A while back, I made a post comparing people who solicit for designer donor eggs to Nazis. As always, art and humor can never find ways to be as awful as real life. Lookie what we have here from Sunday.
Yes, Nazism is tribalism as political (as opposed to sociological) theory.
you're wrong for following your aesthetic desires
Did you even look at the ad? They're not following aesthetic desires. They provided a set of hard and fast criteria, many of which have nothing to do with genetics or aesthetics.
-some form of college education -irrelevant to genetics or aesthetics -BMI of 28 or less -linked more closely to income than either -20-28 years of age -irrelevant to aesthetics, more relevant to the surgery than reproduction -height 5'3 or taller -Blond hair -Blue eyes -some form of post HS education -irrelevant to genetics or aesthetics -Caucasian -no use of illegal drugs, cigarettes, alcohol abuse or antidepressants -linked more closely to income than either -active lifestyle -linked more closely to income than either -attractive -linked more closely to income than either
I agree that many of these traits do not necessarily indicate a good set of genetics, but they might. Maybe their college educated egg maker got there because her parents were rich, but it's a filter that is likely going to slightly predispose your chances toward intelligence. Rich dumb people and smart poor people may fall on the "wrong" side, but in the middle there's going to be some selection group where the smart kids decide to go on to college and the dumb kids decide they don't want to go to school anymore.
So you've basically got three goals here, selecting for positive genetic traits (however inaccurately), selecting to match the mother in gross physical characteristics, and selecting for current health (separate from larger genetic traits). The only one that doesn't seem to make much sense to me is the current health, but that more seems irrelevant than offensive in any way.
I do. I think that intelligence is far from the main factor that gets you into college. Income is probably an order of magnitude higher on the list.
If action X increases my hypothetical kids' chances of entering or completing college by some positive value Y and action X has no cost and no downsides, then I'm taking action X even if Y is small.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
you're wrong for following your aesthetic desires
Did you even look at the ad? They're not following aesthetic desires. They provided a set of hard and fast criteria, many of which have nothing to do with genetics or aesthetics.
-some form of college education -irrelevant to genetics or aesthetics
-BMI of 28 or less -linked more closely to income than either
-20-28 years of age -irrelevant to aesthetics, more relevant to the surgery than reproduction
-height 5'3 or taller
-Blond hair
-Blue eyes
-some form of post HS education -irrelevant to genetics or aesthetics
-Caucasian
-no use of illegal drugs, cigarettes, alcohol abuse or antidepressants -linked more closely to income than either
-active lifestyle -linked more closely to income than either
-attractive -linked more closely to income than either
no subject
no subject
no subject
So you've basically got three goals here, selecting for positive genetic traits (however inaccurately), selecting to match the mother in gross physical characteristics, and selecting for current health (separate from larger genetic traits). The only one that doesn't seem to make much sense to me is the current health, but that more seems irrelevant than offensive in any way.
no subject
You don't think that intelligence (or at least scholastic aptitude) has a genetic component?
-no use of illegal drugs, cigarettes, alcohol abuse or antidepressants
It's pretty widely documented that alcoholism and other addictive behavior have a strong genetic component, as well.
no subject
I do. I think that intelligence is far from the main factor that gets you into college. Income is probably an order of magnitude higher on the list.
no subject
If action X increases my hypothetical kids' chances of entering or completing college by some positive value Y and action X has no cost and no downsides, then I'm taking action X even if Y is small.