Don't tell me what I believe. Provide proof of your claims or GTFO.

You haven’t provided a shred of evidence for me to disprove. You’re the one making the claim that “studies all said” something. Which studies? Link ‘‘em and I’ll be happy to knock them down.

My comments are emotionally charged because 9/10 of the replies I’ve gotten are either pro-eugenics or incredibly ignorant about what Eugenics even means. It’s distressing. You seem to think it’s a synonym for genetic engineering. It’s not. You seem to think we should just redefine words on a whim so that nothing means anything anymore. It’s distressing to see how profoundly ignorant this entire community is about why Eugenics is bad. It’s distressing that the mods want to bury any discussion about it.

I’m not trying to signal shit. I’m not being cryptic. I’m being very direct. You don’t have to read between the lines. My thoughts are all there in black and white.

I know

>I don't care enough about the subject to know how much was correct and embarrassing vs unscientific.

Yeah, no fucking shit. Yet you still spout it with supreme confidence and claim that I'm the one who's incorrect. Go figure...

You can disagree all you want. It just makes you wrong and ignorant.You could read about it. Who came up with it. What the actual definition of the word is, etc. if you want to be less wrong and less ignorant. But making up your own definition and history is wrong and dumb and ignorant.

Why the fuck would you choose to redefine the term Eugenics to something that has no relevance to what it meant to the creator of the term or the historical use of the term or the dictionary definition of the term?

You're going way out of your way to appologize for Bostrom being an idiot.

Should we "redefine" Rapist to mean "a unicorn that dances on rainbows"? WHY?

No, idiot. He doubled down on it 7 days ago.

Fuck you, mods. I hope you all suck a giant donkey dick, then choke on the warm, thick load as it oozes down your throats.

You're a bunch of fucking cowards.

I don't have the energy to even respond to your bullshit parade of long debunked junk "science". You so confidently proclaim, with zero evidence, a littany of ignorant "facts".

You want to see a magic trick?

I can tell the future!

You're going to produce some "scientific" evidence for your racist bullshit that was rejected from publications NOT because it was riddled with flaws but because the powers that be don't want to acknowledge that melanin makes people dumb. Those papers are going to rely on a metric called "heritance" which you're going to conflate with "genetics" even though wealth has a high "heritance" measure and nobody has been able to find the gene that makes money shoot out of peoples' buttholes!

How did I do?

Jesus christ. There's a line between keeping your children from dying and dictating the color of their skin. Somewhere in the middle there is complicated ground where the answer isn't so clear if something is for the good of a child or eugenics and that definitely deserves discussion, but it's not this bullshit of:

>Hurr! durr! Transhumanism = Eugenics! Hurr! Durr!

That everyone in this post is replying to me with like a bunch of lobotomized dipshits.

The problem is: The mods seem to think burying discussion about the problems of eugenics is a good idea and Nick Bostrom seems to think the main problem is that its frowned upon in academia when you act like a huge bigot, use racial slurs, and spout debunked Nazi "science".

Like, yeah Nick, I'm sure we'd be making way more progress in the field if we just let a bunch of racist trolls publish their "work". That must really be the biggest problem facing the field. \s

No, it doesn't. The word means what it means. The part that makes it bad is that it's about breading a race. That necessarily implies an authority imposing its will on a large group of people. You can have transhumanism without eugenics. This is not complicated.

It's not some fluke of history that every time eugenics has been put into practice or proposed it's been a few people saying "I don't like these people, we should get rid of them. I like these other people: we should breed more of them." The concept is INHERENTLY BAD AT ITS VERY CORE.

When you do away with the idea of breeding a race (AKA: Eugenics). You're left with individual choice. Do I want a tail? yes! Do I want twelve arms? Nah. Should someone be forcing me to decide which traits are "good" or "bad"? FUCK NO!

This is a sub about the future of humanity. How could it possibly be a-political? Get a brain...

You've completely ignored the whole part of Eugenics that makes it fraught with problems:

>Why impose your decisions on an entire race of people? Why not let individuals choose for themselves what traits they want or don't want?

I've repeated this so so so many times. It's not rocket science.

Why can't you people stay on one subject for more than one reply. It's like debating flat earthers, I swear!

Do you, or do you not understand the difference between Eugenics and Transhumanism?

To answer your question:I think Bostrom is intentionally muddying the waters. I'd love to see him actually point to a single person who believes that genetic screening and diagnostics tools for IVF alone constitute eugenics.

The term has a very clear definition:

>Eugenics: the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable.

It's not just medicine. It's about breeding a race of people. It necessarily means there is some authority dictating what is desirable and what is undesirable for an entire population.

It has historically been used to horrific ends and it's pretty difficult to see how Bostrom himself might "redefine" it to be something less troubling or how eugenics could be used toward benevolent ends. Why impose your decisions on an entire race of people? Why not let individuals choose for themselves what traits they want or don't want?

Bostrom seems to believe in some form of Eugenics. That's clearly implied by:"Do I support eugenics? No, not as the term is commonly understood."

So there is some other definition of eugenics that he DOES support?All we get for an answer is what he thinks is overly broad (which definitely is NOT "the term as it is commonly understood". IVF genetic screening isn't "commonly understood" to be eugenics by any stretch of the imagination and I think Bostrom fucking knows that!

Does Bostrom believe that people working on such powerful technology should NOT be weary of the possible ill effect their work could have on society? Does he think that chastising the use of racial slurs and bigotry in the academic communication of such science places too much burden on scientists? Really?! That sounds pretty dumb.

I think that's a very good question and I think a smart person would realize that such ideas tread into problematic territory. I would hope that people working in the field would be very aware of the problematic history of eugenics and would understand complicated terrain they tread.

Nick Bostrom seems to believe that exercising caution in the exploration of such powerful technology is getting in the way of important science. He seems to think that scientists shouldn't be burdened with such silly things like how their work might negatively impact society or how they might be able to communicate their ideas without using racial slurs or whatever.

That's a good question! Don't let the mods catch you asking it! Apparently it's not ok to discuss this shit on r/singularity

According to Nick Bostrom, the inability to spout racist bullshit in academic circles without repercussions is preventing such discussions... somehow...

>do you think it would be good if it were possible that parents use genetic engineering to protect their baby from harmful genetic diseases?

That's not Eugenics! Though it walks a thin line if you start considering any variation to be a "disease". Should we get rid of all forms of neurodivergence? Is dark skin a disease?

>Eugenics: the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable.

Eugenics is specifically about breading a race of people. It's about eliminating "undesirable traits" (historically: being black or jewish or gay or any other variation of the human condition that isn't straight and white). It necessarily implies an authority who defines what is or isn't "desirable" for other people (the "race").

The fact that you and Nick Bostrom and aparently every other person on this sub can't be bothered to understand the not so subtle difference between curing diseases and breading a fucking UBERMENCH indicates to me the dire need for such a conversation instead of letting the mods shut it down.

Post-human doesn't imply eugenics. Why are all of these comments on crack? It's not complicated.

Eugenics is about breeding a "superior" race and the eradication of "undesirable traits".

It necessarily implies an authority defining what traits are desirable for a large group of people (the "race" in question).

Post-humanism doesn't imply any of that shit. It goes beyond breeding and race and the need to eradicate any specific trait.

If I wan't a tail with a jewish vagina on the end of it, it's none of anyone's fucking business. I don't need to be apart of your "race".

The fact that this distinction is lost on you is telling of why this debate needs to happen in this community. You guys don't even understand WHAT eugenics is and yet, you're a proponent? WTF?

No it's not, dipshit. Eugenics is about breading a super-race free of "undesirable traits". It necessarily implies a group of people defining what they desire for another group of people (the "race").

Transhumanism implies no such authority. If I want eight arms, seven vaginas, thirteen penises, and my mother's Jewish teeth, I don't have to have someone else telling me that's undesirable.

You are the one who needs to think about what words mean.

Is there a sub about the singularity that doesn't "lean" fascist?

>If we have the technology to make our children healthier at birth then we have an obligation to do that.

Eugenics isn't the same as medicine. What the actual fuck?

>Eugenics: the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable.

We don't need to bread an Ubermench to cure diseases.

I'm so tired of this chicken-little bullshit that a bunch of "intellectual dark web" assholes go on about the "freedom of speech in academia" as though its so hard to communicate science without using racial slurs.

Elon Musk said he bought Twitter because he's sooooo concerned about the importance of "freedom of speech" to the future of society. Ha!!! He then prompltly un-banned a bunch of Neo Nazis like Richard Spensor while banning a bunch of people critical of him. It's all bull shit. We've been through this. Karl Popper already famously solved the "paradox of tolerance". Bigots have absolutely NOTHING to bring to the "marketplace of ideas". We already fought a world war over the information hazard that is Fascism! We don't need to mull these ideas over more. Their "absence" (bah!) in scientific or political discourse certainly is NOT among the biggest challenges facing humanity. It's way smaller than the rising prevalence of FASCISM ITSELF!

This idiocy NEEDS TO END. People working in genetic medicine ABSOLUTELY SHOULD be aware of the very thin line they walk between medicine and eugenics and ABSOLUTELY SHOULD be careful in how they communicate their ideas. WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK, MR. BOSTROM?!

Who's worried about the free speech of minorities or children born in cancer villages who have no chance of ever get to voice their perspectives in the halls of academia.

Everything is political. ESPECIALLY THE FUTURE DIRECTION OF HUMANITY & SENTIENCE.

I'm not surprised that some dipshit named "Cult_of_chad" would be pro-eugenics.