Saying "you can object to eugenics on moral grounds, but you can't prove that it doesn't work" is advocating for eugenics. Any notion that eugenics could or could not "work" is built on the assumptions that there is a correlation between the methods of eugenics and their stated outcomes, and that said outcomes could potentially be desirable.
What's more, while eugenics certainly uses the language of evolutionary science, it is directly contradicted by this science. Eugenics movements, such as in the early 20th century in the US, were built on the claim that intervention was needed to prevent dysgenics, the proliferation of "bad" genetic traits. This is nakedly unscientific. "Survival of the fittest" means the organisms that survive the most are, by definition, the most fit.
Somehow even more blatantly unscientific is the assumption that all "good" traits will be found in the same individuals. A "high IQ" alone isn't enough for survival, you also need a "strong immune system" and a whole diversity of other "good traits" to constitute an individual worth breeding for eugenicists. There is no reason to assume that these traits would be concentrated in a single """GROUP""" of individuals, and yet this assumption is *essential* to eugenics.
@garfield it's a form of consequentialist question begging isn't it
@garfield people coming out more stupider than their parents n then telling others eugenics works just hasnt been tried correctly yet
@garfield Add in that monocultures are inherently UNhealthy - re: potato famine, current state of bananas.
@garfield What kind of world would this be if there weren't professional shitposters?
@Anarkat thank you for saying this. you lot would be nowhere without me
@garfield iq is bullshit anyway
@garfield what always drives my bio major ass buckwild is that... survival of the fittest also never means what these folks want to make it mean
evolution doesn't do "best overall". it doesn't do "clearly superior above all others". it doesn't do that. it does "most successful at passing on genes in a specific ecological niche", and if you look at animals for, like, two seconds, it becomes obvious that there's a whole lotta GOOD ENOUGH I GUESS going on out there.
@garfield if it was 'fittest' in the sense of superiority that these folks really really want it to mean, we wouldn't have like... fuck, most of the nonsense we see birds doing. i love you birds but let's be real, what the fuck. we wouldn't have things under serious study like "the sexy son hypothesis", which i am delighted to tell you is a real phrase that real evolutionary biologists use and defend. we wouldn't have runaway selection!
@garfield but no, it's being used and defended by people who think that "survival of the fittest" means that there's some pinnacle of superiority that is being worked towards and achieved.
by that logic, an octopus is doing pretty good: extremely intelligent, great eyes and vision, can give themselves camo of different colors and even textures, yada yada.
none of this shit helps the octopus to be the superior animal if you drop it in the middle of an iowa cornfield, lol.
@garfield ofc none of them will sit down and think about this because they're so in love with one superior individual that they don't think about evolution not working like that, nor even humans working like that. humans are social animals (something something we live in a society) and you can't defend eugenics if you realize helping each other and community is what we *do*.
they also love wolves but this is not even what wolves do lmao, alpha wolves Aren't A Thing...
@wigglytuffitout it is endlessly funny to me that the guy who wrote the alpha wolves book has spent the rest of his career apologising and arguing against it
@garfield which is to say, thank you for attending this impromptu bio major rant everyone, and sorry for clogging up your perfectly good post there garf
(also has anyone told you about the GarfieldEATS! thing yet bc i was listening to an old MBMBAM and they discussed it and i thought of you https://www.foodandwine.com/travel/garfield-eats-Toronto-restaurant )
@wigglytuffitout yes i am aware of garfeld eats lol
@garfield i was going to bet you were way way ahead of me on that one but in the 1% chance you hadn't, worth mentioning, lol
@wigglytuffitout @garfield there's also a whole lot of religion & psychology going on here.
That whole line of thought, the superiority, only makes sense if the hardship that life goes through has purpose and a plan. Then it all has a meaning, then we're being perfected. It's cruel, but it's not pointless.
But mammals are only a big thing because a completely random space rock (or whatever it was) completely changed the environment to something that suited us more than lizards.
That's random. That's chaos. And that is completely unbearable to a lot of people.
Really wish they'd go to church instead of feeding nazism....
Which sort of relates to how survival of the fittest is a tautology: "the things that survive do so because they're best at surviving". Yeah, duh.
Eugenics are set up to sound really important, but also be completely Impossible to prove or disprove.
@ItsJenNotGabby @garfield it's the idea that animals choose their mates* not by going "ooer he's a sexy bit of lad, isn't he?" but instead by going "oooer, if i mate with him, our children will be INCREDIBLY SEXY, and our sons will go on to be THE SEXIEST, and my genes will proliferate EVEN MORE!". not "he's hot" but "if i fuck him our babies will be super hot".
*yeah this is all instinct or what have you, but you get the idea
@wigglytuffitout @garfield Hell, if you look at all these white supremicist humans that believe they are the master race, its pretty obvious that sometimes genes get passed on despite their obvious disadvantage and it will take potentially thousands of years before they are wiped out due to the consequences of those mutations. Things like coronary heart disease and diabetes definitely run in a lot of these people's family and nature was still like, sure that'll do for now. why not.
@garfield also the idea that, from an evolutionary standpoint, "bad" and "good" traits exist
Unironic thanks. I needed this thread so badly today. 💐
@xenophora aaaa that's so kind of you to say thank you!
Don't get me wrong the bathroom stuff is always good, too.
Eugenics is evolutionary pressure from human choice, as opposed to environmental circumstance, no?
Eugenics doesn't require euthanasia or sterilisation, merely the absence of breeding.
We are societally performing Eugenics on Incels, precisely because we are individually allowed to be selective about our breeding, and collectively don't want to breed with Incels.
If this is immoral, who are you volunteering to breed with Incels? How is this more moral?
@mm0hgw I would love to address the multiple fallacies in your argument, but they have already been cov3red by the publications of Édouard Siddon on this topic
Clearly you wouldn't, because you have chosen not to. Too hard? Fallacies you claim don't exist?
Choosing not to do something you can do has a moral consequence just like choosing to do something you can not do.
You choose not to explain yourself.
Fine, here is my explanation (long, chart attached)
@mm0hgw SIDDON MY DICK AND BALLS ASSHOLE
@garfield stepping on a HUGE fucking rake.
@garfield garf how do you get these people
@ItsMorgan I thought it was because of my clout over on .social but now im starting to think they are drawn to me by some kind of magnetic force
Originally a small latinx / chicanx community, now open to all poc! Open to anyone from the culture cousins