get rid of those demographics via eugenics isn't going to do shit besides literally playing into the hands of the system and the people who benefit from it. Also, don't fucking speak for BIPOC communities. I'm a person of colour from a low-income background and I think I can speak for most of us when we say no thanks to your stupid suggestion. People like you don't give a shit about actually advocating for us, you just want to get rid of us under the false pretenses of "trying to help".

 

[Doctors HATE them]

Okay cool, you being autistic doesn't mean shit. No matter what your race is, economic background is, gender is, sexual orientation is, etc, people in power will always find some sort of way to put a particular demographic of people down. Trying to get rid of those demographics via eugenics isn't going to do shit besides literally playing into their hands. Also, don't fucking speak for BIPOC communities. I'm a person of colour from a low-income background and I think I can speak for most of us when we say no thanks to your stupid suggestion. People like you don't give a shit about actually advocating for us, you just want to get rid of us under the false pretenses of "trying to help".

It's not a false pretense. I know lots of people like to do that, but as hard as this might be to believe I am not them.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

It's not a false pretense. I know lots of people like to do that, but as hard as this might be to believe I am not them.

Yeah, I doubt it.

 

[Doctors HATE them]

I just think nonexistence is preferable to hardship
Maybe you or other living people don't want it forced on you but I don't see how you get to speak for unborn people any more than I do
Also, are you against antinatalism as well?
I guess this is more of a vent now, but I really hate being alive. I have tried to ctb before but si is too much for me every time. I try to make my life have some semblance of meaning by helping others and sharing my views but nobody wants them. Is this just who I am fundamentally? Am I just evil and incompatible with the rest of humanity? I don't see how change is possible.

 

[disabledlife]

Poverty will end when the whole system changes, it is capitalism that should be eliminated. Capitalism is permitted and accepted because humans are selfish by nature, individualistic, etc. This is a postponement of the law of the strongest, the best off, etc., natural selection!

It is unfair to be born disabled, ugly, ill, etc, in any case, and which can justify eugenics.

It is especially when it comes to selfish parents who know what their children will endure, and, worse, they have children just to receive aid, allowances, etc.

In France, I don't know if it's like that elsewhere, there are parents (in general, who never work, live on aid, allow themselves, with the aid, although intended for their children, to offer trips, shopping, etc.) who have children because they know that they can even force the children when they are adults, with the help of legal proceedings, to pay support, accommodate, etc., their parents, incapable to assume their consequences (oh, you have to help your "poor", desperate parents, etc.), children serving as a retirement insurance policy, without working.

This obligation towards loved ones can affect the spouses of these child victims (with the divorces, break-ups that this can cause, when the bereaved does not want to assume the burden suffered, the impacted child suffering his or her parents, and also loneliness, rejection, etc.). Indeed, the law in France allows it, the law on obligations towards relatives, including in the direction of descendants towards ascendants.

Eugenics can be justified, in any case, because, already, no one has asked to be born, but because it is still difficult to justify imposing a bad birth, which the child will have to endure all his life ( selfish parents, deprivation of being great, beautiful, with a good future, deprived of fulfillment, deprived of social status, deprived of social ties, etc., and, on the contrary, suffering harassment, discrimination, rejection, loneliness, even rejected by their families, etc.)!

It should be forbidden to give birth anonymously (birth under human rights, namely the right to know one's origins (same with anonymous gamete donations, again permitted by France)! France seems to be the worst country in the world for children's rights. Another example, parents can have their children interned in a psychiatric hospital, at their discretion, without controls, it is the country of parent-kings (thank you Vichy France, of the fascist Marshal Mr Petain, during the Second World War )!

Thoughts on eugenics?

I’ve seen a trend here of people voicing their support for eugenics. Just wondering what the general consensus is.

sanctioned-suicide.net

 

[amaluuk]

Something that's been bothering me for a while now is the way people say "that's eugenics" as a gotcha. Basically, I don't think people who can't care for kids shouldn't have them; this includes poor people. I feel that children should not be put through the trauma of poverty and that this is an effective way to mitigate it.
Every time I or someone else online shares this opinion, the comments/replies are full of people calling it eugenics and saying it's terrible to do that to people. I don't really understand that. These people say that it's better to focus on lifting poor people out of poverty and helping them with systems to allow them to have children regardless of economic status, but I don't think these are contradictory at all. What's stopping us from helping poor people, but not letting them have kids in the meantime. It will take a while to help every poor person, but it won't take long to pass a law that helps kids. Why not just pass a law banning having children below a certain income and then get to helping those people out of poverty?
I'd also like to address the idea that this would inevitably encompass race. I think that eugenics led to that in the past due to the extremely widespread racism and classism of the time. Those who developed the ideas of eugenics thought that poor people and minorities were filthy and unfit. I think that because this "new eugenics" (for lack of a better term) comes from a place of helping children, has temporariness written into it, and exists in a world that is less racist and classist (although racism and classism are still present everywhere, I don't think they are as strong or overt) that the switch to race wouldn't happen. Is this too utopian of me to think?

 

[AbusedInnocent]

While I do agree that a person's right not to be born or at least be provided with acceptable living conditions is superior to the parents' right to procreation, I don't think eugenics is the solution.

I'm inclined to say it's a step in the right direction as it lowers average fertility rates but really that power would just be abused by the government, even requiring a license/certificate to procreate and having parents go through a basic parenting training would be abused and could be made to discriminate against some groups.

Better to spread the word about antinatalism and lets the individual decide for themselves.

 

[disabledlife]

I can understand the danger of eugenics being misused, as long as society remains individualistic, with multinationals, opaque governments, etc.

Society should be changed to make it a transparent direct democracy, and ensure that no one is attracted to power, becoming master, superior, etc., to be sure that eugenics remains altruistic.

Without eugenics, we can also say that favoring sick people, disabled people, etc., can be a need artificially created by big pharma, lobbies (by changing laws, instilling the cult of parenthood, porcreation of sex...), to sell medicines, institutes to earn money on housing disabled people, etc. A bit like planned obsolescence would encourage unnecessary repeated purchases, just like fashion, wearing brands, having a recent car... Even wars can be created on purpose to sell weapons. In all, that's what I think, it's obvious to me.

What do you think of all this? In any case, the child must be taken into consideration before the parents, because children did not ask to be born, born from consensual, desired relationships, etc. (except rape of course), regardless of the method used, with or without eugenics or other constraints.

 

[lacrimosa]

Hitler and the Nazis basically invented eugenics. So, no, it is not a good idea in any sense. And forcing the poor to not be able to have children is basically the same as sterilization, which it would eventually lead to. And what happens when the poor aren't poor anymore? They're sterilized and can't have children anymore. So, it's a moot point.

On the other hand, having to meet certain criteria to keep your children already exists. Especially in the United States. And even poor people or people whom have grown up poor have grown beyond their circumstances to become doctors, lawyers, etcetera. In other words, if you tried to stop poor and marginalized people from having children, who knows how many lives wouldn't be changed for the better.

 

[disabledlife]

Hitler and the Nazis basically invented eugenics. So, no, it is not a good idea in any sense. And forcing the poor to not be able to have children is basically the same as sterilization, which it would eventually lead to. And what happens when the poor aren't poor anymore? They're sterilized and can't have children anymore. So, it's a moot point.

On the other hand, having to meet certain criteria to keep your children already exists. Especially in the United States. And even poor people or people whom have grown up poor have grown beyond their circumstances to become doctors, lawyers, etcetera. In other words, if you tried to stop poor and marginalized people from having children, who knows how many lives wouldn't be changed for the better.

It's invended before Nazis. But Nazis used eugenics for bad purposes, it's so horrible.

 

[lacrimosa]

It's invended before Nazis.

I said 'basically'. It wasn't really implemented on a mass scale before them. Maybe implemented on a mass scale is a better way of putting it.

Anyways, my point still stands.

 

[innominesatanas44]

Eugenics is such a horrible idea indeed. If they are poor, why don't they just consider donating to the local sperm bank for some money? Maybe they will accept you, all you have to be is high-quality, healthy, tall, and racially-pure to qualify :D

 

[Deleted member 8119]

If they are poor, why don't they just consider donating to the local sperm bank for some money?

Maybe they couldn't take care of them when they get old, maybe they really wish to raise a child on their own. Could be many things. I's never about the money... If people cared about quality of life, we may not have rampant overpopulation.

 

[innominesatanas44]

Maybe they couldn't take care of them when they get old, maybe they really wish to raise a child on their own. Could be many things. I's never about the money…

Of course not, I donated to further the glory of the great aryan race with my 6'6 Scandinavian seed because I wanted a lesbian couple to have their dream come true. I love sperm banks.

 

[pyx]

it's purely situational since the boundary between 'poverty' and 'lower-class' is undefined. but we'll say that poverty entails having minimal purchasing power and a minimal number of goods are procured for short-term self-sustainment. i also assume you mean children born into poverty, rather than children whose families have fallen into it naturally. in any case, how do you differentiate between the two as an independent observer? and, assuming that they can do this, what kind of precedence does this have if a government is willing to put so many resources in to implementing such measures? eugenics, widely seen as unethical, would require an authoritarian government in order to implement these policies, which would likely become totalitarian in due course, considering these issues are ethical in nature, and thus ideological. so on a practical level, no eugenic program can exist while retaining our civil liberties.

enforcing any kind of eugenic system will always be seen in a given society as unethical; especially one in which its premise is to pursue a harm-reductive approach for future offspring, which cannot function on any level purely because the reduction of potential risk does not outweigh the harm brought out in turn. anti-natalism is a personal philosophy. it is a choice, not an imposition.

 

[disabledlife]

because the reduction of potential risk does not outweigh the harm brought out in turn

Can you elaborate and explain please?

What to say to a child (or children) who knows that his parents knew that they were going to create him disabled (for example), if above all his parents did it out of pure selfishness (aware of the risks, knowing that their child will be disabled, without a future, etc.) and not in the interest of their children?

Is there really a solution for children without eugenics? A possibility for children to sue their parents for their bad birth, harmful life, etc.? This legal solution can also include poverty (therefore the lack of maintenance of one's parents, aware of not being able to take care of the well-being of the children).

Are humans dedicated to procreation, as rodents, the ancestors of mammals, were when dimosa existed? Rodents, whose massive procreation alone saved their species, faced with the voracity of the dimosaurs. And it's in the genes of all mammals, including humans. Birds are more attentive to their offspring, preferring quality over quantity. I am only making an observation of nature.

I don't think so, even if the perfect world would allow it (perfection is, in any case, impossible in the Universe. The Universe itself is imperfect, from the macroscopic to the quantum, of which imperfection and probabilities are masters ), that eugenics is possible, with humans, mammals. Just see everything oriented towards sex, love, porn, etc. Songs, events, nightclubs, films, trips for two, etc. Nothing for the single person, constraints, fear of loneliness...

I created this poll thread for an alternative ideas to eugenics and other restrictions. This alternative already exists in few countries, include few states in United-States (but, verified long time ago, by my own searchs).

Should we be allowed to sue our parents, doctors, the State, the country, etc. for being poorly born? or to simply be born? Wrongful birth and life.

There have recently been threads (from me, and other members of this forum), which debated eugenics, with arguments for and against, and especially the danger, despite the fact that it would have allowed everyone to be born well, to have the same chance of having a successful life, without...

sanctioned-suicide.net

 

[pyx]

Can you elaborate and explain please?

What to say to a child (or children) who knows that his parents knew that they were going to create him disabled (for example), if above all his parents did it out of pure selfishness (aware of the risks, knowing that their child will be disabled, without a future, etc.) and not in the interest of their children?

Is there really a solution for children without eugenics? A possibility for children to sue their parents for their bad birth, harmful life, etc.? This legal solution can also include poverty (therefore the lack of maintenance of one's parents, aware of not being able to take care of the well-being of the children).

Are humans dedicated to procreation, as rodents, the ancestors of mammals, were when dimosa existed? Rodents, whose massive procreation alone saved their species, faced with the voracity of the dimosaurs. And it's in the genes of all mammals, including humans. Birds are more attentive to their offspring, preferring quality over quantity. I am only making an observation of nature.

I don't think so, even if the perfect world would allow it (perfection is, in any case, impossible in the Universe. The Universe itself is imperfect, from the macroscopic to the quantum, of which imperfection and probabilities are masters ), that eugenics is possible, with humans, mammals. Just see everything oriented towards sex, love, porn, etc. Songs, events, nightclubs, films, trips for two, etc. Nothing for the single person, constraints, fear of loneliness...

I created this poll thread for an alternative ideas to eugenics and other restrictions. This alternative already exists in few countries, include few states in United-States (but, verified long time ago, by my own searchs).

Should we be allowed to sue our parents, doctors, the State, the country, etc. for being poorly born? or to simply be born? Wrongful birth and life.

There have recently been threads (from me, and other members of this forum), which debated eugenics, with arguments for and against, and especially the danger, despite the fact that it would have allowed everyone to be born well, to have the same chance of having a successful life, without...

sanctioned-suicide.net

a law barring certain groups from procreation would cause said groups harm. harm-reduction is probability i.e the probability that one shall suffer. giving birth to children with disabilities is very different, though only in certain cases where the child is aware of their disability, or is aware of the disadvantages that this has on their lives. so something like down syndrome would be more of a burden on the parents than on the child, unless the child were to be neglected in some way.

it's also why i made sure to distinguish between children born into or fallen into poverty. because, in theory, it is certainly immoral to raise a child into poverty. however, if you try to impose laws that bar certain groups of people from having children from an ideological standpoint, it will almost certainly never function to properly reduce harm, since you are just introducing harm onto those who are living. i also clarified that such policies would only be introduced in authoritarian (unto totalitarian) conditions, meaning that civil liberties would be effectively curbed.

the ethics involved are quite nuanced, and you will certainly never have a situation in which all parties are happy. but i'd much prefer having children born into unfortunate circumstances than for people in unfortunate circumstances barred from having children by the government.

 

[disabledlife]

Thanks you for your explanation, which still holds water, for these stories of dictatorship.

Under these conditions, will the child have the right to sue his parents for the fact of being born?

Does he still have to put up with the life that has been imposed on him, without compensation, or CTB? And what should we think of euthaasia or assisted suicide at the request of the ill-born person, regardless of the motives, if there is only this one outcome (at one's own discretion)?

 

[pyx]

Thanks you for your explanation, which still holds water, for these stories of dictatorship.

Under these conditions, will the child have the right to sue his parents for the fact of being born?

Does he still have to put up with the life that has been imposed on him, without compensation, or CTB? And what should we think of euthaasia or assisted suicide at the request of the ill-born person, regardless of the motives, if there is only this one outcome (at one's own discretion)?

i don't there will be built any legal framework that will accommodate this wish. moreover, it would be difficult to argue that a negative quality of life -- outside of material conditions -- was the fault of a non-trivial imposition of the part of the parents (giving life to the child), aside from matters of negligence and directly contributing to a reduced quality of life.

procreation is seen as a fundamental right. thus giving people the ability to sue their parents for bringing them into the world would be to inveigh upon this right; an indirect punishment, which would in turn become restrictive and reduce incentive for procreation. i doubt anything like this will be introduced in any democracy.

 

[Deleted member 8119]

procreation is seen as a fundamental right. thus giving people the ability to sue their parents for bringing them into the world would be to inveigh upon this right; an indirect punishment, which would in turn become restrictive and reduce incentive for procreation. i doubt anything like this will be introduced in any democracy.

This is exactly what's being argued against... In some cases, at least. Rights have obligations too. Not to mention growing in countries with several human right violations.

the reduction of potential risk does not outweigh the harm brought out in turn.

It won't happen, but this is blatantly wrong. The off-spring are exponentialy more, and will have more off-spring. Way more people would be hurt like that. Not saying it's viable, but it's impossible to help everyone*

*The unborn don't have needs yet, but they count for future suffering reduction.

a law barring certain groups from procreation would cause said groups harm. harm-reduction is probability i.e the probability that one shall suffer. giving birth to children with disabilities is very different, though only in certain cases where the child is aware of their disability, or is aware of the disadvantages that this has on their lives. so something like down syndrome would be more of a burden on the parents than on the child, unless the child were to be neglected in some way.

I agree it will never happen, but for totally different reasons. As I said, there is strong incentive for both poor and privileged people for those groups to have children. If such population controls exist, the whole system may collapse, or, at least, slow down greatly.

There are many countries using those poverty measures, so it's indeed possible. It's used, for example, to offer support and economic help to said groups. Measuring income is easier than you think.

But who says it won't spiral into world-wide eugenics?

Well, who says the above support doesn't spiral in snatching money for more groups, creating corruption?

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I fully agree with eugenics but I also agree with applying eugenics to those with disabilities, not just those who are poor (though eugenics should also be applied to those who are poor). Eugenics is just doing what natural selection should have done. I'm autistic and I have a significantly harder life than most people. I get that not all people with disabilities still enjoy their life regardless their disability but eugenics has never claimed to kill the living. Eugenics is merely preventing more disabled people from coming into existence. It doesn't matter whether these people were to enjoy their life or not as they aren't even born yet and hence don't crave life.

What matters is that life is significantly harder for disabled and poor people and that it would be better if these people didn't exist in the first place. Life is only meant for neurotypicals, not for neurodivergents

 

[pyx]

It won't happen, but this is blatantly wrong. The off-spring are exponentialy more, and will have more off-spring. Way more people would be hurt like that. Not saying it's viable, but it's impossible to help everyone*

*Since the unborn don't exist, they can't be really helped yet, but they count for suffering reduction.

i disagree. i'm not really interested in theoretical outcomes, so much as implementation. how do you think they will implement these laws?

and no, the off-spring do not suffer exponentially more, since the process of incurring harm in the chain of offspring is not cumulative (unless you believe in some inheritance of pain, or inter-generational trauma). a greater number of people who suffer due to growing up in poverty does not justify curbing civil liberties of the present. improving our current systems and providing those in poverty with adequate resources is the proper course of action, in my opinion.

This is exactly what's being argued against... In some cases, at least. Rights have obligations too. Not to mention growing in countries with several human right violations.

true, though only insofar as they undermine (or displace) current values. you would be required to produce something legally coherent i.e in accordance with the current legal system, and not anything introduced external to this. this is just a case of moralism opposing positivism; whether or not you believe that these restrictions should be introduced, it's pretty clear that, as a legal issue, it holds little credence, and indeed may never hold such value until overpopulation enters popular discourse. but that would be a different issue entirely.

 

[Deleted member 8119]

how do you think they will implement these laws?

The comment above yours is dark, but gave me an idea. I heard recently of genetic diseases that straight up kill you. In this extreme cases, there's literally no choice: either you don't have a child, or you don't have it as he dies within months of birth.

We have disability bonuses in some countries, and a clear guide to what can and can't qualify. In fact, most errors are made undereatimating one's state, instead of they being applied to everyone who doesn't want to work.

I say more: we already have them for sperm donation. That's literally it. I can see something similar being applied to illnesses, as they are anti-human, and can ruin your life.

It will never happen to poor people, though. It's possible to do, but that has the convenience barrier.

and no, the off-spring do not suffer exponentially more, since the process of incurring harm in the chain of offspring is not cumulative (unless you believe in some inheritance of pain, or inter-generational trauma). a greater number of people who suffer due to growing up in poverty does not justify curbing civil liberties of the present. improving our current systems and providing those in poverty with adequate resources is the proper course of action, in my opinion.

I meant the number of them who could suffer. It's not that the child inherits the pain of the parent; it's that the experiences will be similar, but instead of one, they'd be applied to many persons.

 

[pyx]

I meant the number of them who could suffer. It's not that the child inherits the pain of the parent; it's that the experiences will be similar, but instead of one, they'd be applied to many persons.

the difference being you cannot predict whether or not a child will find life valuable. moreover, it depends on how many generations are born into poverty. in the US it takes five generations for their descendants to approach the average wage. in these cases, the distinction between lower-class and impoverished becomes blurred over time. also, in such cases the parents typically sacrifice a lot in order to secure a better future for their children. of course, if they chose not to have children in the first place, then they wouldn't need to work as hard, though it is uncertain whether or not they truly could escape poverty to begin with. it might give them hope to think that their children could potentially live better lives than them, so it is uncertain if their experiences will be truly similar; these experiences are not only characterised strictly by quality of life, but also by their values.

I say more: we already have them for sperm donation. That's literally it. I can see something similar being applied to illnesses, as they are anti-human, and can ruin your life.

agree for the most part. wouldn't extend this to cases of poverty. barring people from providing sperm would not be seen as depriving them of any rights if they are not legible to do so, while barring these people from having children would be. of course, i already spoke about this wrt the positivism of our legal framework.

 

[DarkRange55]

Eugenics in people has generally been used for ill.
Similar means have been used in other species for a mix of reasons (feeding the world, but also silly dog breeds).

karyotyping is pretty primitive compared to modern tools.
Gene modification pre-birth and post-birth will be done by many.

 

[Doctors HATE them]

I fully agree with eugenics but I also agree with applying eugenics to those with disabilities, not just those who are poor (though eugenics should also be applied to those who are poor). Eugenics is just doing what natural selection should have done. I'm autistic and I have a significantly harder life than most people. I get that not all people with disabilities still enjoy their life regardless their disability but eugenics has never claimed to kill the living. Eugenics is merely preventing more disabled people from coming into existence. It doesn't matter whether these people were to enjoy their life or not as they aren't even born yet and hence don't crave life.

What matters is that life is significantly harder for disabled and poor people and that it would be better if these people didn't exist in the first place. Life is only meant for neurotypicals, not for neurodivergents

Pretty much my exact thoughts.
Even if most neurodivergent people are happy with themselves, it doesn't change the fact that depression occurs at a much higher rate in people like us. It's not like society will change to be more accepting, so why not prevent the depression from even having a chance?