“I cannot personally think of a scenario where something is true, therefore, it can not and can never be true.” - every great philosopher and scientist
‘I have an opinion and make either the evidence, my perception of it or the terms we are discussing fitting it’
- every troll always
There is no way to see senicide as a eugenic strategy without changing what eugenic means. But, as you point out, I might be wrong. So feel free to score your goal without moving the post.
That is not eugenics, because the people are not removed from the genepool as a result of eugenic thought, but by people with non-eugenic intentions under the influence of a specific policy that is not inherently eugenic. I see that as a circular argument. They can chose to reproduce. Also note, that this policy would not improve the genepool, but dramatically weaken it, as it would lead to - if somehow a significant amount of people would share your non-sequitur train of thought - only those reproducing who can be sure that their offspring dies early, e.g. families who have certainty that there offspring dies at 50 of cancer. Prenatal diagnostics would turned into the opposite it is used for, where only defective children would be born. You make a case for the opposite of eugenics.
Your personal idea of “improving” and “weakening” isn’t how the definition of the word is defined (they don’t list your name to give the approval). Eugenics, in practice, never applied to people with wealth and power. Other people not being allowed to grow old and “leech” off society (i.e. not give their capital and labor to the ruling class) is an idea in a lot of mainstream conservative circles today. To think a policy of killing off the elderly when they “run out” of societal value during a global pandemic isn’t running up to the line of eugenics is, frankly, kind of absurd. Policies can be much more subtle and not trigger people to think it’s eugenics (e.g. “color blind” policies that purposely target racial minorities) and usually fight against the idea they’re eugenics (e.g. or racist). You’re being too gatekeepy and not accepting that eugenics doesn’t need to come in the form of the utmost obvious like rounding up every distinct minority and killing them off so they can’t repopulate with their kind.
To think a policy of killing off the elderly when they “run out” of societal value during a global pandemic isn’t running up to the line of eugenics is, frankly, kind of absurd.
This is the key point and you are simply wrong, as you confuse eugenics and utilitarism. It is not absurd to think of the covid example as eugenic, but it does not withstand a closer look, because, as you point out yourself, it’s about the economic value, not the genetic value.
but it does not withstand a closer look, because, as you point out yourself, it’s about the economic value, not the genetic value.
The reason people are eugenicists is because of some other thing. The “genetic value” doesn’t exist on its own. It exists part of society. Race eugenicists, for example, think their race is superior to others because of x, y, and z (one of the reasons is almost always about “economic value” too).
Race eugenicists , for example, think their race is superior to others because of x, y, and z (one of the reasons is almost always about “economic value” too).
Exactly. The intention of eugenics is about the genetic value. If improving economic situation of the majority is the reason for a policy, its utilitarian. A eugenetic policy is always utilitarian under the assumptions of the specific eugenists implementing it. But by overwhelming far majority is not every utilitarian policy a eugenic one. You so far, only prestend utilitarian ideas and not a single instance, where improving the genetic value is the actual intention. A utilitarian policy aiming at economic value and by accident also somehow influencing reproduction behaviour is not eugenic.
“I cannot personally think of a scenario where something is true, therefore, it can not and can never be true.” - every great philosopher and scientist
‘I have an opinion and make either the evidence, my perception of it or the terms we are discussing fitting it’
- every troll always
There is no way to see senicide as a eugenic strategy without changing what eugenic means. But, as you point out, I might be wrong. So feel free to score your goal without moving the post.
“People in my family live long, but if we live long we will be executed, I don’t think we should have children.”
See how easy that was to come up with one obvious example?
That is not eugenics, because the people are not removed from the genepool as a result of eugenic thought, but by people with non-eugenic intentions under the influence of a specific policy that is not inherently eugenic. I see that as a circular argument. They can chose to reproduce. Also note, that this policy would not improve the genepool, but dramatically weaken it, as it would lead to - if somehow a significant amount of people would share your non-sequitur train of thought - only those reproducing who can be sure that their offspring dies early, e.g. families who have certainty that there offspring dies at 50 of cancer. Prenatal diagnostics would turned into the opposite it is used for, where only defective children would be born. You make a case for the opposite of eugenics.
“Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
“Eugenics is the practice or advocacy of improving the human species by selectively mating people with specific desirable hereditary traits.” https://www.history.com/topics/european-history/eugenics
“eugenics, the selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans.” https://www.britannica.com/science/eugenics-genetics
Your personal idea of “improving” and “weakening” isn’t how the definition of the word is defined (they don’t list your name to give the approval). Eugenics, in practice, never applied to people with wealth and power. Other people not being allowed to grow old and “leech” off society (i.e. not give their capital and labor to the ruling class) is an idea in a lot of mainstream conservative circles today. To think a policy of killing off the elderly when they “run out” of societal value during a global pandemic isn’t running up to the line of eugenics is, frankly, kind of absurd. Policies can be much more subtle and not trigger people to think it’s eugenics (e.g. “color blind” policies that purposely target racial minorities) and usually fight against the idea they’re eugenics (e.g. or racist). You’re being too gatekeepy and not accepting that eugenics doesn’t need to come in the form of the utmost obvious like rounding up every distinct minority and killing them off so they can’t repopulate with their kind.
This is the key point and you are simply wrong, as you confuse eugenics and utilitarism. It is not absurd to think of the covid example as eugenic, but it does not withstand a closer look, because, as you point out yourself, it’s about the economic value, not the genetic value.
The reason people are eugenicists is because of some other thing. The “genetic value” doesn’t exist on its own. It exists part of society. Race eugenicists, for example, think their race is superior to others because of x, y, and z (one of the reasons is almost always about “economic value” too).
Exactly. The intention of eugenics is about the genetic value. If improving economic situation of the majority is the reason for a policy, its utilitarian. A eugenetic policy is always utilitarian under the assumptions of the specific eugenists implementing it. But by overwhelming far majority is not every utilitarian policy a eugenic one. You so far, only prestend utilitarian ideas and not a single instance, where improving the genetic value is the actual intention. A utilitarian policy aiming at economic value and by accident also somehow influencing reproduction behaviour is not eugenic.