this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2024
134 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15994 readers
2 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The problem is it not obvious why this is factually wrong.
It IS obvious why it's morally wrong.
The clarity comes when you actually understand science and realize that we're correcting our genes faster than mutation could ever hope to.
It's sad that nuance is lost.
Well, I mean... no?
Mutations aren't "negative" things. They're just things and in some times and places that mutation is maladaptive, in others they're adaptive, and in many more cases they're just not gonna have a strong effect in either direction.
Its a very rudimentary understanding of mutation as a "wrong" thing that never gets corrected in basic education. Not even an ignorance of science thing, just a basic incorrect definition of the word.
This being "Modern medicine is the enemy of natural selection."
Sorry, should have been clearer.
I... I don't think modern medicine is the enemy of natural selection.
Technology and societal development/structure are parts of the environment that a critter lives in. So mutations that were maladaptive in an environment where certain medical technologies or societal structures didn't exist are no longer maladaptive to a degree that a person with a particular mutation would be less likely to have surviving kids.
There's a pretty significant amount of confusion here, I think.
I never said that you said that. What I was telling you is that you misunderstood my statement and that I was talking about the original post which was disgusting modern medicine being the enemy of natural selection.
I apologize for the misunderstanding. 😁
To continue the discussion though, personally I think that are adaptations are largely unuseful in the world that we've created however any issues that we have we are likely to overcome with technology or science so it's fairly unlikely, in my opinion, that modern medicine is the enemy of natural selection.
If anything it's driving natural selection but in a different direction. We're going to have to learn how to adapt to microplastics, carcinogens, forever chemicals, particulate pollution, and excessive heat, to name a few.
(AHA... sorry, wasn't trying to personalize anything in my comment. Didn't take anything personally or thought you were putting words in my mouth.)
Sounds like we pretty much agree there.
Exactly ❤️
If you want, I do have three logic-based reasons against eugenics:
Eugenics means assigning human values to nature, and therefore our human emotions will determine what our kids might have.
Eugenics is just hyper-domestication. They claim that modern medicine is evil, but eugenics will just domesticate us further and will really bite us in the ass if civilization collapses (CHUDs drool of the day civilization collapses and they can act out their LARP.)
How do we know this won't set a precedent for using eugenics to create an inherit slave class as "the help" and who will get to decide who is and isn't a slave?
I do appreciate that.
Thing is, whatever the argument, everyone is too overwhelmed by the day-to-day to really respond to it logically. No nuance.
genes are pretty irrelevant to most things
the tallest people in pre-modern world were like 5'8" on average
that's now below average in every high-income country
most of that is due to fossil fuels doing our manual labor and large amounts of food, but some of it is also due to medical advances (for instance ivermectin reducing parasite burden)