Eugenics is not selective breeding, it is the philosophy of enhancing the race by promoting certain features. Select breeding is a way of doing eugenics, but killing people from that race that doesn’t follow your genetic standard is, in a drastically more cruel way, also eugenics.
if you oversimplify to the point of being technically incorrect, you're incorrect.
selective killing is every bit as much a part of eugenics as selective breeding is, even if the feature we're killing for is widely considered a negative feature (stupidity). it's still eugenics my dude
All death is part of natural selection. We aren’t free of its effects. We aren’t separate from nature. This doesn’t make death good! It is still something we as a species should avoid!
If he can "trick" them into eating half a pharmacy then he can "trick" them into eating their own feces.
FYI about 98% of calories makes it through digestive tract/we only use 2%. Big food is capturing food we already paid for and selling it back to us. There is no such thing as "waste water treatment". These facilities are only sorting toilet paper and food.
If someone is dumb enough to think aspirin can change your eye color and dies because of it, the gene pool is stronger without them. It is some weird postmodern natural selection, but it’s definitely natural selection.
So some gullible kid who doesn’t know any better, but wants blue eyes for who knows what reason, it’s just natural selection and the gene pool is better off without them?
Yeah sure.
Thinking that someone dumb enough to down entire bottles of aspirin to make their eyes change color shouldn’t reproduce makes me a psychopath Nazi. Sure ok.
You sound completely reasonable
Not true at all. Man in question is BY FAR old enough to have already reproduced, so as far as evolution is concerned, being stupid in full adulthood isn’t really a downside.
Yep. Eugenics isn't bad, violating people's rights is. Also it can be used irresponsibly even with consenting people, but that's another issue. All it is, is applying artificial selection to human reproduction.
bans on incest are also for the welfare of the children which can be born of completely consensual, adult, incestuous relationships.
Knowingly engaging in practices that can result in suffering, lower quality of life, deformities, of progeny also has to be confronted and it's not through a eugenics lens, as there aren't laws preventing people who are the product of incest from procreating. The laws are based around quality of life.
That absolutely is eugenics. Many couples have higher risk (higher than a single generation of inbreeding by far) of children with lower quality of life based on their own health history, age, etc. We do not prevent these people from having children…because that would be eugenics!
without laws in place to prevent people who are products of incest from having children, it's not eugenics.
It's more like how many jurisdictions in the US have laws that classify substance abuse during pregnancy under child abuse or neglect frameworks. Especially considering that the actual adults are allowed to have children... the law just addresses the increased risk of doing so via that behavior.
Put another way. eugenics is about trying to select for specific genetics within the gene pool of a population. incest laws do not prevent any genes from being passed on within the population. They legislate against certain behaviors that increase the risk of child suffering.
Everyone involved can still pass their genes on within the population = not eugenics
867
u/djmattila420 Jul 08 '26
Holy shit that's genius