Talk:Eugenics

	This Racialism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

What counts?

Does eugenic practices have to be enforced on a governmental level or a personal level to be considered eugenics? Does intent matter if the action is essentially producing the same result? See:

Recent unwarranted decision to give DNR notices to people with disabilities. This mirrors eugenics in theory, since why are they selecting people who have learning disabilities? The implicit message here is that one person is being valued over another when it comes to selecting who gets to live and who dies.

Similar issue, the effects of the racist American system effectively has eugenic results. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Im not sure. To say that something is "eugenic" in outcome/result is to regurgitate the same depraved rhetoric these semi-nazis were all about. Everybody is equal in the ways that matter, and we should simply state it as such without complicating the issue. Kadashova (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Conflation

A major problem is that there are two (partially overlapping) actual issues.

'Classical eugenics as a policy' which is seen as A Bad Thing.

'Genetic engineering and selection', to minimise the surfacing of, or potentially eliminate, certain genes and combinations thereof, which are 'life limiting etc' and certain developmental disorders. This is a slightly different situation. Where the dividing line should be is the point of debate.

Thoughts? Anna Livia (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

No, it's really the same thing. When you start to select for "good genes", you always end up selecting out "bad people". It's a slippery slope and we all know where it leads. Kadashova (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Aborting someone who has a risk factor for disease and then trying again for someone who hasn't got risk factors isn't eugenics in the negative connotative sense. Lets put it this way, when you have a child, you want them to live the healthiest life possible. Certain diseases are not going to be pleasant, they don't become devalued as people, but their lived experience can be seen as suffering by comparison. If someone gave you the choice of a child being born blind, for example, why would you ever pick blindness for them? When that child grows up, and asks you, "why did you make me blind?" if that ever happens, what would you say? You had moral misgivings about them being devalued in a social sense, so you deprived them of one of their basic senses? Nonsense. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand that there is a slight problem with this. However, the next simple step to consistently avoiding this problem is to embrace antinatalism. Kadashova (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Antinatalism is the idea that life is not worth living or inflicting on others, which would raise the question to antinatalists, why not suicide? But that is besides the point. I am not an antinatalist, I want life extension, even, life to me is clearly worth living. But from my personal perspective, I would rather live a life with perfect sight than live a life inconvenienced by blindness. This is not the same as saying blind people are "worth less" or "blind people are bad", it is a claim that given my experiences of sight, I prefer not being blind. I choose blindness because it is a stark thing to consider for this thought exercise. A much less clear idea is that of whether to screen for autism or not. And I personally do not see a positive reason to deliberately choose to give someone autism either. You could make an argument to keep "positive" traits typically associated with autism, whilst reducing ones that lead to difficulties in life, but as a rule, I do not think parents who have the option of IVF procedures should be pressured into giving people autism deliberately. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Should the thread above this one be put one of those collapsable templates?

Self-explanatory question; Asking mainly because it's too long, and also because, after skimming through it, it seems to me that the guy who started it was just spewing bullshit. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Bump TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. Bongolian (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

did a big update on these eugenicists

I have one final section to add on Edward Dutton's "woke eugenics" book (utter nonsense).45.9.251.211 (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I was the above IP, I've now created an account and will continue to add to article.Anti-eugenicist (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Was not sure where to put these sources so will leave them below for now:

• Sandel, Michael. “The Case Against Perfection” The Atlantic [2004] [1]
• Sandel, Michael. The Case against Perfection (Harvard University Press, 2007). Anti-eugenicist (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Why not unify "Use by far-right and white nationalists", "Supporters of eugenics" and the current "See also" into one?

It makes no real sense. For example, Breivik is much more dangerous than the people above him here with so much more text devoted to their "ideas." ^{— Unsigned, by: Kadashova / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 23:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)