What is the Middle Ground Between Eugenics and Idiocracy

[nanook12]

Obviously eugenics is bad. With inadiquate diversity in a society the populance can suffer from a host of genetic disorders and be exposed to diseases wiping out large swaths of people.

But in contrast letting stupid people rampantly breed is also bad. It drags down societal progress, results in increased crime and overfilled prisons, and many people resort to welfare riding.

Where is the middle line between eugenics and idiocracy?

[THE Bigzoman]

Wherever "don't tell people how to live their lives" lies.

[derpkitteh]

i would say that eugenics is a good thing, not bad.

as long as there's no racism involved, there's no reason we shouldn't use some form of eugenics.

[Shadowferal]

When overpopulation finally can no longer be ignored...and it will be too late anyway.

[Kaleredar]

A more well-funded and more well-disciplined educational systems will cut down the birthrate.


Overpopulation is not a concern in the western world; not even close.


Overall, it's not really an issue. Eugenics carries far too many loaded guns to be exploited for political reasons to ever be worth taking seriously.

Educating people will both reduce the birth rate AND make people less likely to fall for pandering eugenic bullshit. Win/win, really.

[Thoughtcrime]

"Eugenics is a really good thing, as long as I think it won't affect me or anyone I care about because we're not one of THOSE people."

Said every advocate internally.

And yes, the answer is education. Want less stupid people? Educate. Want less people? Educate and empower women especially. This also goes hand in hand with eradicating poverty.

[RaoBurning]

Comprehensive and accurate sex education coast to coast—looking at you, Bible Belt—and cheap, easy access to birth control methods for women and men.

[Xarkan]

Wherever "don't tell people how to live their lives" lies.

So.. Anarchy with a strong hint of individual isolation?

[Brubear]

i would say that eugenics is a good thing, not bad.

as long as there's no racism involved, there's no reason we shouldn't use some form of eugenics.

Even if you eliminate racism from it, it still is pretty much guaranteed to end up being a rich people decide the desirable traits/whether or not poor people can even breed. There's pretty much no way for eugenics to not go wrong.

[Moralgy]

i would say that eugenics is a good thing, not bad.

as long as there's no racism involved, there's no reason we shouldn't use some form of eugenics.

It would devolve into the rich deciding what "traits" are good, which is subjective at its core. Apart from obvious developmental issues, most of the shit people would say we should breed for would be subjective bullshit.

[Techno-Druid]

Unless it's some form of socialized, optional gene therapy I can't see anything close to eugenics actually working.

[zealo]

The middle ground is in not employing forceful sterilisation on people, and working towards improved quality and funding of education available to the poor and middle class.

Nurture is a thing, and it matters hugely to how someone turns out, more so than just their genetics assuming there isn't additional issues like long term inbreeding going on in their family.

In general overpopulation isn't an issue in the western world, and birth rates have been steadily falling in the developed western world for decades.

[Sunseeker]

Wherever "don't tell people how to live their lives" lies.

But we already do that. Laws against murder. Who you can have sex with. What you can and cannot buy. How you can or cannot treat your property.

So, obviously there's some happy medium between "let people do as they please" and "control their every thought".

[Super Kami Dende]

I'd say 90% of responsible breeders use Eugenics anyway.

Not talking about randoms that hook up and get pregnant because they are idiots, but people that find a partner and decide to have kids with them. Since these people generally choose a partner they deem to be desirable enough to have Children with.

All planned Children are selectively bred.

Most people also forget that the whole "sterilize the undesirable" is an extreme version of Eugenics that only came about in recent-ish history, whereas the concept of breeding selective traits has existed far longer.

[breadisfunny]

i would say that eugenics is a good thing, not bad.

as long as there's no racism involved, there's no reason we shouldn't use some form of eugenics.

why am i not surprised you think eugenics is good?

[derpkitteh]

why am i not surprised you think eugenics is good?

i think in an altruistic society(not current humans, that is beyond us), it could be used to eliminate or at least severely cut down on genetic and mental disorders.

that only sounds like a positive to me.

[Dezerte]

Free/mandatory parenting classes and perhaps gene editing in the future.

Or something like that.

[Deletedaccount1]

Obviously eugenics is bad. With inadiquate diversity in a society the populance can suffer from a host of genetic disorders and be exposed to diseases wiping out large swaths of people.

But in contrast letting stupid people rampantly breed is also bad. It drags down societal progress, results in increased crime and overfilled prisons, and many people resort to welfare riding.

It is frightening that people seriously believe the government should control whether or not you can have children yet will turn around and call others fascist or authoritarian.

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

i would say that eugenics is a good thing, not bad.

as long as there's no racism involved, there's no reason we shouldn't use some form of eugenics.

It's a waste of time won't AI be pretty damaging towards population numbers overall. It sounds like a problem that will fix itself in the end.

[XangXu]

I’m all for eugenics. There are so,e dumb fucking people out there and they are seriously affecting the world.

Look at the alt right. Pure autism.