Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> ... to what was in fact a reasonable question.

There was no question. It was a statement.

> Yours is a needlessly inflammatory response ...

I'm sorry, but what word would you use to describe the theory that selective pressures that decimate a population will eventually result in a superior specimen?

It may be inflammatory, but that's the only word that came to mind.



To wit, the phrase "Survival of the fittest" was not coined by Darwin. It was coined by Herbert Spencer when he was taking about corporate survival in a free market. Any argument that boils down to using that phrase to describe the natural world is suspect at best.


You've mistakenly abused a very inflammatory word. I understand how it happened: eugenics sounded like a generally descriptive term about selective breeding; it is not: it's a philosophy about the genetic superiority and inferiority of different human beings.

It's no big deal. Helpful tip for future reference: avoid calling people eugenicists.


You have again failed to offer an alternative.

If you are incapable of it, then eugenics was the right word to use, regardless of your sensibilities. It was not my intention to offend, but to accurately identify. If you have a better word for it, I would certainly like to hear it.

Again: What word would you use to describe the theory that selective pressures that decimate a population will eventually result in a superior specimen?


How about "genetic engineering".


I don't think genetic engineering involves killing off large chunks of a population just because it - for the moment - pays off. I'm not a specialist, though, so I may well be wrong here...


Natural selection.

See also "unnatural selection" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIeYPHCJ1B8


Genetic engineering doesn't necessarily result in a population reduction.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: