The mainstream media seems less terrified of the idea of “designer babies”, which is not specifically eugenics, but related enough that I wonder if Eugenics shouldn’t quietly respawn in the Designer Babies category?
The not-morally-objectionable stuff that still gets called “eugenics” generally fits comfortably under the term “human enhancement.” You can also talk about more specific technologies e.g. embryo selection.
Your comments in this thread make it seem like there is a general consensus about what things are moral or not, and the problem is just using words precisely. But things like selecting embryos to avoid giving birth to children with disabilities is considered very objectionable by many—and the people who object do talk about eugenics, genocide, etc. For example, the “Autism Genocide Clock”. When there is a genuine moral disagreement, changing what word you use will not help.
Not that there’s a consensus—just that there’s a correct view.
Changing the word won’t magically win over the “Autism Genocide Clock” folks, but when you’re arguing with them you aren’t doing yourself any favors by framing your position is, “actually, I think autism genocide is great!”
What word would You suggest instead of eugenics ?
(Btw, I find it hilarious, having the discussion about inventing newspeak at LW, of all forums !)
Affirmative Genetic Action; Fighting Against Genetic Unequality; Genetic Justice; No Mutant Child Left Behind...
I’d like to borrow from David Brin and call it “Uplift”.
The mainstream media seems less terrified of the idea of “designer babies”, which is not specifically eugenics, but related enough that I wonder if Eugenics shouldn’t quietly respawn in the Designer Babies category?
Too narrow.
Designer populations?
No, that circles back and sounds hitler-y again.
The not-morally-objectionable stuff that still gets called “eugenics” generally fits comfortably under the term “human enhancement.” You can also talk about more specific technologies e.g. embryo selection.
Your comments in this thread make it seem like there is a general consensus about what things are moral or not, and the problem is just using words precisely. But things like selecting embryos to avoid giving birth to children with disabilities is considered very objectionable by many—and the people who object do talk about eugenics, genocide, etc. For example, the “Autism Genocide Clock”. When there is a genuine moral disagreement, changing what word you use will not help.
Not that there’s a consensus—just that there’s a correct view.
Changing the word won’t magically win over the “Autism Genocide Clock” folks, but when you’re arguing with them you aren’t doing yourself any favors by framing your position is, “actually, I think autism genocide is great!”