[deleted]

The premise of this article is not that it is ok to be a nazi.

The premise is that "we are all eugenicists—but in selective, inconsistent, and often hypocritical ways."

To quote the article, so people don't read this comment and completely dismiss what the article was getting at.

"When someone says that screening embryos for genetic diseases, giving educated women incentives to have children (like free child care for college educated women), or offering subsidized abortions for women addicted to drugs is "eugenics" they are absolutely using the term correctly."

The overarching message of this article is that it is not Nazism to get an abortion because the fetus will be born with painful lifelong disabilities. In fact, most progressives would argue that should be the woman's right to get an abortion in this situation.

Likewise, it is not Nazism to ban incest because it increases the likelihood of cognitive disorder (in offspring).

Did you just read the title and maybe the first two paragraphs and comment?

Did you even read the article?

Yeah, the point is there is a huge ethically middle ground in-between Nazism and Incest, a middle ground that reasonable people already occupy, but we are afraid to have conversations about policy and ideas that could benefit the future because we are afraid of being called Nazis.

I, for example, have decided not to have children because of various psychological disorders that run on both sides of my family, as well as actual gene damage from my grandfather studying uranium before we understood how dangerous it is. There is a high chance for my children to have disabilities, so I've decided not to have any. And I encourage other people in similar situations to voluntarily not reproduce and consider adoption. This is definitely a "eugenics" mindset, but I don't think encouraging people to consider the welfare of their potential children before having them to be Nazi behavior.

If that was really your takeaway from the article you've grossly misunderstood it. How did you get to that?

[deleted]

This reminds me that eugenics were a huge thing up until like the 20s

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Anti-natalists can have a variety of rationales for their choices -- a belief that one has an ethical obligation to not bring children into the world being one of them, is not the same as the belief in a class of people that should neither procreate or be eradicated. One is megalomaniacal.

That's not even touching the absurdities baked into the idea of "improvements." Superiority is very much a subjective evaluation. Genetic fitness isn't the same as one culture's preferential vision of what it considers a superior human being.

1st way to delete your OG comment.

2nd you are still ignoring the premise. The premise is that we are all eugenicists in inconsistent ways.

3rd, this is not about cultural taboos surrounding incest, it is about the genetic effect of incest, which is very often birth defects.

4th This is an apology of eugenics and not Nazism. this article is ultimately making a humanist argument for eugenics by arguing that it is basically mainstream medicine, especially in terms of abortion.

5th please read the entire article. I didn't even write it, I just think it's interesting. You seem to want people to to dismiss it because it appears to you an apology of Nazism. It is very clearly not.

This article says that eugenics is still very much practices, albeit in inconsistent ways.

Nazism is when no more child cancer patients

>The scientific consensus on behavioral genetics should allow us to appreciate that genes and reproduction will have a huge effect on the flourishing of future generations. Those who reflexively denounce any attempt at changing the genetic composition of the next generation—whether through genetically informed dating apps or government incentives—are defending the status quo at the expense of potentially valuable progress and causing harm we cannot fully appreciate.

​

So, it's ok to be a nazi?

To be fair, cultural taboos surrounding incest are more likely rooted in Abrahamic religious influence, which has a divided stance on the subject given that Abraham purportedly married his half sister. In other words, your attempt to link the taboo to a latent drive to improve genetic health is not very convincing.

This apology is as vacuous as the sick idea that humans should be controlled as livestock

[deleted]

This is more interesting than your comment alleging that the post is promoting nazism.

>1st way to delete your OG comment.
>
>2nd you are still ignoring the premise. The premise is that we are all eugenicists in inconsistent ways.
>
>3rd, this is not about cultural taboos surrounding incest, it is about the genetic effect of incest, which is very often birth defects.
>
>4th This is an apology of eugenics and not Nazism. this article is ultimately making a humanist argument for eugenics by arguing that it is basically mainstream medicine, especially in terms of abortion.
>
>5th please read the entire article. I didn't even write it, I just think it's interesting. You seem to want people to to dismiss it because it appears to you an apology of Nazism. It is very clearly not.

You are spreading propaganda and delete your opinions when it is challenged. This is closer to nazism than anything advocated for in the article.

There's nothing wrong with positive eugenics, ie encouraging high quality people to breed and discouraging dysgenic breeding (eg incest or people with genetic disorders). What's wrong is negative eugenics, ie using state force to sterilise or punish people for it.

[removed]

I blocked you at first but I can't now for 24 hours now that I unblocked you so that I could respond to a point conflating anti-natalism with eugencs. You'll be blocked again tomorrow. Don't harass me.

The danger does not lie in having a general idea that some traits may be more desirable than others and that a population with more people with certain traits may be better off. The danger comes in thinking that governments would be capable of turning this very general idea into something that doesn't turn into a dystopia nightmare.

In this case…or any case like it….if the the label eugenicist is being handed out…label away.

The interesting thing about it, is if you were to imagine yourself performing an experiment on the evolution of a population to determine which traits lend toward survivability, to simulate what you're proposing, the population within the constraints you defined, would in effect attempt to subvert the experiment by changing the constraints to suit its collective preferences. It would ruin the experiment in so far as you wouldn't have found those traits that improve survivability within constraints that matter, and given that we in the real world have no such controls over the real constraints that matter for the survivability of the human race, our own attempts to guide human evolution are similarly self-deluded, selfish and shortsighted. That having understanding of evolution somehow allows us to control our own evolution, seems to lead to a kind of contradiction wherein we seem to think that subverting evolution is evolution. It's fundamentally flawed.

I suppose none of that ultimately matters when there are untapped markets to explore with designer babies and what not. Or maybe it does, when at the end of the day, everything we do is factored into selection of the fittest whether we like it or not.

I really like this use of the term "positive eugenics" to help distinguish it from the very negative associations with the worst kinds of eugenics.

Denmark seems to be doing pretty well in integrating eugenics motivated policies that are not turning the country into a dystopian nightmare (as far as I know that is, I've never been.)

It is a dangerous thing, which means it needs to be handled with care and precautions need to be in place, just like Uranium, nuclear power is fantastic and benefits many, many people. But it does have the capacity to go horrible wrong and cause massive environmental and economic problems when things go wrong. This is a reason to be very careful and be cautious when implementing new technology and ideas, but I still think we should pursue the lowest risk highest benefit possibilities.

EDIT Denmark has problems

Not familiar with Danish politics. What are the policies?

You didn’t explain their program and when I looked it up all I found was that they forcefully sterilized tens of thousand of mentally handicapped people… is that what you meant?

I'm not really familiar with anything other than what was mentioned in the article, access to abortion, pre-screening of pregnancies to give women the option to abort when the pregnancy is likely to result in a disabled person, access and encouragement to abort when a mother has been actively using drugs that damage the fetus during pregnancy.

As far as I know nothing forced, just a destigmatized culture around abortion and a lot of education about how to prevent disability. Coupled with government programs to aid the disabled that do exist.

I think similar policies in the US and other countries would be great, nothing extreme or forced.

I think encouraging people who are likely to produce disabled offspring to adopt and making it easier for them to do so could be great for society. Again, not forcing anyone, just providing better alternatives to people concerned for their health of their offspring than just hoping the genetic lottery is in your favor.

Ahh I didn't know about that, that is indeed very troubling, I'll look more into that when I have time.

They abort practically all children with birth defects and disabilities. It isn't forced by law AFAIK but it's highly encouraged by the govt and medical staff.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

They also up until like 2014 force sterilized transgender people.

https://www.queerty.com/denmark-ends-forced-sterilization-of-transgender-people-20140613

Yeah that's also terrible.

I mean, I'm glad they stopped at least.

>Eugenics, a literal translation of the Greek for "good birth," aims to improve the population through interventions. Positive eugenics aims to increase “good” and “desirable” traits, whereas negative eugenics aims to reduce “bad” or “undesirable” traits.

Herein lies the problem with their theory: it assumes that people oppose incest for the good of the overall population.

I, and I assume most people, oppose incest out of concern for the welfare of the individual potential children. Children born with genetic diseases suffer. I believe it is our duty to prevent the suffering of children as much as possible.

To reduce eugenics merely to a "good birth" would include something as simple as taking prenatal vitamins. At which point the term loses all meaning.

I have a degree in genetics, I DEFINITELY am a eugenicist. The only issue is working on way to implement it which won't turn out poorly.

Edited cause of auto correct

But we know in the US they would just tell minorities to abort.

I think the author does include that in their very broad definition of eugenics, as not drinking during pregnancy is also a form of eugenics according to the author.

I don't think the term loses all meaning opening it up this much, it just becomes something that is irrational to oppose, of course people want children to born healthy, the question is just which measures and policies are worth having to produce this result.

In turns eugenics from a yes/no question to a which option question.

You're missing the key point of my comment.

The author posits eugenics as a concern for the purity? health? goodness? of the overall population. But in reality, much (most?) concern surrounding the fitness of future children is because we are concerned about the welfare of those children as individuals.

I really don't understand your point then, isn't the health of the overall population the welfare of many individuals on a greater scale? Like, one child of incest with a disability is a tragedy, and a single individual that is suffering, 100 of them in a single town is a health problem for the population. I really don't understand the distinction you're trying to make and why it's important.

yes, but like, it was a public, widely debated talking point in the same vein as like

people talking about how to prevent diabetes

it was even surrounded by plenty of funny false medicine

nazis made it very unpopular to speak about, though.

No one would accept the government stepping in to abort autistic children, and it is by a similar token that i don’t really see good ethical grounds for banning sibling marriage. It is so rare and so naturally self-limiting that there is basically no point in enforcing it by law.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/04/30/how-american-racism-influenced-hitler

Yeah. It would get convoluted in the US pretty quickly. Already, abortion clinics are strategically overpopulated in the black communities. The pro-life crisis centers that are meant to get women to keep their babies are in white areas.

I think it circles back to the point that governments make up their own ideas of right and wrong, and it's dangerous to have it mandatory.

I would argue that, like child marriage, instances where sibling marriage does happen can be tied back to abuse. Inbreeding aside, sibling marriage can come in several forms. If it is kept illegal, it gives the state the excuse to investigate and break manipulated young girls from oppressive family structures.

Take FLDS, where they forcibly married girls underage to their cousins. Or they removed girls altogether from their homes with the consent of their parents and trapped them in a giant Texas compound. The girls knew nothing else, and were sexually abused by much older men.

Edit: Last thought: most sexual assaults in childhood are by family or friends close to the family.

So, banning sibling marriage may be a qualifier to stop low quality of life for the women that end up in the marriage, very similar to how loitering with intent to do prostitution allows police to question and find trafficing victims.

Not to mention the history of the US and serialization of certain WoC too… it would never work over here just off the history alone.

[removed]

First of all Eugenics works.

It all depends on how you define things.

The most general/broad definition of eugenics includes a broad set of attitudes and actions some of which are commendable, others reprehensible.

However, the word as used typically is not this general form, but specifically the Eugenics of the early 20th century that was inspired by Social Darwinism.

This form of Eugenics is both wrong and reprehensible.

So am I a Eugenicist (social darwinist variety)? I am not.

Am I a Eugenicist (In the sense that I believe that genes have profound impacts on the organisms that they contribute to, and that knowledge of these impacts can and in some cases should be used)? Sure, the devil is in the details however.

>There's nothing wrong with positive eugenics, ie encouraging high quality people to breed

Who gets to define "high quality people" and decide who measures up to the definition? Who checks their work to make sure they're being honest and objective? Who checks theirs?

>as not drinking during pregnancy is also a form of eugenics according to the author.

That's not really Eugenics, more Eu-evodevo.

If you generalize eugenics that much, then every single action you take can be determined to be either a eugenic or dysgenic action depending on the time scale and level of detail you examine outcomes.

Ever hear of a Mississippi appendectomy?

No but I’m now afraid to look it up cause it’s probably gonna ruin my day.

Thx for noticing

Right now for example the global IQ is decreasing for various factors, but one of them is high-IQ, educated women are less likely to have children. In a few generations, if this trend is not reversed, we will have a collapsing civilisation run by low IQ people who have no idea how to run the systems and technology that they've inherited from us. If you value civilisation, you may wish to reverse this trend. If you don't care then that's a different matter altogether. But for people who value civilisation, high quality traits are things like intelligence, social cohesion, physical health, mental health, co-operativeness, etc.

Well, I think an incest ban is very different than a mandatory abortion or a gene selecionar IVF. Most people would agree with the first (most people try to choose a partner with "good" traits anyway).

Yes, of course the population is made up of individuals and each individual's suffering matters.

But that's not the eugenicists primary concern. It's easier to understand when you remember the really big eugenics movements, like Nazism and White Supremacy, which care less for the individual and more for the "purity" of the overall race.

It's an important distinction to make because it's an underlying worldview that does often affect our politics in subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, ways.

Think animal rights vs. conservationists. Most of the time these two groups align, but sometimes conservationists will seek to conserve the overall population of a species in ways that harms individual animals more than animal rights groups find acceptable.

So back to the question of incest: If I am a eugenicist, I oppose incest because I don't want the DNA of the overall population besmirched. If I care about individual rights, I am concerned about the welfare and suffering of individual children potentially born into more suffering than necessary.

Is that a bad thing?

Isn't the decision to reproduce with your sibling deeply private? Or to take shots in the privacy of your home while pregnant deeply private? Isn't prohibiting and shaming these things collectivizing decisions about procreation?

[removed]

Reddit Moment!

I oppose incest because of the inherent power imbalance of a family member fucking their family. It is inherently abusive. To say that people oppose incest and inbreeding solely based on genetic purity or whatever is one of the most morally repugnant statements I can imagine.

The author's trying to muddy the water on the meaning of eugenics because his argument boils down to "I only refused to fuck my sister because I was worried about genetic purity."

Okay I can understand that, can you care about people not passing down Parkinson's disease to future generations because Parkinson's is really painful and hard to live with? I can, I think it would be great if people chose not to role the dice with the dangerous disease and it was reduced in future generations. What does that make me?

What if I know a couple that both have schizophrenia and I think they shouldn't reproduce because they're child has a 40% to have a schizoid type disorder and I've seen how difficult that is to live with?

What about the part of the article that talks about Ashkenazi Jews reducing genetic disorders by using genetic testing in mate selection, is that compassion for their future children? Or "purifying" their race? If the person administering the tests is more concerned about purity than individuals does that become eugenics and does it become dangerous?

I know a couple from my life that were told they were incompatible genetically, and they decided to trust Jesus and have two disabled children who both suffer far more than average and require lifelong support. I think what they did is wrong, both because of the suffering of their children, the burden on society and their family that they knowingly created, and because they're children are on the same ethical dilemma that they were in should they want to have children. Now that the children exist I believe they should get full community support, and they do. There is no reason to punish the child for the parents mistake. But I also don't see the point in pretending the parents didn't make a mistake. (Twice)

I have bad genes, my parents didn't know, but I do know, and I can't imagine feeling good about purposefully passing that down to another generation, my compassion isn't just for my own potential children, but their progeny too. I have trouble respecting people who knowingly, and proudly pass down traits much worse than mine, it seems incredibly selfish and inhumane. I don't understand why being critical of this is off limits for so many people.

I know good and bad traits are subjective at times, but when we go to great lengths to medicate away certain traits, because people can't live with having them, I don't see the harm in trying to prevent those traits from occuring in subtle, non-invasive ways, like education about ways to create legacy and positively influence future generations without reproduction. A lot of people live in reality of "die alone or make babies", helping people see alternatives and making other lifestyles equal could help people make more ethical decisions regarding reproduction.

I see why the distinction is important to you, but I don't think you can have a whole view without both, the suffering of individuals and the suffering of society is so closely related, if you only focus on one you blind yourself to the other and that makes it really easy for people to make horrible decisions.

This is already really long and ranty, but last point is, I know what Nazis are, and just like they're bad socialists that interpret socialist ideals in horrible ways, they are also bad eugenicists, that interpreted the ideas in the worst ways, there are non-fascist compassion motivated alternatives.

Who's your eugenecist? Can I get a referral?

Opposing incest for the "inherent power imbalance" is just silly. All sexual interactions have a power imbalance and removing it as much as possible wouldn't probably change your mind. Or would you say that 2 gay adult twins engaging in consensual sex(power imbalance negated) is an OK form of incest?

[removed]

[removed]

Oh okay, I was trying to use eugenics in the same way as the author is proposing the term should be used, and you are not. That's why this conversation doesn't make any sense. I didn't realized you were just hard disagreeing about the terminology.

Myself actually, I do have the training.

Selecting for cooperativeness sounds like a slippery slope to Orwellianism tbh

>I, and I assume most people, oppose incest out of concern for the welfare of the individual potential children. Children born with genetic diseases suffer.

Most people don't care about social stigma attached to incest?

It's probably the alt-right trolls doing what they do best, trying to "own the libs" in their maniacal culture wars.

The fools will eradicate schizophrenia, and then they’ll experience eugenicists remorse.

Getting rid of "less desirable PoC babies" was the specific goal of noted Eugenicist Margaret Sanger when she started Planned Parenthood so their location in the black neighborhoods is intentional.

Not fun fact, more black babies are aborted each year than are born in the US.

I absolutely am.

The article states "Our instinctive aversion to incest is informed by intuitive eugenics" and links to a scientific study which supposedly asserts the same claim, which it doesn't. The study uses "intuits" which isn't the same as holding eugenics as a belief system. The entire article reads as a classic case of propaganda intended to reinforce confirmation bias in favor of normalizing eugenics.

Label away enough and it's perfectly normal to be a eugenicist. Why not natural?

Edit: and in the linked study, I'm not seeing any evidence that this can be reproduced among polyamorous tribes where close familial ties are comparatively vague or not recognized. If it isn't reproduceable, it would suggest any aversion people intuit toward close kin is due to some kind of social contstruct, being not innate.

So basically the definition of "eugenics" is a lot more vague than we realize and we should make sure to differentiate between state-mandated eugenics and decision-making regarding fertilization. Interesting read, it convinced me that siblings should be able to legally have babies, which I don't think was the goal, but they seem to have inadvertently made some compelling arguments for it.

Have you tried dating?

Nope I'm too uncooperative

IDK if you're missing my point or just being flip (as I was) for internet points. But, on the off chance you missed the point, sexual selection selects for a ton of sociability traits.

So, unless you think sexual selection is Orwellian on its own, I'm not really sure what your point is.

I think there is a big difference between primitive racist eugenics VS scientific genetic improvement.

One is a stupid racist ideology based on pseudoscience, the other is actual science trying to make better humans (for all races) without defects and undesirable problems.

Transhumanism is the rational goal to pursue, using tech and AI to create tougher, stronger and smarter humans without all the problems of natural evolution.

[removed]

>But for people who value civilisation, high quality traits are things like intelligence, social cohesion, physical health, mental health, co-operativeness, etc.

yeah no, 'values' like co-operativeness and social cohesion are not necessarily good things, too much of either and you get a docile population who will not use violence at all.

society is only as valuable as it treats its least and any given population must have the ability to violently tear down society if need be (it shouldnt be encouraged but to diminish the ability to is to all but guarantee dystopia)

Your ad hominem ‘Nazi’ attack might make you popular in /politics, but I don’t think it’ll get you far here.

Really important to note, as a disabled person who was casually and out of nowhere asked if I'd abort a child like me, that there is no screening test for most conditions. I'm also disabled as a result of severe medical negligence not my original condition. It can cause cleft palettes, which might however be picked up on a scan.

Ableism is also not identical to ideas of eugenics. The focus is on getting rid of conditions deemed disabilities, rather than aiming at positive traits, and neurodivergence (which has links to physical conditions, including connective tissue disorders like mine) is worth considering here.

Wonder how many philosophers have been neurodivergent, and that has been a factor in their philosophy? Some are certainly thought to have been.

Edit: Oh, and connective tissue disorders and hyperflexibility? They carry a risk of injury, not everyone would be capable, but ballet, gymnastics, you'll find those with them among those excelling there.

They don’t need to do that blacks are already having way more abortion then whites in the USA so they doing a good job at that already without having to make it obvious

Society is not, though, or there would be more focus on disability inclusion, over the active discrimination which is still a very significant factor in why children, and adults, with disabilities suffer. Here in the UK, we don't even do anything to prevent systemic medical negligence disabling children, multiple known scandals incl. with babies who ought to have been healthy, and the individual cases still treated as isolated incidents with no examination of the system and no justice. There is also currently a campaign against adequate pain relief (some people are opioid addicts therefore people in pain should suffer), and disabled people are still forbidden from deciding they want to end their lives, unless they attempt to do it a way that has a high risk of failure and further disability.

I'd love to at least pass on my education and raise children to improve on it, but disabled women like me struggle dating, and while I wouldn't dream of blaming it for all my problems, on a societal level, it's partly because people are ableist eugenicists.

Also 'mental health' has come to mean shut up and put up, don't express 'toxic' dissatisfaction with the status quo, obligatory happiness, if you hate being underpaid or otherwise mistreated it's an individual problem, definitely don't be neurodivergent and want to burn the ableist status quo to the ground.

Sure but it's a bit different when it's the government doing the selecting.

well there's a term and concept I'd not thought of. Sounds like it'd be useful in far-future sequel to Huxley's Brave New World

You’re obviously a schizophrenic with comprehension issues: I wish you well...

...get your 8hrs sleep daily 👍

lol, thanks mate.

Any schedule for when the new world order gets us eradicated?

I don't think it's fair to say there's really an overarching strategy here, certainly not between the people placing abortion clinics & the pro-life crisis centers. Different goals.

Abortion clinics are "strategically" placed where there are large concentrations of people who need their services including sexual health care, contraception, education, and yes also abortion.

Who needs this discounted health care? That means poor people.

Who needs abortions? That means unwanted, out of wedlock pregnancies. Which also means poor people

That means an urban environment.

And urban poor happen to be black.

I agree, I find the reasons of disability or poor living conditions to be terrible for abortion. Especially at such scale. It feels dehumanizing, insulting and like a dangerous precedent to set. Not only are disabled people still morally valuable but they often bring great value with new ways of thinking.

As for more serious disabilities we'll never learn to cure it if we kill off everyone with whichever disability. It feels like a lazy excuse to support certain policies.

I grew up extremely poor and my brother was born with severe asthma and I had ADHD not serious I know but technically it's a disability. How long till people like us would be advocated for abortion because of disabilities? Things we've both grown out of.

Depends on my luck, buddy 👊

I agree