![](http://i.imgur.com/6yc7k7N.jpg)
jools posted:and like, automated vat-grown babies would be hilariously energy intensive, in fact everything you've ever posted would be without 2/3 of the human race going extinct or something. you want some kind of zardoz future basically and it's Horrific
i dunno, our current baby-vat technology already operates fairly efficiently on pickles & ice cream and the occasional foot rub
roseweird posted:one thing that is really awkward is that tons of left-type people have been admiring sweden and their schools and progressive policies and whatever for years but the reality is that modern sweden is in large part the result of an intensive eugenics campaign that only 'ended' (as though you could end the results of decades of mass sterilizations) in the mid 70s. in like 2005 some swedish gov agency commissioned a report to ask "why were we crazy for eugenics for like 100 years" but it seems like no one really talks about it. i haven't read it yet
this is exactly why i hate sweden, also sweden fucking sucks
clanzy posted:I Wanna Live In A Fucking Cave GOd Dammit
move to spain and hang out with gypsies
roseweird posted:jools posted:
genocides arent eugenic unless you have fucking eugenics lol
it depends on the sense in which we use "eugenics". if we mean the actual modern ideology, based on a rudimentary understanding of genetics, sure, that's true. but if we refer more broadly to eugenics as self-directed evolution and the action of human will on the gene pool then i think the line between "practicing eugenics" and "allowing evolution to take its course" is really blurry because all sorts of rulers ordered purges in order to purify the blood and breeding stock of the people and exterminate undesirables and they obviously did this because they wanted certain kinds of humans to succeed and live and other kinds not to. that sounds like eugenics to me but maybe you have a different word for it
what do you mean by "self-directed evolution"
Superabound posted:are people really that opposed to eugenics? i dont see whats so wrong about it as long as youre not doing it to eliminate entire races or accidentally engineering yourselves down genetic dead ends into extinction. its just the central planning alternative to mindless natural evolution
Catholic teaching supports genetic engineering for the "therapeutic" purpose of eliminating illnesses, but rejects cosmetic alterations or other "enhancements."
Preventing people from breeding for the purpose of eugenics would of course be wrong.
clanzy posted:I Wanna Live In A Fucking Cave GOd Dammit
is that "fucking cave" or "fucking-cave"?