Comment

the_crotch@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

That really depends on how they follow them. For example, eugenics is scientifically sound. It’s morally depraved in practice, but the scientific method doesn’t account for ethics.

source

Sort:hotnew top

surewhynotlem@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
Is it though? Time and again it’s been shown that having a very wide basic genetic options is the healthiest for a species. Evolution favors adaptability.

Now if you’re talking about weeding out and genetic issues, diseases, and known problems, yes. We do that today.

source
- the_crotch@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  
  Is it though? Time and again it’s been shown that having a very wide basic genetic options is the healthiest for a species. Evolution favors adaptability.
  
  Depends what you select for. You could breed for intelligence, strength, etc and still maintain a diverse gene pool. Look what we’re done with dogs, ffs. It’s a scientifically valid practice. It doesn’t matter though because there’s no ethical way to do it.
  
  Now if you’re talking about weeding out and genetic issues, diseases, and known problems, yes. We do that today.
  
  Through gene therapy, yes. Eugenics implies selective breeding.
  
  source
  - surewhynotlem@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    I’m looking at a pug right now. Uhhhhh…
    
    It works if you know the traits you’re trying to optimize for and don’t care about the mistakes. We don’t know that for humans, and we do care.
    
    I think you’re mistaking science for psychopathy. Proper science would recognize that humans are social creatures and therefore our actions have impact across society, and we need to take that into account.
    
    Also, try and breed two very smart people. You rarely get a stable smarter person.
    
    source