Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Ricki's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
Jargoggles

@RickiTarr @JessTheUnstill
From what I've seen, everyone who promotes eugenics seems to think they'd be exempt.

Let's ignore the fact that it *always* gets abused in practice or the fact that if you're selecting for high IQ, you're already starting off with a flawed premise that discriminates based on socioeconomics, not actual potential.

Do you have any family history of congenital illness? Predisposition to health problems? Congrats, you've signed you and your family's death warrant.

8 Dec 2023 at 18:08 | Wall-to-wall | Open on mstdn.social
4 comments
Jess👾

@jargoggles @RickiTarr
Yeah ... I mean, MY best idea for ensuring my/my loved ones' survival is to work to make sure that as many people as possible in my community can survive. Because if most or all of us are surviving, then it's pretty great odds I'm in the group of people surviving.

Once you're saying you're willing for most folks to not make it, the odds of you/your loved ones being the one of the ones who make it are a whole helluvalot lower...

8 Dec 2023 at 18:26 | Open on infosec.exchange
Jargoggles

@JessTheUnstill @RickiTarr
That's a great point. When you allow the idea that some people's lives are worth more than others, you introduce cracks in the social contact. If it doesn't cover all of us, without exception, it becomes a matter of debate. What could undermine a community more thoroughly than a disagreement about who the community will protect and who it won't?

Even just having that discussion makes everyone less safe.

8 Dec 2023 at 18:38 | Open on mstdn.social
Jess👾

With all of our knowledge and science, there's literally no good reason why anyone should ever not have enough to survive. We just suck at getting it distributed equally and fairly because of greed.

How about, and I know this is a mind blowing concept, but rather than trying to pick who lives and who dies, and prepping for a world where lots and lots of people die, we build a world where we don't HAVE to pick who lives and who dies.

Because everyone lives.

Yes, even the people you don't like and who don't like you.

When you start from the position that allowing large amounts of people to die is considered an "acceptable loss", you've ALREADY lost. You've shifted everyone into the scarcity mindset of "I gotta stab everyone else in the back to make sure I get mine".

You START the problem solving process with the fundamental that each and every person lives. That they all have shelter, food, water, medicine. You don't even get to begin to discuss who gets a second helping until everyone has had a first helping.

@jargoggles @RickiTarr

With all of our knowledge and science, there's literally no good reason why anyone should ever not have enough to survive. We just suck at getting it distributed equally and fairly because of greed.

How about, and I know this is a mind blowing concept, but rather than trying to pick who lives and who dies, and prepping for a world where lots and lots of people die, we build a world where we don't HAVE to pick who lives and who dies.

8 Dec 2023 at 19:15 | Open on infosec.exchange
argv minus one

@jargoggles @RickiTarr @JessTheUnstill

If only people with no health problems were allowed to live, there wouldn't be any people. Humanity would be extinct. The number of people who pass that filter is a big, fat zero.

Besides being extremely immoral, eugenics is also self-defeating and completely divorced from reality.

8 Dec 2023 at 18:35 | Open on mstdn.party
Go Up