Re:Scientists Identify Gene Pattern That Makes Some Animals ...
by pdpi on Wednesday January 09, 2019 @09:00AM
(#18864704)
> It sounds like: Hitler was a vegetarian. Don't be Hitler.
To me it read more like the Nazi comparison was meant as a wake up call, and the bulk of the argument is in the second paragraph: "In this study[0], there is no human research, and the definition of monogamy is limited to a single mating season. It's also looking at gene expression, which means that a gene that everyone has is either turned on or off. For reference, genes are expressed differently in various parts of your body, and is a fairly good test for various types of cancer."
On a separate note, this wasn't a "Hitler was a vegetarian" thing. Pseudoscientific rationalisation for why some humans are morally superior to others is precisely that sort of context where Godwin's Law doesn't apply.
But... I don't like your reasoning. It sounds like: Hitler was a vegetarian. Don't be Hitler.
We already legally enforce certain kinds of eugenics. Most of the world prohibits sex between siblings. Right up until very recently many US states had marriage blood test requirements to prevent certain sexually transmitted and genetic diseases. There are a couple horrifying genetic diseases I wouldn't object to banning - google Lesch–Nyhan syndrome or Harlequin-type ichthyosis if you'd like to spend the rest of your evening crying.
It doesn't even sound like he's proposing a legal requirement. People pick mates for all sorts of dumb reasons. Hell, I know people that believe in zodiac signs. As long as it's voluntary, let them play the genetic dating game. If someone thinks that a few genes are going to bring a happy marriage, the joke's on them.