I deleted my eugenics tweet, not because I don't stand behind it but because I think my phrasing was unclear. So a thread to clarify exactly what I mean:
10
10
93
Conversation
Fucking around with genes has historically been used for really bad things. This is bad and I do not support it.
But also, if I could offer free gene modification to end terrible genetic diseases in fetuses, I would probably do this.
Replying to
I used the term 'eugenics' which I understood to be an umbrella term for everything regarding "changing the genetics of human beings" (based on the dictionary/wikipedia), but it seems people associate the word with the use of force and only bad things, which I do not stand by.
20
5
94
Replying to
Just for the record, "free gene modification to end terrible genetic diseases in fetuses" is *not* was what the term "Eugenics" has historically meant.
4
Replying to
Historically isn't it for good things? GM crops are a result of direct gene modification and is incredibly good, even selective breeding of vegetables is incredibly good. Natural bananas looked like this:
2
3
Replying to
Have you ever read Dune? A breeding program was a pretty interesting part of it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bene_Gess
Replying to
Eugenics was always about 'building a better race' by selecting who was to reproduce and who was not. And like you, I would be fine if certain inheritable afflictions could be done away with. However, as the latest pandemic shows, we need genetic variety.
Replying to
I think the fact that historically it's mostly been used for evil is a valid argument for being careful around the subject. Somehow "improving the genes" had always led to killing invalids, instead of breeding and cultivating geniuses.
Show more replies