Eugenics has a somewhat fraught past. Everyone who tried it thought they were doing their victims a favor.
That's...an understatement.
> Everyone who tried it thought they were doing their victims a favor.
No, not everyone who did it thought that they were doing their victims a favor. Quite a lot saw their victims as people who ought to be sacrificed for the good of others, and if they thought they were doing them a favor it was only in not murdering them outright as well as preventing them from reproducing.
Of course, some eugenics practitioners didn't bother avoiding outright murder, e.g., the Nazis.
In the United States today, approximately 1 in every 27 Jews is a Tay-Sachs carrier.
https://healthresearchfunding.org/17-good-statistics-tay-sac...
Just calling every genetic screening designed to prevent actual suffering eugenics is pretty nonsensical.
And regarding eugenics they only screen for diseases that require two carriers, because such a person can marry someone who is not a carrier. Diseases that manifest with a single copy of the gene are specifically not screened for because there's nothing the person can do in that case.
It's also putting words in my mouth since I said no such thing.
My litmus test for eugenics requires an ideological and social engineering component.
Simply telling parents well if you bring a child to the world they’ll die within 2 years and suffer greatly isn’t that. Neither is offering them other tools such as using a sperm or egg donor or adoption.
I agreed with a reply to that suggesting such an extreme and unnuanced statement amounted to eugenics since the only means to actually ensure that no child will ever be born with X genetic disease would require rather extreme measures that go far beyond providing testing and options.
I really shouldn't smoke. I don't endorse SS officers killing me if I do.
It’s also not wrong, if we’re being totally honest.
Things are either eu (beneficial) or dys (harmful) genic.
The bottom 75% of the IQ curve has been poisoned against the word “eugenics” to the point that they can’t even have a basic conversation about things as sane as “genetic screening for debilitating illness” without completely breaking down.
This is a really not good way to engage with this topic. I'm not happy seeing this kind of framing on HN of what is an extremely sensitive topic for many people and with good reason.
That said I expect that in the future, for many genetically inherited diseases, parents will be given the option to address the problem without termination, so long as the solution seems to be exceptionally safe and highly effective (IE, 99.999% confidence the outcome will be positive). I don't think people will see that as "eugenics", although there have been a few press campaigns that have done so.
One day it's "we should save these kids from a difficult life," the next it's "we need symbols to tell undesirables apart," the next it's "we have too many people in camps and nowhere to send them." People like me ended up in those camps next to the Jews, so I'm not keen on the noise that starts the landslide.
That's a fact. And it's only going to be more of a fact the deeper we dig into our genetic code.
But it's how we respond to and deal with that that determines whether we commit good or evil.
We both know that will never happen. They’ll never “deal with” the flaws in their religion, they’ll just ignore it like all the others do.
2. Assuming you’re referring to the fact that being a carrier is more common in Ashkenazi Jews, you’re aware that there are a number of genetic screening programs run by Jewish organizations, right?