If eugenics = Nazi, it’s time to re-evaluate all this talk of FAI and transhumanism.
Eugenics can be negative (breed out) or positive (breed in / maintain), and it can be state run or individual run. The line between birth control / family planning and eugenics is like the line between erotica and porn; the good things are good because they are good, not any quantifiale thing in the thing.
Your assumptions and questions point to a desire for future generations to be as or more healthy and happy as we are today, and there is a name for that. A name that is out of fashion, but what the name describes is older than 1930s-40s Germany and which is more practiced and discussed than ever. The power may be in the state (China’s child limits) or individuals (India’s use of abortion and birth control to have more boy children) but it’s here.
I favor access to birth control by individuals and I am against state decisions on family planning and health.
What’s the connection to re-evaluating FAI and transhumanism?
I didn’t say I think eugenics = Nazi. I just said Nazis advocated a particularly murderous and arbitrary form of eugenics, so now that’s all that comes to mind for most people today when they think about eugenics, if they do at all.
With a lot of work, though, we may eventually make that issue moot through in-vivo gene therapy.
I have encountered a severely limited ability in others to accurately understand that, when speaking on behalf of others, you are not speaking your own opinion. I recommend trying to be as explicit as possible in explaining public perception.
Eugenics can be negative (breed out) or positive (breed in / maintain), and it can be state run or individual run. The line between birth control / family planning and eugenics is like the line between erotica and porn; the good things are good because they are good, not any quantifiale thing in the thing.
The word “eugenics” has generally been used for inventory attempts to “eliminate undesirable traits”, either by state-run top-down efforts, or in some cases by pressure from the medical community, in order to make general long-term changes in the human gene pool as a whole.
It really has nothing to do with individual making decisions that have an effect on the genetic health of their children (for example, women choosing sperm donars with college degrees in the hopes of having smarter children, people using pre-implantation genetic selection in IVF, ect.) Positive long-term effects on the human genome in general may be positive side effects of that, but they are not the main goal.
In any case, I think that eugenics (trying to make long-term changes in the human genotype through selective breeding or forced sterilization ect) is a foolish idea at this point. Even if you had some kind of species-wide eugenics program, it would take many, many generations for it to have any real effect, and long before then we should be selecting our genes directly (even without any kind of singularity or GAI, genetic science alone should do that quite soon.)
People who are in favor of transhumanism shouldn’t talk about it in terms of eugenics. Any eugenics effects (positive or negative) are unlikely to be significant in either the short run or the long run, and eugenics has a well-deserved reputation for totalitarianism, abuse, and taking away people’s fundamental freedoms.
If eugenics = Nazi, it’s time to re-evaluate all this talk of FAI and transhumanism.
Eugenics can be negative (breed out) or positive (breed in / maintain), and it can be state run or individual run. The line between birth control / family planning and eugenics is like the line between erotica and porn; the good things are good because they are good, not any quantifiale thing in the thing.
Your assumptions and questions point to a desire for future generations to be as or more healthy and happy as we are today, and there is a name for that. A name that is out of fashion, but what the name describes is older than 1930s-40s Germany and which is more practiced and discussed than ever. The power may be in the state (China’s child limits) or individuals (India’s use of abortion and birth control to have more boy children) but it’s here.
I favor access to birth control by individuals and I am against state decisions on family planning and health.
What’s the connection to re-evaluating FAI and transhumanism?
I didn’t say I think eugenics = Nazi. I just said Nazis advocated a particularly murderous and arbitrary form of eugenics, so now that’s all that comes to mind for most people today when they think about eugenics, if they do at all.
With a lot of work, though, we may eventually make that issue moot through in-vivo gene therapy.
I have encountered a severely limited ability in others to accurately understand that, when speaking on behalf of others, you are not speaking your own opinion. I recommend trying to be as explicit as possible in explaining public perception.
So do I. But, I bet I can come up with a demographic trend or two that would make the above position a difficult one to defend.
The word “eugenics” has generally been used for inventory attempts to “eliminate undesirable traits”, either by state-run top-down efforts, or in some cases by pressure from the medical community, in order to make general long-term changes in the human gene pool as a whole.
It really has nothing to do with individual making decisions that have an effect on the genetic health of their children (for example, women choosing sperm donars with college degrees in the hopes of having smarter children, people using pre-implantation genetic selection in IVF, ect.) Positive long-term effects on the human genome in general may be positive side effects of that, but they are not the main goal.
In any case, I think that eugenics (trying to make long-term changes in the human genotype through selective breeding or forced sterilization ect) is a foolish idea at this point. Even if you had some kind of species-wide eugenics program, it would take many, many generations for it to have any real effect, and long before then we should be selecting our genes directly (even without any kind of singularity or GAI, genetic science alone should do that quite soon.)
People who are in favor of transhumanism shouldn’t talk about it in terms of eugenics. Any eugenics effects (positive or negative) are unlikely to be significant in either the short run or the long run, and eugenics has a well-deserved reputation for totalitarianism, abuse, and taking away people’s fundamental freedoms.