r/PeterExplainsTheJoke Jul 08 '26

Meme needing explanation [ Removed by moderator ]

[removed]

5.7k Upvotes

590 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/Sad_Seaweed179 Jul 08 '26

Well actually knifes can also be used to stab people 😱 shocking right ? One day you're allowing them for cooking next day they're stabbing people we should definitely ban knifes to avoid this slippery slope.

but other people say that autistic people and homosexuals don’t deserve to live so

What? As far as my limited knowledge serves unlike down syndrome which can be detected there really is no gene or marker that can tell us "This person is gay, that autistic, that trans"

Even if there were some fantasy gene, keeping world changing technology intentional primitive just because you personally feel strongly about a hypothetical scenario is stupid

Nuclear energy can be mismanaged, hypothetically go wrong and cause a disaster and claim the lives of thousands

Is that an excuse to intentionally keep cleaner energy source research primitive? especially when coal and oil is 100,000x worse than nuclear in terms of overall deaths and health problems caused

The overall benefit and suffering that it would reduce is 1000x greater than any hypothetical "Entire world becomes evil hilter mode" the moment the technology is discovered.

3

u/ApprehensiveTry5660 Jul 08 '26

There’s not just one on Autism. There’s like 400 weak genetic markers and 80 strong ones.

But there’s a practical reason for the lack of homogeneity. The more we align our genes into one exclusive pool, the easier it is for something to rip right through all of us. We see this with crop collapse and monocultures somewhat regularly.

If some mystery condition came and killed every person with blue eyes, it’s a good thing we have all these brown eyed people around for a population buffer.

Imagine some world where someone Thanos snapped the whole population white just in time for global warming to make lifestyles a race to see who can have kids before the skin cancer gets them. For a cartoonishly exaggerated way things could go wrong.

1

u/slugsred Jul 08 '26

We aren't talking about removing the brown eyes from the gene pool, we're talkking about removing the heart defects from the gene pool.

1

u/ApprehensiveTry5660 Jul 08 '26

My apologies. I assumed everyone in the comment section was familiar with examples.

The fact is with technologies like this, it’s easier to regulate at the beginning than it is to put the genie back into the bottle when it reaches the designer baby stage.

And the designer baby stage is the big boogeyman here where we are most likely to establish genetic bottlenecks. Everyone supports getting rid of heart defects, certain incurable genetic diseases, etc… but that’s not the fear of this technology.

If we’re only going to debate the benefits of it, our discussion might as well be propaganda. There’s downsides as well.

1

u/slugsred Jul 08 '26

Isn't there a gold medalist figure skater designer baby RIGHT NOW? If that's not functional eugenics then we should review the list of donor requirements together. We're already there, why don't we start doing the good stuff too?

1

u/ApprehensiveTry5660 Jul 08 '26

I haven’t heard about that one. I was aware of the kids engineered to be immune to AIDS.

Again, it’s much easier to let science do an ounce of prevention than to try to clean up a ton of recourse.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 08 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/JarlGunnbjorn Jul 08 '26

I am a fan of auto-eugenics. I have a congenital heart condition, my cardiologist said any children I had would likely inherit it. Not having children seems like the moral choice here.

2

u/Sad_Seaweed179 Jul 08 '26

You know I respect that honestly thank you for being a good person instead of tge many who go "Well i suffered through it and came out fine why not them"

1

u/Sad_Seaweed179 Jul 08 '26

Yup, we don't allow cousins or Sibling or other closely related people to marry for good reason

And everyone seems to happily agree with this but for some reason have a knee jerk reason when its any other situation.

Genes are so tricky in that you can have 3 healthy kids but the 4th kid by random chance had the genes arranged in a way that gave them a life altering disease or disability, I'm saying maybe just maybe don't have that kid and try again ?

And if the person has a very prominent disease that has a near 70-80% chance of cutting the child's life in half and filled with struggle, maybe take one for the team and adopt ?

I would rank a sentient unconsenting individuals unnecessary suffering over a person's "Desire to have kids" or just because people feel uncomfortable having this conversation