Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

arachnivore OP t1_j4oy8nq wrote

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

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