• potatopotato@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Worse yet a lot of mental health conditions have genetic components so the kids are basically getting the worst hand you can possibly deal them.

    • IronBird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 hours ago

      also, stress is large trigger of latent mental conditions your at risk for and guess what is incredibly stressful…living at the bottom in amerikkka

    • arrow74@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      That’s really not well proven.

      There’s some evidence for and some against. If these two have mental conditions caused by environmental factors that they overcome they may actually provide a really good environment to a child.

    • ryannathans@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      16 hours ago

      We should get the government to put a licence on breeding so only the genetically strong can have children

      • edible_funk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Oops that’s eugenics! I get the sentiment but instead we should have a ridiculous amount of resources freely available to children and new parents, healthcare childcare food assistance socialization education. It takes a village and all that.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Oops that’s eugenics!

          Eh, eugenics work. If not dog breeds wouldn’t exist.

          We’re just really, really bad at agreeing on what genes are good ones and attempts at filtering for good genes in humans tend to more or less immediately become about skin color because of course they do. And also it being basically impossible to do without massive human rights violations.

          But being difficult, massively immoral and unethical and usually in practice just an excuse for simple racism doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.

          • edible_funk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Eh I mostly don’t disagree, hell eliminating conditions like Huntington’s disease could qualify as eugenics so I don’t really have an issue with it in concept. Problem is if there’s a system in place for widespread eugenics some asshole is gonna use it for a genocide.

            • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Wiping out Huntington’s would be a genocide in the most literal possible sense.

              To be fair, if not for the whole massively immoral and unethical part, we could wipe out Huntington’s in a generation or two with mandatory testing and sterilizations. But again that whole massively immoral and unethical thing.

        • 87Six@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          12 hours ago

          I mean, genetics are genetics.

          I may have epilepsy and am strongly considering getting a vasectomy so I don’t accidentaly create a fucked up kid that can’t live normally.

          Adoption is always an option an all’at. And plenty of romance can happen without kids… Hell, ESPECIALLY without kids lol.

          • zloubida@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Your personal choice is yours, and nobody can comment it. But making it a legal interdiction? That’s something else entirely. People with disabilities or illnesses can live long, happy and meaningful lives. Even more so if the society weren’t ableist.

      • potatopotato@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I get your argument but the broaderidea here is that people in the psych ward aren’t generally making good decisions

        • EldenLord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          11 hours ago

          I mean it sounds harsh, but some people really shouldn‘t have kids. Some because of genetics (adoption is fine) and some because they are clinically insane and would destroy their children‘s psyche (these kids would be better off given up for adoption)

          In reality that‘s hard to achieve, but it is true.

          • hypnicjerk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            10 hours ago

            it’s one thing to believe in that at a high level, and another to enshrine it into law & enforce it.

            • EldenLord@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              8 hours ago

              The potential of abuse is wayyy to high to actually make laws about that.

              It would be like saying that eating unhealthy is bad and then passing laws that may lead to someone being executed for eating a Twix.

          • edible_funk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            11 hours ago

            If childcare resources were abundant and free that would offset the problem a great deal, but capitalism and rugged individualism and all that. Like, given all the stupid out there I definitely see the appeal of it, and even things like eliminating genetic disorders would qualify so the line gets kinda fuzzy insofar as the ethics are concerned. The issue is that once systems are in place for wide scale eugenics of any flavor, some asshole will absolutely use it to genocide an ethnic group or other minority.

      • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        12 hours ago

        I say we invert it. To prevent aristicracy and nepotism, the wealthy will be prohibited from reproducting. No one in the top 10% of income or wealth gets a baby license.

        • IronBird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 hours ago

          if the 2 richest people were forced to fight to death every year, imagine the rush of wealth donations there’d be every year to not be at the top

        • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          What if we just make them adopt a kid for every multiple over the 3x over the national average income. So Musk would have to have like 4 million kids. Then you heavily follow them with CPS and fine them for any infraction. Basically making CPS the biggest taxing authority.