Quoted By:
>/pcg/ is looping about eugenics yet again
For what it's worth, you have to remember that the vast vast VAST majority of people in human history have never cared about this shit and people have almost always just married and had a kid with the person they loved. Or they settled because the person they loved married someone else, what can I tell you, shit happens. The most delicious irony of people who never shut up about eugenics is most of them have no children of their own, and it's always rich when people with no genetic legacy think they should lecture you on your own.
But really my issue with it has always been the oversimplification of things and how it causes people to only talk in extremes. Putting aside the irony of advocating against racism on what might as well be the official Yellow Fever board, genetics isn't that simple. It's not a fucking D&D character sheet where a white and asian person having a kid just equates to -2 STR +2 INT like you're making a half-elf in 3E. Genetics are messy and complicated and what you DO inherit from your parents for the most part is effectively your DNA making a diceroll for you on "gee do I inherit X or not". It's why 2 parents who have multiple kids often have one that is put simply "the dumb one", even though you'd think there wouldn't be that much variation. I don't know what to tell you, you roll enough times and eventually you get snake eyes, but human genetic code isn't so frail that snake eyes is going to just happen every other time. The irony is you actually have a much better chance of inheriting negative traits alongside positive ones when it's someone similar to you, it only existing in one parent cuts in half the chance of it being dominant if it even happens at all.
But even all of that ignores the primary question, which is when has genetics ever stopped a person from loving someone? And yes I'm aware of the irony of saying all this with an image of an artificial human grown in a lab so don't bother pointing that out.
