š¾ Archived View for splint.rs āŗ auto_eugenics.gmi captured on 2024-06-16 at 12:31:53. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
ā¬ ļø Previous capture (2024-05-26)
ā”ļø Next capture (2024-07-08)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Once in a while I hear of someone whoās decided to not have children because of bad ideas. I donāt want to argue that anyone should or should not have children, but I do want to remove those bad ideas. The bad ideas usually go something like this:
āI have this condition, and I donāt think I should inflict that on anyone, so Iām not having childrenā
This sounds reasonable - not wanting to inflict some nasty condition on someone. But itās not reasonable.
A condition caused by genes isnāt always heritable. Genes cause Downs Syndrome, but Downs Syndrome is not inheritable. Some forms of dwarfism are passed onto children, others are not.
Odd as it may sound, I think that people who talk about not wanting to pass a condition onto any children have not always done the research to check if that condition could be passed down to a child.
Cross-measuring possibilities of someone living with a nasty condition vs not living at all wonāt end with a satisfying, clear conclusion. Trying to imagine the right choice for a non-existent person can beā¦well it might not be impossible, but I did my Masters dissertation on the subject and in the end failed to find a meaningful solution, so Iām qualified enough to say that this problem isnāt easy.
Some people with Huntingtonās disease (or stick in its place any awful, and fully inheritable condition) think they shouldnāt have children because the child will inherit the disease. The weighing of options here essentially goes like this:
Itās better to have no life, than to die painfully, and early.
This sounds okay as far as children who live in a hospital, in increasing pain, and die at aged 6, stuffed full of drugs. If I found myself close to death, and then had the option of continuing life, in pain, and delirious, wanting things I couldnāt have, then death seems the correct and courageous choice. But Huntingtonās doesnāt suck out every joy in life over every year. If, on the edge of death, someone gave you a way out, and said you could live for another thirty years, but would then deteriorate, painfully, over the course of five to ten years, you may take that option. Youāre already - most likely - going to die in pain, over a very long period of time. Itās probably started now. Anyone reading this almost certainly has some little aches and pains around their body, cracks in the skin showing as the body begins to fall apart. But we donāt think āoh, if this goes on, I will wish Iād never been born!ā.
Ten bad years in exchange for thirty normal years is not an irrational choice to make, and if someone wanted to leave the party early to skip on the bad ending, the option exists without too much planning or expense. And all this assumes the worst possible case for Huntingtonās - the vast majority donāt have the worst possible ending - many donāt inherit the disease at all.
And of course all of these ideas assume that we know what the future holds. We donāt. We donāt know what kinds of medicines could help people suffering from with a particular ailment in the future. I say in particular āhelpā, rather than ācureā, as so little has been cured in the last few decades, but people find it much easier to live with diabetes, HIV, and pretty much any serious illness now than thirty years ago.
We donāt know the quality of life anyone will have.
Not having children because your funds are tight and you donāt want them to get any tighter is a fine reason not have children. Clearly, nobody will say that kids come cheap in any sense.
However, people worrying about funds because the child themselves would not have a reasonable upbringing without a family car, yearly trips to theme parks, and plenty of pocket money, are making a big mistake. The mistake isnāt in not having children, itās thinking that children need money to be happy.
I grew up without money, and I didnāt notice until I went to school. Even then, occasionally hearing about computer games Iād never get to play was hardly the worst thing. I played outside, I read books, and watched the three channels available on television. I had a much better childhood that a great many people I know. I also wasnāt exactly poor - my mum was poor. I was ten.
If this is unconvincing, then gather in your mind one room of people who grew up with rich parents who shouted at them, or hit them, and another room who grew up with poor parents who were supportive. Now think about which room youād rather be in, or which room holds people you can imagine being friends with more easily.
Iāve heard this kind of self-inflicted Eugenics too many times, and it suffers from all the standard problems with Eugenics.
I donāt want to encourage anyone to have children. The fact that we donāt know what the future holds also means people born now may have a worse time than their parents, in any part of the world (or the whole world, altogether, due to some massive catastrophe).
Iām not saying āgo to the shopsā, Iām just saying that fear of crossing the road is a bad reason to avoid the shops. If someone doesnāt want to have children because they canāt be bothered with the work then nobody can fault them - children certainly involve work! Simply saying ābecause I donāt want toā, makes a far more solid argument than any sort of Eugenics, even self-inflicted Eugenics.