Well, I've been thinking about this issue, which is quite delicate for obvious reasons, and I think that eugenics is not necessarily a policy of the left or the right, but it depends on how it is applied.33 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
To begin with, it must be said that eugenics is nothing more than favoring certain biological characteristics over others for future generations, it could be said that it is a form of self-managed evolution, it has a bad reputation because when it was applied in countries like the United States or the Nazi Germany what was intended was to exterminate populations considered inferior, however, is this the only form of eugenics?
If 20, 30, 40 or even 100 years from now, genetics were mastered well enough to be able to modify the DNA of an embryo with minimal risk, couldn't this be used to improve our species? Couldn't dozens if not hundreds of genetic diseases be exterminated? Couldn't we design children who grow up to be healthier, stronger and more intelligent? And if that were the case, couldn't a public eugenics program be promoted? that is to say, that couples who are interested can access a genetic modification program to promote these beneficial characteristics in their future child. Wouldn't this be a kind of "socialist eugenics"?
I believe that eventually it is inevitable that genetic modification of embryos will become commonplace, and therefore it is important that the idea of public eugenics be promoted, otherwise only people with enough money to pay for these programs could access to them, and that would eventually lead to a much more evident caste system than the current one, where the rich are practically supermen with advantages that allow them to dominate the labor and scientific market while the poorest classes would be relegated to occupying a position increasingly irrelevant in society.
Anyway, I'd like to discuss the matter because I find it interesting.
They used to say that only the barbarians would sacrifice their children to Gaea, for better harvests, to ensure the future of a group, etc. They seem to forget that we are still doing exactly that. It's just that now it is clinical and primarily for our convenience.
Read a bit more and you'll realize that infanticide was extremely and disturbingly common throughout cultures and history. People would leave babies in the woods, in boxes, under buildings and the sewers. Some had the excuse that what we would now call an disabled child was actually the child of a troll, uncontrollable for humans to raise and deed, and it would be better to leave them in the woods with their kind.
Abortion is much more human than killing a living unwanted baby or leaving it die, because that is the inevitability when people have no other option and can't raise it. Maybe if we lived in a society where people can actually afford to raise them, and where the state would actually bother to help parents to feed and educate them, where having a baby won't put you in debt. But that isn't gonna happen in the US anytime soon.
what is this masterpiece called?