Is Nature herself immoral by allowing some to have inferior genes?

@missliterallywho maybe there is honestly I don’t know. Frankly I’m biased towards Europeans so I really don’t care if others follow that imperative

Nature is amoral

@Auf WI Yep. Both good and disappointing (interesting subject, explored from a "Hollywood" perspective).

Off to the Gym for some non-transhumanism gains.💪

@missliterallywho I don’t care about what nature thinks it’s an amoral force

If we can manipulate it to help our people for the better so be it imo

@hbutzer0511 nice im making my way through the Bell Curve and Black Rednecks White Liberals

I feel for those of our people incapable of producing healthy offspring, I really do. But I do not think it is our duty or right to play God/tamper with Nature to change their fates.

Interesting eugenics argument going on here I see

if ya had a chance to change your fate......would ya?

Then why was it our fate to make medicine?

Create cures to already cured disease

@missliterallywho I’m not worrying about playing god

@MrBland - VA Yeah, I mean, I think we're pretty much all in favor of soft eugenics, but hard eugenics and/or gene editing is where it gets dicey...

Forgive me for not scrolling back to the beginning to catch fully up but it looks like you are referring to the CRISPR (sp?) thing

If you had the chance to change your fate would you actually be changing anything? 🤔

Nature/god can punish me, but I’ll feel vindicated if it means people are healthier happier and safer

@Bjorn - MD Nature is in favor of soft eugenics. That's just selection.

If suffering gives life meaning, would not the removal of suffering render life meaningless?

Buddah comin in witha hot take

Suffering from diseases does not give life meaning

lol

Soft eugenics, hard eugenics, where do you draw the line. Gene editing just seems like a fast forward of what nature does to me.

I'm just asking questions 🤔

@Kingfish good news you don’t have to worry about that at all, I’ve never seen a single incident in history where either nature or a metaphysical Force has favored the weak or stupid over those who are strong or smart.

Suffering is more than just disease

What moral basis are you using to judge eugenics?

Yeah you’re grouping together all suffering as giving life meaning where frankly I disagree

@Sam Anderson wait is there something bad about blonde hair blue eyes genes if there's too many of them?

I’ve worked with lots of people with developmental disabilities. If the topic didn’t seem so sensitive I’d love to have this convo with them and their families

@MrBland - VA The one each person here made up lol

Suffering from diseases isn’t giving life meaning imo

We can suffer by trying to colonize the galaxy

@TylerHess have you seen modernity?

Is it a religious basis, or a "benefit to humanity" kind of subjective morality...

If I get a disease like Alzheimer’s I’m killing myself because that’s not living in struggle that’s just suffering for the sake of suffering

i insist its not about morality but the implications for all humans especially europeans if we have the ability to do it

@VinceChaos the exception proves the rule, the inferior are self destructing

If had kids I would totally give them blonde hair and blue eyes lol

@MrBland - VA Well, two uncontroversial exmaples of soft eugenics would be state-enforced monogamy and a state prohibition on incest, whereas a historical (and inadvisable) form of hard eugenics was forced sterilization.