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.

@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 )

@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 oops also a bio major and keep accidentally bio ranting on people's posts when it was meant to be one paragraph long :(

@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....

@wigglytuffitout @garfield the only way to disprove eugenics would be to 1: implement it fully (yeah, a lot of genocide), and then 2: go extinct.

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.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Elekk: Gameing and Other Delightful Pursuits

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!