You're viewing a single thread.
Well, he's a eugenicist (and thinks he's got the best genes) so I'm guessing this is part of his plan to make certain populations stop breeding.
Most of everyone on Lemmy is into eugenics. Except they go the long way by claiming poor people shouldn't have kids
Well, you're the first I've seen to suggest such a thing so... you got any proof?
Go on a thread talking about cost of living or cost of children. Most views there are "if you can't afford kids don't have em" without realizing what you guys are actually suggesting. A future where only the rich get to have kids, and the poor are only there to work and die
So, no. You have exaggerated a position to the point of absurdity. Thanks for clearing that up
As if evidence would sway you
Cool. Here, let me clarify why I adamantly disagree so that it's clear it wasn't my "lack of acceptance" of your evidence as to why I wasn't swayed.
Eugenics is systemic and requires intent. If individuals make the decision to not have children because the world is hostile towards them doing so, that's an individual choice. Can't be eugenics. Hell, even discussing not having children if you can't afford it still isn't eugenics.
Now, a world being designed to be hostile towards individuals having children, that could be interpreted as eugenics. But the victims of that system making the choice the system has been made to make them make... yeah, not eugenics. Victims, not perpetrators.
So, like I said, your position is exaggeration to the point of absurdity.
And before it's brought up, while many people in power are eugenicists (white nationalists, classists, etc) I don't think the current system is intentionally designed to cut the population. It's a knock-on effect of letting the wants make policy, rather than making systems to be equitable. They just want to have everything without thinking the ramifications of their decisions all the way through.
There's a lot of people that often get thrown into the "eugenics" crowd; but they're actually advocating for no one to have kids at all. It's not about selective genetics; it's about less people overall.
I've been thrown into that group when I tried explaining that Idiocracy wasn't about genetics.
Malthusianism is eugenics, not to mention its been completely debunked, over and over and over again. Yet it persists as not just a cultural relic like phrenology but as a mode of inquiry that gets funded, researched, promoted. Even you take it seriously, "its not about killing certain people, its about killing everyone equally."
Its almost like there is a group or maybe a class of people who do the funding and own the media companies, who like this idea and want to keep it around despite it being based on lies and conjecture. And if that is true, the question becomes "why?"