[acadapter]

What if, for example, a dentist refuses to remove malformed wisdom teeth because his morals don't allow him to fix problems that a person is born with, and only fixes tooth damage caused by accidents?

The taboo against genetic repairs is more comparable to antivax, rather than eugenics. Every part of the medical sciences is an intervention against "nature taking its course", in order to prevent harm to the individual.

[fruitworks]

>What if, for example, a dentist refuses to remove malformed wisdom teeth because his morals don't allow him to fix problems that a person is born with, and only fixes tooth damage caused by accidents?

If every dentist did this, the genepool would improve.

The difference between anti-vax and anti-eugenics is that eugenics makes society more fragile by producing a monoculture, whereas vaccinations make society more durable due to the network effects in the spread of disease

[estimator7292]

> If every dentist did this, the genepool would improve

I grew up in rural Kentucky. One of the worst, most ineffectual education systems on this continent.

We were still taught, very clearly, and with zero ambiguity about how genetic inheritance works.

A 7th grader in bumfuck Kentucky knows more about genetics than you've demonstrated here.

Since you apparently missed class, I'll explain: evolution by natural selection only applies when the adaptation in question affects survivability before reproducing.

A genetic problem that causes you to die or become infertile before you've had children can be evolved away. Anything that happens to you after reproductive age does not get affected by natural selection because the selection pressure of reproduction is gone.

This is called an evolutionary shadow.

Again, this is what we teach to middle school kids in rural Kentucky. You really don't have any excuse to be so ignorant.

[czl]

> evolution by natural selection only applies when the adaptation in question affects survivability before reproducing

> Anything that happens to you after reproductive age does not get affected by natural selection because the selection pressure of reproduction is gone.

You are mostly correct but must also consider traits that affect the odds children will fail to reproduce. People can for example be genetically predisposed to depression or impulsive anger or substance abuse or ... any of which can impact the survival of their children thus selection pressure does not entirely disappear after a child is born.

[Hammershaft]

I agree with you and I think the comment you're replying to was callous, but maybe try to show more grace in tone. HN is starting to feel a little more hostile every day, which isn't healthy for open intellectual conversation.

[fruitworks]

I am well aware of that effect and how it does not refute my claim.

If parents have some sort of health issue after reproductive age, that diminishes their ability to help their offspring.

Not to mention that juveniles also get dental problems. We live in a society where you need to get braces in order to look attractive and get a mate. We are breeding people who do not have the features they need to survive without artifical intervention.

[Luker88]

> If every dentist did this, the genepool would improve.

Not really, especially since this is widely regarded not as much of a genetic problem, but as a difference in diet of modern society.

I am also unsure if eugentics *necessarily* brings monoculture. We did it for hundred of years to dogs, and while some races are definitely worse off than others, we literally created more than any here care to remember, and many absolutely love races I find truly ugly.

So the problem with eugenetics lies in understanding what culture lies behind it, imho. While there is a pull to uniformity, people don't like too much of the same, because instinctively you understand it loses value. No difference == no worse, but == no better too.