Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

arachnivore OP t1_j4ooic4 wrote

Reply to comment by Cult_of_Chad in Singularity Mods removed this post about Nick Bostrom defending eugenics by arachnivore

I'm not surprised that some dipshit named "Cult_of_chad" would be pro-eugenics.

−8

Cult_of_Chad t1_j4opyhl wrote

Are you lost? This is r/singularity.

I'd be disappointed if the plurality of the community here did not favor at least some forms of eugenics, considering all the aspiring post-humans and trans humanists we have around. Even with the influx of fresh faces post ChatGPT.

14

arachnivore OP t1_j4oy8nq wrote

Post-human doesn't imply eugenics. Why are all of these comments on crack? It's not complicated.

Eugenics is about breeding a "superior" race and the eradication of "undesirable traits".

It necessarily implies an authority defining what traits are desirable for a large group of people (the "race" in question).

Post-humanism doesn't imply any of that shit. It goes beyond breeding and race and the need to eradicate any specific trait.

If I wan't a tail with a jewish vagina on the end of it, it's none of anyone's fucking business. I don't need to be apart of your "race".

The fact that this distinction is lost on you is telling of why this debate needs to happen in this community. You guys don't even understand WHAT eugenics is and yet, you're a proponent? WTF?

2

Cult_of_Chad t1_j4p386g wrote

>Post-human doesn't imply eugenics.

There's a lot of overlap.

>Eugenics is about breeding a "superior" race and the eradication of "undesirable traits".

I mean, I can afford to give my kids a lot of advantages. In ten years that might amount to some nifty germline edits for every one of my descendants going forward. Project that advantage into the future...

If people don't want to use my tax money to subsidize these for everyone else's kids, that's their choice.

>It necessarily implies an authority defining what traits are desirable for a large group of people (the "race" in question).

It's called the FDA. As much as I hate them, this is literally their job.

>It goes beyond breeding and race and the need to eradicate any specific trait.

Some traits need eradicating. It doesn't have to be controversial; just allow parents choice and subsidize the costs where reasonable. This is hardly unprecedented, even with touchy issues. Look at the abortion rates for fetuses with Down's syndrome.

3

Shelfrock77 t1_j4ow8n5 wrote

Transhumanism is eugenics OP, think about that shit. Yes, people will have the freedom to make their skin darker or lighter, who gives a flying fuck about the real world when you live in the other “real worlds” that fullfill your personal utopia vision. Forget about it, it’s not worth running in circles in your mind.

10

arachnivore OP t1_j4oxg5y wrote

No it's not, dipshit. Eugenics is about breading a super-race free of "undesirable traits". It necessarily implies a group of people defining what they desire for another group of people (the "race").

Transhumanism implies no such authority. If I want eight arms, seven vaginas, thirteen penises, and my mother's Jewish teeth, I don't have to have someone else telling me that's undesirable.

You are the one who needs to think about what words mean.

−4

Hunter62610 t1_j4p10zo wrote

While Eugenics did mean achieving Genetic superiority by forced breeding, I see it referred to by Genetic manipulation as well lately. We really need another word for it, but I can't think of an all-encompassing word that isn't Eugenics. It's also worth pointing out that Gene editing is not completely unlike Normal Eugenics. People might not be able to afford genetic modification, nor will it be guaranteed that those already alive can get modified or put in new bodies. If that ends up being a reality, then Gene modification will potentially be just as immoral as Eugenics, meaning they will be equivalent.

​

The future is not set in stone, nor is any form of utopia guaranteed. We must all advocate for the best possible world if we want to see what we want.

3

PhilosophusFuturum t1_j4ot1yu wrote

For the record, the Transhumanist movement in general is friendly to eugenics; it’s not surprising that Nick Bostrom would be sympathetic to it.

9