"Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek εὐγενής eugenes 'well-born' from εὖ eu, 'good, well' and γένος genos, 'race, stock, kin')[2][3] is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population by excluding (through a variety of morally criticized means) certain genetic groups judged to be inferior, and promoting other genetic groups judged to be superior. "(Wikipedia definition)
Most people would agree that eugenics is a bad thing. They would especially condemn the Nazis for attempting it. But isn't the current looks-based hierarchy the primary perpetrator of indirect eugenics?
Think about it. By refusing to associate(let alone mate) with low-value men, femoids make sure that their genes can't pass on. This fits right in the definition provided above. And yet nobody would consider this as eugenics. But how is it really different than for example banning certain people from procreating through authoritarianism? Aren't both of these examples textbook applications of eugenics? Why is the second considered bad but the first one is acceptable?
The second part is, suppose that through some kind of hamstering, this problem is solved by not considering eugenics de facto immoral. So why not take it further? Why not make it illegal for ugly and/or poor people to have kids? Or why not genetically engineer babies(for the sake of the argument, suppose that we can)?Why would that be immoral? By treating certain people with undesirable genetics bad, isn't the society applying its own convoluted form of eugenics?
Genetic discrimination is considered immoral and is illegal in many countries. But don't we, the men who have bad genetics, get treated badly over our genes? How is that not considered genetic discrimination? How is that considered moral and acceptable?
Either we condemn eugenics altogether and create acceptable life standards for people of all kinds of genetics, or we go full Nazi scientist mode and apply eugenics in its full force. You can't settle in between without contradicting yourself.
Most people would agree that eugenics is a bad thing. They would especially condemn the Nazis for attempting it. But isn't the current looks-based hierarchy the primary perpetrator of indirect eugenics?
Think about it. By refusing to associate(let alone mate) with low-value men, femoids make sure that their genes can't pass on. This fits right in the definition provided above. And yet nobody would consider this as eugenics. But how is it really different than for example banning certain people from procreating through authoritarianism? Aren't both of these examples textbook applications of eugenics? Why is the second considered bad but the first one is acceptable?
The second part is, suppose that through some kind of hamstering, this problem is solved by not considering eugenics de facto immoral. So why not take it further? Why not make it illegal for ugly and/or poor people to have kids? Or why not genetically engineer babies(for the sake of the argument, suppose that we can)?Why would that be immoral? By treating certain people with undesirable genetics bad, isn't the society applying its own convoluted form of eugenics?
Genetic discrimination is considered immoral and is illegal in many countries. But don't we, the men who have bad genetics, get treated badly over our genes? How is that not considered genetic discrimination? How is that considered moral and acceptable?
Either we condemn eugenics altogether and create acceptable life standards for people of all kinds of genetics, or we go full Nazi scientist mode and apply eugenics in its full force. You can't settle in between without contradicting yourself.
