this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
1508 points (98.6% liked)

Science Memes

13563 readers
2853 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

"because that would be eugenics" is not an explanation. You're just asserting that eugenics is bad, which is begging the question -- this is a post about the ethics of eugenics. You can't just come in and say "eugenics is bad because it's eugenics."

Anyway, I don't think anyone is calling China's former One Child Policy eugenics.

[–] ghost_of_faso3@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Thats because the one child policy was coerced by the IVF in order for China to survive during a period of economic isolation, more so the one child policy only applied to han Chinese, and many still choose to have children, it wasn't a ban on having extra children, they where just heavily disincentivized and given access too birth control.

Literally banning who can have sex would be eugenics yes

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I don't really see a strong difference ultimately between "heavily disincentivizing" and banning. Heavy disincentivization basically means the rule only applies to poor people. If it's eugenics, it's probably still eugenics even when limited to the poor, since most eugenicists would broadly consider wealthy people to likely have good genes.

Anyway, there are times when we should attempt to lower birth rates as a society. In my country it's not needed, since the birth rate is so low.

[–] ghost_of_faso3@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I don’t really see a strong difference ultimately between “heavily disincentivizing” and banning

You dont see the difference between a tax break vs literally jailing people who have kids? Its a pretty big difference!

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago

Yeah, it's a different implementation. One has an escape hatch for the wealthy; the other doesn't.