Chris Maconi@chrismaconi• 6 months ago

Replying to @eshear

@eshear Yeah, no. This is God’s world, and his choices not ours.

data druid@binarybardo• 6 months ago

Replying to @eshear

@eshear This assumes that not screening is equivalent to selecting for “lesser” traits

mass@Memetic_Theory• 6 months ago

Replying to @eshear

@eshear thank you for this

Mike Solana@micsolana• 6 months ago

Replying to @eshear

@eshear now im just sitting here thinking how crazy it would be if we measured IVF baby life outcomes and found they were significantly less lucky

Carl Franzen@carlfranzen• 6 months ago

Replying to @eshear

@eshear Emmett, have you ever seen the movie “Gattaca”?

Vivid Void@vividvoid• 6 months ago

Replying to @eshear

@eshear Why I would simply choose the baby that the Dao chose

Max Hodak@maxhodak_• 6 months ago

Replying to @eshear

@eshear Luck isn’t encoded in the genome though. But there’s an interesting idea here: what is the information carrier of luck? As a thought experiment, it concretizes a bunch of stuff usually handled pretty informally

Panta@thepanta82• 6 months ago

Replying to @eshear

@eshear It'd be an interesting sci fi story if we started mass embryo selection and suddenly the world got super unlucky - accident rate way up, asteroids, overdue coronal ejections - and it turns out luck selection was a Chesterton's fence...

aron@Aron_Adler• 6 months ago

Replying to @eshear

@eshear luckiness is no more a trait than existence is a predicate

Lucy R. Fisher@richmondie• 6 months ago

Replying to @eshear

@eshear That is VERY twisted logic. Eugenics is a form of eugenics. Not using eugenics is a form of eugenics.

Khalid@_KhalidRmb• 6 months ago

Replying to @eshear

@eshear People are very very irrational when it comes to these things that could reveal a genetic abberration within them. They'd rather hide and ignore it rather than face it and try to fix it. Unless famous influencers start doing this it won't catch on.

Matter as Machine@matterasmachine• 6 months ago

Replying to @eshear

@eshear You can't know which traits are better. The whole sense of evolution is to have DIFFERENT traits.

growthesque@growthesque• 6 months ago

Replying to @eshear

@eshear The mental gymnastics needed to argue that both non-eugenics and eugenics are eugenics, just to justify eugenics.

truesteel@truesteel23• 6 months ago

Replying to @eshear

@eshear If you followed this logic Stephen Hawking would not have been born

kevin@kkuehlz• 6 months ago

Replying to @eshear

@eshear with such a broad definition of eugenics then even spousal selection is a form of eugenics, and the meaning of the word is lost. deep thoughts often turn out to be semantic trickery.

latent space marine@xlatentspace• 6 months ago

Replying to @eshear

I would not be selecting for the lucky, I would be expressing the idea that there is no known selection criteria that maximizes human flourishing, neither in the individual nor the aggregate I'm not refusing, I just don't have in hand valid selection criteria (however, I'm mostly in favor of screening for down syndrome as that's kind of a very obvious case where not having it is better than having it - but I'm not sure if I'd personally support an abortion about it - probably not personally, but I wouldn't really judge someone that did)

tithe@_tithe_• 6 months ago

Replying to @eshear

@eshear It’s insane how most of the replies have no idea what you meant by this.