|
|
|
|
|
by alexashka
2209 days ago
|
|
Huh? You can cherry pick an attempt to do something in any discipline and then go on to doubt if it can ever be done right. What you said is not even an argument - it is just an expression of personal preference towards specific actions. I like apples, you like bananas, where do we go from here? I heard somewhere that there are three types of information: facts, fiction and fiction masquerading as facts. It seems to me that you're engaging in the third type, as are many others who hear an opinion that seems to make sense and aligns with their preconceived preferences, which they then go on to repeat with an incredible level of certainty. I'd argue 99% of what people say is of this variety, which is a problem because it is so pervasive, that hardly anyone seems to notice. It's like we're in the matrix, maaan. |
|
Which is the whole point. Eugenics is “fiction masquerading as fact”, as you put it. The core hypothesis (selective breeding works) is sound, but the traits that historical Eugenicists were trying to breed into the populace were all subjective, fictional correlates of what they thought were desirable. It’s not about MY preconceived preferences, but about what preconceived preferences the person running the eugenics experiment has.
When I say it can’t be done “right”, what I mean is that what constitutes the “eu-“ part of eugenics, meaning “good” or “best” is inherently subjective, and the choices of a particular experiment may end up being counterproductive to the goal of creating the “best” humans.