Science Memes

13489 readers

1189 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1487

Least extreme biophysics phd (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

265 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And life is not something people have a right to create

Yes they do?

Having children is literally the one thing most of us are equipped to do, and those who cant can adopt; the children of the future are our responsibility to raise. You seem to have a pretty self centered and unrealistic idea around child rearing; people raise children through invasions, unless you want to stop people from fucking somehow you're never going to stop reproduction.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Most of us are equipped for rape and murder, but we don't have a right to it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Thats why we have laws against rape and murder but not against having kids, because that would be eugenics.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

"because that would be eugenics" is not an explanation. You're just asserting that eugenics is bad, which is begging the question -- this is a post about the ethics of eugenics. You can't just come in and say "eugenics is bad because it's eugenics."

Anyway, I don't think anyone is calling China's former One Child Policy eugenics.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Thats because the one child policy was coerced by the IVF in order for China to survive during a period of economic isolation, more so the one child policy only applied to han Chinese, and many still choose to have children, it wasn't a ban on having extra children, they where just heavily disincentivized and given access too birth control.

Literally banning who can have sex would be eugenics yes

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't really see a strong difference ultimately between "heavily disincentivizing" and banning. Heavy disincentivization basically means the rule only applies to poor people. If it's eugenics, it's probably still eugenics even when limited to the poor, since most eugenicists would broadly consider wealthy people to likely have good genes.

Anyway, there are times when we should attempt to lower birth rates as a society. In my country it's not needed, since the birth rate is so low.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago

I don’t really see a strong difference ultimately between “heavily disincentivizing” and banning

You dont see the difference between a tax break vs literally jailing people who have kids? Its a pretty big difference!