this post was submitted on 06 May 2025
1097 points (98.7% liked)
Microblog Memes
7603 readers
2344 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Someone called it "soft eugenics" and that makes the most sense to me. It's probably too much bad press and effort to do the old school active eugenics of preventing undesirable peoples from reproducing. So instead you remove health and safety services so "nature" will take care of them. While you simultaneously make it "easier" for the others to reproduce by handing out benefits and preventing birth control.
I'm sure that makes sense to the "utilitarian" crowd or whatever they are called, that believe that the goal of humanity's survival against whatever hypothetical future scenario they think of justifies any means today. Well, except to those who paid attention in biology and know that diversity is actually our best strategy to do just that.
How tf does preventing birth control prevent undesirables from reproducing?
Higher infant mortality, and higher maternal mortality to boot, all while chasing the $5k bait with poor insurance coverage at public hospitals. Meanwhile, the haves can afford better private care. Since that's where the money will be, they'll be pulling better doctors and nurses to it, thus avoiding becoming statistics.
Edit: it all boils back down to "survival of the fittest", where "fittest" has been redefined to mean "has the most money".