• jopepa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    147
    ·
    10 months ago

    It’s still funny, but parent licenses are step one of eugenics, and licenses protect fish populations, environment, parks, lots of good. If anyone’s really agreeing with the subtext, learn more about the dangers of both.

    • Tvkan@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      10 months ago

      What are the dangers of protecting fish populations, the environment and parks?

      • Baguette@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        10 months ago

        Licenses are a way to prevent people from overfishing populations. Certain populations have been overfished to the point of being endangered, and if a species gets erased out of an ecosystem, the overlying ecosystem gets thrown out of place depending on how key of a species the fish was.

        There are some species the gov does not care about eg the invasive lionfish and asian carp

        • jopepa@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          10 months ago

          Thanks for more thoroughly explaining the benefits of parks and preservation efforts. Super import work. If you get a parking ticket for camping with your parks pass in your glove box, don’t dispute it if you can afford it.

          I think they were joking about my clumsy phrasing, though

        • Draconic NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          10 months ago

          and if a species gets erased out of an ecosystem, the overlying ecosystem gets thrown out of place depending on how key of a species the fish was.

          Also if they were a particularly delicious species no one would be able to enjoy them anymore.

    • Knightfox@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      In all honesty a little bit of eugenics probably wouldn’t be a bad idea, the problem is that once you have government mandated eugenics you begin a slippery slope that should never be approached.

      While not strictly eugenics, similar outcomes have occurred naturally in places where genetic testing and access to abortion are more available. For example Iceland has almost no Down Syndrome persons. (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/down-syndrome-iceland/).

      Frankly, now that we can test for these things, there are several genetic disorders which a reasonable society would self select to remove from the gene pool. Things like Huntington’s Disease shouldn’t keep propagating. Basically there shouldn’t be a government mandated program, but if you know you have some horrible genetic disorder you shouldn’t pass it on.

      • jopepa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        To be clear, I don’t think you’re advocating for eugenics. So I hope you don’t feel attacked/defensive by any of the following:

        I can’t speak for anyone who’s living with an impossibly difficult disease, but the fact that so many people are living their lives, finding happiness, and making contributions despite everything they have to get through every day says enough to me that denying their right to exist isn’t solving a problem and is denying the world of their life.

        The problem with eugenics (aside from the obvious history of racism) is that it’s looking at the problem from the wrong angle entirely. Instead of working to make things easier for people with disabilities and working towards cures, advocates for it think the problem is contained and solved by pruning the “problem” vines. We’re people, not produce. People that are neurodivergent, differently abled, or even severely disabled, all belong because we have enough to make room for them to thrive in whatever capacity they can. Whether we’re doing enough is a different conversation.

        Iceland isn’t mandating people to abort chromosomal anomalies, that’s a choice the families make for themselves. So it’s beside the point. More so, it’s not like that can be eradicated either because anyone can parent a kid with DS. Huntingtons might be a valid concern, but sterization is a decision for those suffering it to determine themselves. That’s not eugenics.

        Equating eugenics with family planning is irresponsible because it validates one very bad and widely rejected avenue of science because it’s slightly adjacent to a human right that is valid. Supposing that they are the same ignores history and risks spreading ideology that leads to making those same mistakes again.

        TL;DR: GATTACA!

  • Squorlple@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    10 months ago

    Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Give a man a life and he will be alive for the rest of his life.

  • Draconic NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    10 months ago

    You technically don’t need a license to fish, but without one you’ll have to do it in a way they won’t know you’re doing it. You may also have to do certain unpleasant things to avoid punishment.

    The legal team would like you to know that this comment in no way endorses or encourages illegal activity

    • meliaesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Why is this a link to a Google search? Not like, a video clip, or imdb quote, or article? There’s even a duplicate word autocorrect.

      • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Huh. I just searched Google, and clicked on the clip. While I was watching, I copied the URL and pasted it here not really bothering to look at it. I edited it to be a YouTube link instead.