Thread context
4 posts in path
Root
@Godric@lemmy.world
Open
@Godric@lemmy.world
Open ancestor post
Ancestor 2
@DoubleDongle@lemmy.world
Open
@DoubleDongle@lemmy.world
I just want to drop in and call out “death is a design flaw” specifically. It is not. Without death, there can be no evolution, and any change to the environment is extinction. The mountains seem eter
Parent
@MummysLittleBloodSlut@lemmy.blahaj.zone
Open
@MummysLittleBloodSlut@lemmy.blahaj.zone
That’s pretty cool in nature, especially with plants and fungi that don’t think. But applying it to people is kinda eugenics-y
Boosted by
Lemmy Shitpost
@lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
So, here you are. Aren’t ya. AREN’T YA? Ya, ya are.
piefed.social
So, here you are. Aren’t ya. AREN’T YA? Ya, ya are.
piefed.social
@tomiant@piefed.social
in
lemmyshitpost
·
Dec 05, 2025
This is interesting because you propose that eugenics is inherently bad because it requires a lot of sacrifice, is that right? Because it doesn’t have to. This line from Gattaca always stuck with me:
[Vincent’s parents are planning a second child, and are shown four candidate embryos]
Geneticist: We want to give your child the best possible start. Believe me, we have enough imperfection built in already. Your child doesn’t need any more additional burdens. Keep in mind, this child is still you. Simply, the best, of you. You could conceive naturally a thousand times and never get such a result.
I could argue, could, that not doing eugenics on this level would be immoral. If we can use science to make people less prone to disease, to make them stronger and smarter, why wouldn’t we? I’m not a fucking nazi here, I’m looking for a serious debate. We are already doing this in a different categorical scope with modern medicine. If we claim that all births must be “natural”, then perhaps disease and death are also “natural” and we shouldn’t intervene, and do without medical science and just have nature run its natural course.
View full thread on piefed.social
