Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

arachnivore OP t1_j4p4z2q wrote

Reply to comment by cloudrunner69 in Singularity Mods removed this post about Nick Bostrom defending eugenics by arachnivore

No, it doesn't. The word means what it means. The part that makes it bad is that it's about breading a race. That necessarily implies an authority imposing its will on a large group of people. You can have transhumanism without eugenics. This is not complicated.

It's not some fluke of history that every time eugenics has been put into practice or proposed it's been a few people saying "I don't like these people, we should get rid of them. I like these other people: we should breed more of them." The concept is INHERENTLY BAD AT ITS VERY CORE.

When you do away with the idea of breeding a race (AKA: Eugenics). You're left with individual choice. Do I want a tail? yes! Do I want twelve arms? Nah. Should someone be forcing me to decide which traits are "good" or "bad"? FUCK NO!

1

cloudrunner69 t1_j4p64em wrote

Meh I disagree. Eugenics was always about improving/enhancing the human physical body through crazy stuff like breeding only certain people. This was only because they didn't have the technology that we have today. Not to mention the obsession with nationalism. But we don't live in that place anymore which is why the definition needs updating, because we live in different times.

There is no reason why words cannot be redefined, we do it all the time. Troll, catfish, cloud, tablet, cougar. All these words have been redefined in the last few years, what's the difference?

Maybe we could say there is eugenics and there is forced eugenics. See what adding an extra word can do, amazing right?

But hey you seem to have taken a pretty stubborn position on this so I have no interest in trying to convince you there is nothing wrong with eugenics anymore.

1

arachnivore OP t1_j4p6vbz wrote

You can disagree all you want. It just makes you wrong and ignorant.You could read about it. Who came up with it. What the actual definition of the word is, etc. if you want to be less wrong and less ignorant. But making up your own definition and history is wrong and dumb and ignorant.

Why the fuck would you choose to redefine the term Eugenics to something that has no relevance to what it meant to the creator of the term or the historical use of the term or the dictionary definition of the term?

You're going way out of your way to appologize for Bostrom being an idiot.

Should we "redefine" Rapist to mean "a unicorn that dances on rainbows"? WHY?

−1

cloudrunner69 t1_j4pbosc wrote

Oh I see what's going on now. You're using this latest Bostrom stuff as a platform for virtual signalling.

Ok, this makes sense why your comments are all so emotionally charged and you're dismissing what others are saying rather than trying to have a rational discussion about the subject. Cause you don't care what other people think.

4

arachnivore OP t1_j4pct6a wrote

My comments are emotionally charged because 9/10 of the replies I’ve gotten are either pro-eugenics or incredibly ignorant about what Eugenics even means. It’s distressing. You seem to think it’s a synonym for genetic engineering. It’s not. You seem to think we should just redefine words on a whim so that nothing means anything anymore. It’s distressing to see how profoundly ignorant this entire community is about why Eugenics is bad. It’s distressing that the mods want to bury any discussion about it.

I’m not trying to signal shit. I’m not being cryptic. I’m being very direct. You don’t have to read between the lines. My thoughts are all there in black and white.

0