>Eugenics is bad because...BECAUSE IT JUST IS OK>it does NOT benefit a society to have people who are stronger, smarter, and healthier What actual arguments can be made against eugenics? I'm not even saying restricting certain people from breeding (although that should be a thing too, but only in extreme cases such as chemically castrating pedophiles), but simple incentives and programs for people who have certain desirable genes. Why is this often turned into a moral issue? Why would it not objectively improve society?
>>16160010because you have to be 15 years old and post on reddit to think you are smart enough to do this properly
>>16160010Because putting the genetic makeup of the nation under state control means it will be use to jews to breed whites out of existence.
>>16160010basically this >>16160024more generally, there's no way to make it objective, non-corrupt, flawless.the incentives would be chosen by peopleif the incentives are chosen by some kind of formula, the formula is chosen by people.the incentives are applied/given by people.PEOPLE do this and that to one another, no matter how many layers of automation/abstraction are in between. what people choose to do, who to cooperate with, what to do away with, is all that matters. nothing else lasts.
>>16160010answers so far have been incorrect. the correct answer is because eugenics is based on the assumption of genetic determinism. but genetic determinism is false, because the environment meddles with outcomes in a chaotic manner, making it impossible to ever know what the 'best' genes are.
>>16160039that sounds more like an argument for modifying eugenics to be based on genetics+environment rather than just genetics.
>>16160039hey that's cool and all but under situation would it ever be disadvantageous to have the body of dolph lundgren and the brain of einstein
>>16160010>What actual arguments can be made against eugenics?people are irresponsible in choosing what to select for, for one
>>16160010>but simple incentives and programs for peopleIt might be enough to make the idea popular by legitimizing it in media, women already desire to mate only with the very best. Just make it very normal for women to choose sperm banks.Problem is the men, is it possible to convince men (culturally) to raise kids that are not their own? It would be better than taxing them to pay for single mothers, kids need a father figure
Eugenics is employed in Iceland and that's about the only ethical use case I can think of.
>>16160042not possible because it's impossible to determine what the best combination is. too complex, and likely chaotic in the technical sense.
>>16160044never, the issue is what combination of genes + environment will give you that? an impossible question to answer
>>16160098>it's impossible to determine what the best combination is. too complexi dunnoooo, i'm not convinced
>>16160100i will think on this
There really aren't as many objectively desirable traits as you have in mind and if you were more honest about what can be known objectively, more people would agree with you.For instance many allergies are hereditary and so you should reconsider having your own children if you and your partner share any of the same allergies. Nobody realistically calls this eugenics, but it's fundamentally the same idea. Yet the only thing that you really need to do right by the gene pool is educate the population. What programs to encourage desirable traits would you imagine amount to more than simple education about which traits are hereditary in the first place?
It's embarrassing seeing 4channers of all people advocate for systematic eugenics and bullying while being oblivious that they're exactly the kind of people who'd be banned from breeding. It's a symptom of an antisocial view of the world.>>16160010>What actual arguments can be made against eugenics?Where does it stop? The state will end up controlling births and genetically modifying sperm and eggs of parents (i.e. women are artificially inseminated by GMO sperm like cattle). Why not birth all humans in pods as adults since children can't contribute anything to the corporate-owned state that enslaves us all. What happens to children born without a breeding permit? OP how would you fit-in socially or find employment if you were in a society where everyone was Dolph Lundgren? You'd plunge the toilets all day along with robots and third worlders if you weren't killed by the government for not conforming to eugenics standards. These standards wouldn't apply to only physicality or intelligence, sociability would also be selected for (another area 4channers who advocate for eugenics fall short on).Since everything ultimately arises from genetics you're giving control of everything in society to people like Epstein and Soros who will all collaborate to manipulate eugenics standards and human birthing for profit and politics. You are sacrificing natural life for epic soience futurism. People here fantasise about being the ones in control of genes meanwhile you'll be the one getting bullied for not being able to calculate integrals in your head and not having a 9'' dick. And you'll be unemployable since everyone will have multiple degrees, careers and be home owners by 20.You know how you actually become smarter, stronger, healthier? By studying, exercising, eating well. You could genetically design someone to be perfect but they'll end up a skinny homeless crackhead in the wrong environment.Diseases and space colonisation should be the only reason for 'eugenics'.
>>16160010Why should you not be euthanised to better our species. Plead your case.
>>16160010It would be good if the government were good. But unfortunately the government is controlled by zionists.
>>16160044Famine conditions
>>16160010Nothing wrong with that. But it won't affect you and your life in any way whatsoever.You will still be filthy. So stop making this threads
>>16160010Because I would personally be sterilized and this would affect me negatively, and so I would rather murder you than see that policy imposed on me. This will result in increased police casualties, which makes the policy a negative.
>>16160010>What actual arguments can be made against eugenics?It's very difficult and it probably doesn't work without cultivating stupid inherited diseases that are worse than whatever you are trying to do.Also actual ethical considerations while this is figured out.And most critically:Humans age very slowly, you have to wait centuries to see if you are getting anywhere at all.
>>16160146NTA, but I just wish that hereditary diseases weren't a thing. Can't we just stop at curing hemophilia and the like?
>>16160010I'll agree with you on eugenics if you let me decide which genes are selected for. Otherwise, no deal.
>>16160010>playing le god (even makes no sense when we pretend chopping off one's dick makes you a woman and sell children as commodoties to homosexuals)>le nazis did it>you would be le first>what about le niggerinos
>>16160010that Its already in effect by nature and being applied much more efficiently just by default than human intervention ya silly nigure
>>16160039>but genetic determinism is falseWrong>the environment meddles with outcomes in a chaotic mannerChaos is just complicated deterministic systems>making it impossible to ever know what the 'best' genes areIt's not about identifying the optimum, it's about identifying and pruning the objectively undesirable, like genetic diseases
>>16160010First all jews and wef billionaires like bill gates must be exterminated, otherwise there will be no future but extinction.
>>16160744But they are the ones who rose to the top in a pure meritocracy, they are the ones whose genes we should be sowing everywhere
>>16160146Dolph literally has cancer, his genes would not be selected for the program since the eugenic ubermen will want lifespans in excess of 80 years.
>>16160279Epigenetics solved that problem. Humans have a low energy consumption mode for hard times.
>>16160747> a pure meritocracy
>>16160747kek
Eugenics is already practiced by women when they are given enough freedom. To prevent the bad social effects, the state should push cuckoldry propaganda to normalize raising another man's kids, ideally sourced from a sperm bank. Because kids need a father figure.Thats all you need, no need to codify "ideal man" in law.
>>16160863>Eugenics is already practiced by womenKys right now if you believe that women's choices are the absolute ideal future of the human species in every conceivable way.
>>16160891Everyone thinks they know best, don't they? Do you think you should reproduce?
>>16160024>>16160036Eugenics is the genetic equivalent of a command economy.Natural selection is the genetic equivalent of a market economy.Even if the state wasn't outright malevolent, they would still be unable to actually do a good job with it. Look at every damn government program and tell me with a straight face eugenics would be different.
if you weren't retarded you'd realize there's no point trying to bat for an already discredited and tarnished term when you can just shift terminology to something that isn't completely tainted yet like 'prenatal screening' or something
>>16160898So don't let conservatives run the eugenics programme, got it
>>16160895>Everyone thinks they know best, don't they?Yes that's the problem.>Do you think you should reproduce?I have the intellect and humility to know that I don't know. Eugenicists lack this intellect and humility.
>>16160891Women like strong and handsome men, these are almost always smarter and healthier in every way
>>16160926No you dumb cunt they aren't. Strength means they consume way more energy than short skinny men which is a disadvantage in a food scarce and persistence hunting scenario. Now rope yourself.
>>16160930Which is why women were traditionally the hunters, being shorter and weaker, right? Well, I'll let you know if I see a gazelle, shorty.
>>16160930Sorry but i have already defined eugenics as sexual selection by women.
>>16160930Are you the resident giant fetishist by chance?
It wasnt real eugenics because the choice of parameters wasnt correct
>>16160947Which means that you value the retarded choices made by women.
>>16160972I dont, i just define eugenics as sexual selection by women. Doesnt mean i like it
>>16160974Where does the "eu-" come in?
>>16160974>i just define eugenics as sexual selection by womenWhich means that you attribute to women the ability to judge what genes are best quality.
>>16160974>I dont, i just define eugenics as sexual selection by women.That is not what eugenics means.
>>16160990Female selection is just dysgenics right?Fat, loud, depressive, low willpower, dumb people having kids that inherit this traits while thin, mentally healthy, tall, smart people don't.
It's hilarious that wannabe alpha normies justify the male loneliness crisis and women having increasingly absurd standards by "muh better genes", "muh improved offspring" when western women don't have children, don't wanna have children and only care about getting fucked with no consequences.
>>16160989>Which means that you attribute to women the ability to judge what genes are best quality.No, i just define eugenics as whatever women choose. Best? Bad? I dont know
>>16161252Also, my definition is objective. What women choose=What women choose. Cant be mistaken.Meanwhile you cant figure out what "best genes" mean.
>>16160990>That is not what eugenics means.You people cant even agree on what eugenics mean, so its up for grabs. I successfully defined it, theres no going back
>>16161257>science = whatever a scientist produces>a scientist produces shit>therefore shit = science...
eugenics is a really wide topic. elective amniocentesis + voluntary abortion of down syndrome babies is eugenics.forced sterilization of nonwhites is also eugenics.however people act as if because the latter is unacceptable, somehow the former (which is already in practice) is also unacceptable.
>>16160010>What actual arguments can be made against eugenics? You take something that is well adapted to the world, and can live in it happily, and you say "no, I want THAT feature more - the happy successful one must be prevented from breeding, we must breed more of that clown over there". Jews.They bred themselves for their retarded pseudo intelligence, at the cost of getting lame, and losing real intelligence, and struggling to survive in a world that is alien and hostile to them, and their only chouce is to struggle for global destruction, and then death.
>>16160010>What actual arguments can be made against eugenics?there's all kinds of difficult balancing problems happening behind the scenes that aren't necessarily obvious. one thing we know is that autism risk correlates with some genes associated with high IQ, so a naive attempt to increase intelligence would also increase autism prevalence and a naive attempt to reduce autism prevalence would also decrease intelligence. we know about that particular problem, there are almost certainly many, many similar tradeoffs that we don't even know exist and we could inadvertently fuck something up by not noticing them.this is not really an argument against all eugenics, it's just an argument for not doing the same thing everywhere and not going as hard as possible on the traits we would want to optimize. doing ~no eugenics, like we're doing now, is probably stupid.
>>16160010So yeah, go ahead and 'objectively improve society'. And then realize that in your new society there's still dumb and weak people, people who don't care and just want to die, or people who are psychos. Because all of these 'inferior' categories of people exist in every social group present in the world today. There is no group composed of only the perfect, Vetruvian Man, all of us are hairless apes.And what do you do then? Kill all humans? Turn into an r/antinatalism shill? At least then the mammals can finally evolve to the size of dinosaurs and flourish without us slamming concrete on everything.
>>16160010Eugenics is good. It's also kind of inevitable, but nobody wants it to be during their own lifetime that everyone gets mogged into oblivion by superhumans
>>16160024>>16160036so just overthrow the state and breed niggers out of existence? DUH
>>16161674>there's all kinds of difficult balancing problems happening behind the scenes that aren't necessarily obvious>one thing we know is that autism risk correlates with some genes associated with high IQWe don't have a proper definition of either autism or intelligence and the association between the two is likely biased because low IQ autism is less strongly associated with common variants and more so with either highly penetrant mutations or environmental concomitants which incidentally are the two factors that will not show up in genetic analyses (one is excluded by design, the other by definition from genetic studies).Ignoring that for once, the practical notion of eugenics depends solely on value judgment centered around which traits are positive and which aren't. I don't know if autism should be considered a negative trait any more than intelligence should be consiered a positive trait. For that matter, having eugenics down to "I don't like this thing, so I don't want thing" approcah just makes the average person susceptible to peer pressure and top-down regulation. Once we select for behavioral variables, there is absolutely nothing that would stop an authoritarian government from engineering people in such a way as to become obedient slaves.
>>16160146Yeah yeah somehow everyone who ever advocated for eugenics is the kind of person who would be banned from breeding, except somehow it was also a completely mainstream opinion in intellectual circles in the past but now smart people all agree with current year political trends. We get it, we've all heard the fucking mantra.Except we already accept all of the basic ideas of eugenics implicitly. We already screen for genetic diseases. Sperm banks also already filter out donors with fucked up genes. What is that if not an acceptance of exactly the same principles of eugenics? We apply exactly the same logic to breeding animals, and we all subconsciously apply the same ideas to breeding with our own partners. Do people actually believe it's that harmful to have a law saying you should not be breeding more people with X horrific genetic disorder into the world?>why not birth all humans in pods as adults?We practically already do this. It's called mass migration, and the logic behind that is that it's cheaper to buy an adult from overseas than to invest in our own people having children. We already have that fucking policy, at least if we accepted genes are real and we should breed for smart people we wouldn't have to accept living in a society where the average person gets gradually dumber and uglier every year.The real reason people talk like what you're doing in this post where you hand-wring about "people who like eugenics are all dumb, hee-hee" is because most people, whether they like to admit it or not, feel threatened by it. Almost every person I've met who has shit genes (midwit, stupid, fucked up body, reddit account) has an anti-eugenics opinion for pretty obvious reasons. Besides, none of this argument or hardly any of the arguments besides like 2 posts, like >>16160286, actually posted an argument against eugenics itself. These arguments boil down the fact the government is run by retards and selfish faggots.
>>16162329>Do people actually believe it's that harmful to have a law saying you should not be breeding more people with X horrific genetic disorder into the world?And if you accept this by the way, it should be pretty clear that being retarded is a horrific genetic disorder. And so is being not literally retarded, but still stupid. So why not just cut to the chase and breed more smart people into the world? Is society actually that much better off for being overrun with morons who won't ever do anything useful with their lives except make a shitty mixtape and steal a car before knocking up a random woman and dying in a shootout? Just fucking sterilize people and watch society improve for the next generation.
>>16162334I don't really see the appeal of passing of judgments as science. It is one thing to state the obvious: That the distribution of traits, as long as they are genetically determined, can be meaningfully influenced by means of programs that affect the distribution of genetic material, in other words which people get to produce and which don't. I don't see how, from the argument above, a moral obligation follows that states that: because we theoretically could do so, we should do so. Even more so, if you argue that someone should be prevented from being born because he has a condition X that reduces his life expectancy by 20 years or so, I fail to see how an ontological necessity (to prolong the life of everyone) couldn't possibly follow from that. Within a eugenics program, having condition X down to a disease will cause normality to become a disease that must be battled against because the conclusion of life is death.
>>16160286>ethical considerations
>>16160010The basic argument is any system which put in place will inevitably become corrupted and be turned against its original purpose, likely by jews. So your eugenic standards would be much like your immigration standards. Originally sensible, and then before you know it you are drowning in the exact people the original standards were put in place to keep out.
>>16160010yeaj
Race mixing should be criminalized like it was back in the 50s, its an abomination.
>>16163371Descartes solved this in 1641. Unfortunately, to this day much of the rest of the world remains unable to cope.
>>16160010>What actual arguments can be made against eugenics?it does not work. t. was very interested in eugenics
>>16162329>We apply exactly the same logic to breeding animals,You don't want to do eugenics. What is eugenics? You have a population where most are reasonably adept at surviving. Some individuals may struggle more, but they can all hapilly survive, with little severe challenges to overcome.Then you come among them, point at the most successful ones, and demand that they should be culled in favor of other individuals, which you deem "better". Now nothing that severe happens yet, your population breeds with your desired features, and then you do it again. And again. And again. And over and over, every generation you pick your chosen ones, and discard the undesirables, but then, they are no longer some slight misfits. They are outright completely alien to the world, the Earth is a hellish place with unpredictable sudden death waiting everywhere. They can no longer predict and avoid the dangers, can't tell what they should eat, and so on. A breed of horrors is created who desperately try to survive in a world that is incomprehensible and hostile to them. They will fight to destroy it, so that they can themselves live.>But it works on plants and animalsIt doesn't work for them, but for their master species. And people are not the only species to do it. Do you want to be a slave? That is the only time when selective breeding works. Who is going to be your master?
>>16165244>>16165241the n word is racist
slide thread
>>16160010>emo's and goths are hip>government passes law that favors them in the eugenics program>trannies are the new thing>government now favors breeding people more likely to be trannies
>>16166321
You're all retarded. If eugenics and breeding is done to select for intelligence, everyone in society will benefit. That's because everything in society is a product of intelligence. Also intelligence allows you to adapt to any situation that may arise. So someone may ask, what if intelligent people were evil and chose to use their intelligence for evil? There would be less evil in an intelligent society because there would simply be better quality stuff and culture to enjoy. Intelligence is key and there is no reason not to do eugenics for intelligence.
>>16167789>That's because everything in society is a product of intelligenceSome things in society are a result of sacrifice, or bravery, or tenacity, or compassion.
>>16167799Explain. Sacrifice is unnecessary and the way of the jungle. We left the jungle because of our intelligence.
>>16167789Please respond to this:>>16165236
>>16167810The operating sentence of underlying their logic is > They can no longer predict and avoid the dangers, can't tell what they should eat, and so on.Intelligent people are more capable of predicting dangers so their point is moot.
>>16167818They are not, at all.
>>16160010What would you even select forLarger ears?Larger penis?Smaller vaginas?"eugenics" is fucking stupid because normal people already have high standards for selecting partners
>>16167919Explain or your statement is disregarded
>>16160010Eugenics would only be good if it were used against psychopaths who support eugenics. So, if you mean weeding them out of the gene pool, then I would agree. Psychopaths have no place in society, and do not benefit society in any way.
>>16160146I think there is an exception to this. Nothing wrong with bullying the bullies and humiliating psychopaths. In fact, it is our duty to discriminate against them. Psychopathy is an undesired trait.
>>16168056Psychopaths aren't all anti-social, there are prosocial psychopaths. Also psychopaths excel in certain occupations like surgeon.
>>16160010it's ok, but first you need to reduce the population in which 90% are complete idiots who still want to breed new generations of idiots.
Eugenics is still going on they just rebranded as abortion and germinal choice
>>16168265And it selects for low IQ retards currently. It is a very pressing issue.
>>16168121And some blind people are nice and productive
>>16160010Because growing a society doesn't mean making people look better it means establishing order in community filled with different views
>>16167789I agree with this but we need a better method to figure out intelligence than iq tests because it's possible to study for them which gives an advantage to rich kids
>>16167799You can have both higher intelligence and those traits
That's not what eugenics is.
>>16160898There's plenty of private enterprises that are corrupt, incompetent, etc. From small ones all the way to gigantic multinational corporations. The issue is excessive centralization, which also happens in several private enterprises. Further, there's several cases where companies are nepotistic or whatever else is usually used to criticize governments. And in real life there isn't a clear cut separation between private and state owned, they often intermingle (including with private being the cause for state corruption).But of course it's easier to act like a 13yo who just heard of Rothbard and go "government bad, company good!"
>>16168034Explain their obsession with the "safety" of everything, why previoisly normal things needed to be banned. >>16168044>>16168056>>16168121>Psychopaths aren't all anti-social, there are prosocial psychopaths.There are no psychopaths at all, it's how schizos perceive normal people. Needless to say, the society wouldn't work at all with all people being schizos.
>>16168497you don't have any of them
>>16163411thats why holocausting them is of primary importance
Eugenics just needs to be rebranded with a name that hasn't been demonized in the ((media))) and then most people would find it perfectly acceptable. Call it "demographic characteristics analysis" or something like that
>>16160010Why should we just stop with "the undesirables"? Maybe we should only allow 1000 of the strongest, smartest and fastest humans to breed to create a super race of humans, right anon?
>>16160024? How is that an argument? Why SHOULDN'T they euthanize white people?
>>16171903
>>16160010CRISPR is on the table, genetic engineering right around the corner. Eugenics is old hat, depreciated, defunct, and simply isn't worth all the bloody wars that would result if you try to force it.
>>16173206>genetic engineering right around the corner.>two weekssoiyence been shilling that same lie since the 1980s. its never been true and it never will be
>>16173501Soiyentists are too dumb to figure out how to make it work
>>16165236This is a long winded way of avoiding giving a direct answer as to why smart people should not be outbreeding idiots. There is no substance at all to any of this, hence the melodramatic prose instead.
>>16167808You want someone to explain to you why sacrifice, bravery, tenacity or compassion are important?
Can't wait til the chinks make superhumans and make you midwits eat your words
>>16175779It's a long winded way of saying that you probably just don't understand why they succeed, and you will fuck that up by selecting for something else.
>>16173501Its just another scifi meme, the only people who are dumb enough to believe in it are the same ones who are too dumb to differentiate between comic books and irl life
Why not focus on IQ. Sure it's not everything but just get every human tested and pair the highest scores. They say it's not hereditary but I don't believe that. There may be outliers but you can't tell me that if two newtons had a child the chances of it being bright would be the same as for a nigger baby
>>16177631>We will never have a global net of communication, that's scifi crapUntil we did. Crispr is looking very promising
>>16177726see >>16176600>>16165236
>>16177726>Why not focus on IQbecause if everybody was a turbo autist theologian then there would be nobody to plow the fields, provide the goods and services, and defend the realm from barbarians
>>16177975
>>16160898>Natural selection is the genetic equivalent of a market economy. Shaniqua, a single mom in Chicago should have a 9th kid (30% chance destined to fail out of highschool Sophomore year) with another one of her drug dealers for a gram of coke because muh market, can't have a government that says no. Rachel, a single white mom addicted to meth in a Franklin, AR trailer Park wants to trap a baby daddy to help rope him in to financially support her six kids, welp, government has to allow this because reasons and le nazis.I agree with the many of the sentiments regarding state-run eugenics as being flawed presented here but there are obvious people that should be barred from reproducing as they make the country a higher crime, lower trust, less productive, and more unstable place. But people like you would never allow an inch like pro-lifers even in the most ridiculous cases. Pure idealism is a waste of time if it leads to a significantly worse country in the long-term. Also there is a wide variety of traits that are very heavily dependent on genetics (70%+). What do you suggest we do on the long-term about decay resulting from the lower classes significantly out reproducing the upper and middle class who sustain the high technology industry development?
I COULD TELL THIS WAS YOU, WHAT AN INCEL.
>>16160024My objections to state run eugenics boils down to this sort of thing. Government neither has the moral character nor practical ability to run a good eugenics program.>>16160010Only genetic engineering guided by a free market will work:Parents want their kids to be successful.Parents will pay companies to make genetic therapies which enhance traits that make their kids successful.It just so happens that traits to these ends are also eugenic e.g stronger, smarter, healthier (i.e better for civilization).Thus companies have a strong incentive to make genetic therapies which make people smarter etc.A free market is natural selection, which keeps out fabled bad genetic engineering like star trek khan stuff.
>>16160146Why do you think eugenics is only something done by the state?I could pay retards not to breed (was done, now since banned), that would be eugenics.
>>16167945>What traits makes civilization run better? Unhealthy stupid impulsive people do not support complex civilization, so these traits should be selected against in a eugenics program.>>16167799Then select for those traits too. When people say "eugenics should make people smarter" they say intelligence because it's the primary thing, ommiting everything else so they don't have to tag every other thing with it.
>>16168494>we need a better method to figure out intelligence than iq testsThat's why you have companies competing in a free market to create genetic therapies.Either someone will find a way to devine which particular genetic therapy will best improve intelligence.Or we resort to standard natural selection; the company creating the genetic therapy that best improves intelligence, will be the most successful (on average, in the fullness of time, blah blah blah for you quibblers).
>>16173206Using genetic engineering to do eugenics is still eugenics.Big problem with eugenics is people hear the word and thing it means hitler throwing blacks into a gas chamber.
>>16178607That still suffers from >>16176600 >>16165236, only much more.
>>16160010'erro on the 'log though
>>16160010If you had parents that were a set of words "fire" and "fighter", you might expect the child of these two to spell "firefighter"; yet it could easily come out as "iftrieegfhr"
>>16160010The problem is the people who want to implement eugenics usually lack a dispassionate view of what criteria to select for or select against. I’d be all for a eugenic selection if you can clearly define what traits will be selected, how to objectively measure those traits, how to measure those traits genetically, and what the occurrence of that trait is in progeny as phenotype and heritability genotype. It comes down to how people want to select for or select against phenotypes, but the eugenics will select genotypes, without perfect overlap. And that’s before we argue over who gets to decide which traits are good and which are bad.
>>16178631Don't care about >>16165236. It's playing the pathetic game of "ooohh but how are the traits eugenicists have picked better huh huh????">in favor of other individuals, which you deem "better".Ask yourself this:Do you like complex civilization?What traits improve or sustain complex civilization?Though being an impulsive sub 80 IQ thief who pumps and dumps 30 single mothers makes you evolutionary successful, does it further complex civilization?Only a leftist would think the crap in >>16165236 is of any concern, it's complete made up nonsense. I genuinely can't believe anyone's holding what's said there earnestly if they've considered eugenics for any length of time.
>>16176600>you probably just don't understand why they succeedDumb people don't know how to use condoms.Smart people realize they have more money to themselves if they have less kids.>you will fuck that up by selecting for something else.No, a more realistic danger would be incidentally breeding for bad knee joints like we see in dogs. But this would also be solved by whatever eugenics you're doing.Free market genetic engineering is the most adaptable.
>>16165236>they are no longer some slight misfits.who is? The offspring of arbitrary generation n when it all goes wrong? Why would that generation be suddenly extremely genetically different from their parents?>They can no longer predict and avoid the dangersWhy not? What dangers?>can't tell what they should eatWhy not?> desperately try to survive in a world that is hostile to themNo different from every other lifeform to exist.Please clarify, as all you've said so far is nonsense.>It doesn't work for them, but for their master species.Supposing that's the case, who's the master species? Humans. Eugenics by your own terms works for the master species, us. We're the subjects and beneficiaries.> And people are not the only species to do it.Show me the aliens.>That is the only time when selective breeding works.Oh dear, you think eugenics is just selective breeding.
>>16178832>Do you like complex civilization?Why should I like it? Why do you think that complex means better? Can you explain why pic was enough?
>>16160010this is a little complicated to explain but ill try to make it simple.if they can convince you that eugenics is bad, they end up as the only ones doing it, and the benefit compounds even more. the gap becomes bigger.once you are convinced that its obviously bad and an old fashioned idea from an older time, you kind of become blind to seeing it, even when it's happening right in front of your eyes.
>>16178583if the>middle class who sustain the high technology industry devlopmentare so smart, why don't they ever get laid? checkmate
>>16160010It would turn society into a vicious meritocracy (not that aspects of it already aren't) where the constituents in the middle and the bottom of the pyramid would either want to kill themselves for being forced into subjugation by their genetic superiors or would unite in upheaval in an attempt to overthrow their oppressors and cause society to collapse. It's a paradigm rooted in psychopathy, which ironically enough, is probably the *least* desirable genetic trait I can think of.
>>16160990Is this data table saying women select mates with adhd? Am I misinterpreting this?
>>16178836>Smart people realize they have more money to themselves if they have less kids.and here its the problem, definitions. Here your are defining "smart" as someone who choose more money over children.Let me put you an example: "Shaniqua" lives in a country where the goverment gives monetary help for each children. So, instead of working or studying, she just starts to breed 5 kids. The goverment gives her money, and even the baby-daddy pays her to see his children. With enough money to live peacefully, she decided to be a "decent" mother, so, while 3 of her children are failures, 2 of them are actually good, and when she is old, one of the good ones and other from the bads take care of her. She dies peacefully, remembered as a sweet granny and a pillar for her community, because the years where she was a skank, were left behind so long ago that nobody remember that. And then , we have "Lindsey", she took the other route, and become a competitive professional, she decided to not have children, at least until her career becomes "stable". She make good money, but, she distanced from her family and soon enough realizes that the "friends" she had, are competitive fucks just like her so they dont trully care. When the times is off, she decides to start a family, but soon enough, realizes that is gonna be more hard that she once imagined, and by the moment she wants kids, the moment where her body cant work properly in that aspect. She traveled too much with her money, even if the goverment took so much in taxes. In the end, the only thing that remains is she alone in a retirement house being mistreated by nurses that dont give a shit over her. tell me, who was the most smart?
Sure give the government all the power to literally fuck with you
>>16160024And there will only be white Jews
>>16179282Your stupid fucking brain doesn't compute nuance. One can still be professionally successful and competitive and have a family. Or be a skank. I've worked with both. The smartest person is the one who can have both a good large family to take care of them in old age and a gifted carrer in whatever field. These things best work together if you're not a stupid specimen
>>16178832>>16178836>>16178854>>16179028>>16179251>>16179282
>>16160010>but simple incentives and programs for people who have certain desirable genesThe issue is the governing body will have the right to determine what is "desirable" at any given time. If we had an altruistic governing body it'd be the healthiest and smartest people, but because most people life in democratically elected officials it will result in what the populace can be sold on in the best of cases, worst of cases it will be what the politicians will be bought on. So you can end up in a dysgenic program because that's what the powers that be bought for because it fits their agenda. Either way it's immoral, you can't tell humans they can't reproduce because it's a fundamental right and a physical human need. If you really wanted to implement eugenics you'd have to radically change the environment so only the strong/smart survive and the rest just die.
>>16160010>What actual arguments can be made against eugenics?the failed experiments you produce to make it work
>>16179298>These things best work together if you're not a stupid specimenalright, we arent talking about "the smartest" but only about the "smart"You claim that "smart" people choose money over kids. Well, while my example its just an hypothetical, currently we are living a fertily crisis because, among all the reasons, the most frecuent is education of the women and prioritizing career over children.Taking that in consideration, your line >One can still be professionally successful and competitive and have a familyis a rare situation that most of the "smart" people cant get. And thanks to that "smart" people , the most "stupid" people (nationals and inmigrants) are the only ones that are breeding, taking advantage of a system that will reward them at expenses of "smart" people that wont get able to pass their genes. In natural terms, the "smart" people are the least fittest to our world.
>>16178854>who is? The offspring of arbitrary generation n when it all goes wrong? Why would that generation be suddenly extremely genetically different from their parents?I don't mean it would be sudden, I mean the opposite, you may see some spight negative effects early on, but think whatever you want to breed for is more valuable, but it accumulates into something horrible over many generations. >>They can no longer predict and avoid the dangers>Why not? Because you've sacrificed the ability in favor of a higher IQ.>What dangers?Such as falling off a ledge. >>can't tell what they should eat>Why not?Because you've sacrificed the ability in favor of a higher IQ.>> desperately try to survive in a world that is hostile to them>No different from every other lifeform to exist.The world isn't hostile to lifeforms adapted to live in it. They are able to deal with the challenges they encounter.>>It doesn't work for them, but for their master species.>Supposing that's the case, who's the master species? Humans. Eugenics by your own terms works for the master species, us. We're the subjects and beneficiaries.You can't be your master and your slave at the same time. >> And people are not the only species to do it.>Show me the aliens.I mean ants keep a fungus that can't survive outside their anthill. >>That is the only time when selective breeding works.>Oh dear, you think eugenics is just selective breeding.It involves some sort of genocide one way or another.
>>16160024This. Also eugenicists are usually the worst üntermensch, so should we start with those?
>>16178924>Why should I like it?wander off into the woods and die without any kids please
>>16179282You are a tool. You understood perfectly what I meant.>Dumb people don't know how to use condoms.>Smart people realize they have more money to themselves if they have less kids.The majority of Dumb people don't know how to use condoms.The majority of Smart people realize they have more money to themselves if they have less kids.Feel better you subhuman communist?
>>16179393>but think whatever you want to breed for is more valuable, but it accumulates into something horrible over many generations. That's not reasonable at all. See pic related. What you're suggesting is like saying a thermostat would never turn the heater off because the temperature of the room changes slowly.The eugenicist would notice the undesirable trait getting to intolerable levels and deal with it.>Because you've sacrificed the ability in favor of a higher IQ.Same problem is solved by above. We don't end up like Stargate's Asgaurd because physical ability would never be allowed to decline below an intolerable level.>The world isn't hostile to lifeforms adapted to live in it.What's defined as intolerable will include adaptation to the environment. We'll also do the things we've always done; adapt the environment to us. We'll do a bit of both, again a non-issue.>You can't be your master and your slave at the same time. A man's body is his property commie.>I mean ants keep a fungus that can't survive outside their anthill. Any organism going outside it's "design specs" will die. Once again a non-issue for humans, and certainly irrelevant to eugenics. We change the environment, ourselves, or move some place else.>It involves some sort of genocide one way or another.Bullshit. Again your just showing you think eugenics is selective breeding.The problem is genetics causing traits that we don't want. We could reduce the prevalence of those traits by removing individuals with them; stop them breeding or kill them.Or we could reduce those traits by targeting the genes that carry them; genetic engineering.Free market genetic engineering = eugenics. Parents will pay for genetic therapies which enhance their kids eugenic traits so their kids are more successful.
>>16180795Why can't you answer the question? It's from 1912 and concerns the Titanic, so I'm clearly not talking from some anarcho primitivist perspective, so why can't you answer it?
>>16180820If the eugenicist is also the eugenicized, he would not notice, it would be yet another tiny step to the hellish existence. As I said, it wouldn't seem major from any generation's perspective.Genetic engineering only allows you to fuck up more, totally, completely within a single generation. Is that what was done with the vaccines? Why is everybody so stupid now? There always were stupid people, but the stupidity has risen incredibly since then.
>>16160010Because normies are retarded cattle NPCs.>>16160014But it's very simple.>>16160024Doesn't have to be under state control. And even if it were, your claim is delusional. Whites largely prefer other whites.>>16160036> more generally, there's no way to make it objective, non-corrupt, flawlessThis literally applies to eveything. According to your logic, nobody should ever do anything. You're retarded.>>16160039> the correct answer is because eugenics is based on the assumption of genetic determinismIt's not, you're just retarded.> because the environment meddles with outcomes in a chaotic manner, making it impossible to ever know what the 'best' genes areEugenics doesn't rely on knowing what the best genes are.>>16160054Example? People are already irresponsible. Eugenic incentives and pro-eugenic culture would make them more responsible.>>16160066>It might be enough to make the idea popular by legitimizing it in media, women already desire to mate only with the very bestFirst claim correct, second wrong wrong.> Just make it very normal for women to choose sperm banks.This matters but I think it might be even more important to convince high quality men to donate to sperm banks. It's not very much culturally accepted to do so. Look up the history of Repository for Germinal Choice. Their problem was the lack of men, not the lack of women. Also insane media barking at them constantly.>>16160146>It's embarrassing seeing 4channers of all people advocate for systematic eugenics and bullying while being oblivious that they're exactly the kind of people who'd be banned from breeding.You are the most dishonest type of person. I hate and disavow bullying in all forms. Eugenics and bullying have nothing to do with each other.> that they're exactly the kind of people who'd be banned from breedingEugenics doesn't equal a ban from breeding. I don't support breeding bans and think they are immoral. You're just dishonestly equivocating.
>>16160146> Where does it stop?When it comes with conflict with individual choice.> The state will end up controlling births and genetically modifying sperm and eggs of parents (i.e. women are artificially inseminated by GMO sperm like cattle). WhyDelusional fantasy.You are genuinely an evil pro-dysgenics person who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. I feel bad for you.
>>16160169What does this have to do with anything OP said, retard? Why shouldn't you?>>16160264Good government can do bad things.>>16160282It will affect the future of humanity which is more important. And if life extension becomes possible soon, it will affect our lives as well.>>16160285Why do you think you will be sterilized? I don't support sterilization but I'm extremely pro-eugenics.>>16160286> It's very difficult and it probably doesn't work without cultivating stupid inherited diseases that are worse than whatever you are trying to do.How is it difficult? Why doesn't it work? You're just regurgitating things you've seen on reddit without any thought.>>16160632>i'll agree with you that chat gpt can write poetrry when you specify which weights are responsible for writing poetry>>16160725It's not. You have no evidence to back up your claim with.>>16160990This.>>16161269Eugenics = good birth. It's being aware of your mating choice and doing your best to bring about the best birth, backed up by the best research.
>>16161695>And then realize that in your new society there's still dumb and weak peopleThat is to be expected.> And what do you do then? Kill all humans? Turn into an r/antinatalism shill? Only if you're retarded.What's your point?
>>16165231What convinced you that it doesn't work?
>>16181094>If the eugenicist is also the eugenicized, he would not noticeWhy would you think this?Suppose I'm a group of eugenicists who's selecting for trait X which incidentally selects for taller height. Suppose we don't want people above a height Z. Along with whatever tools we use measure for trait X, we're using a ruler to make sure the population doesn't exceed Z height.Just because the eugenicists themselves are getting taller doesn't mean the ruler magically stops working. Why on earth do you think this is the case? Are you pretending to be retarded to wind me up? Why do that?>As I said, it wouldn't seem major from any generation's perspective.The problem you've suggested only exists if there's zero objective measures being used. This wouldn't be the case, even something as simple as the eugenicists looking at historical data would highlight any problem. I keep saying it, the points you're bringing up are a total non-issue.>Why is everybody so stupid now?> stupidity has risen incredibly since then.Again refer to >>16178607 pic related.Complex civilization relaxes harsh darwinian selection pressures and creates dysgenic selection pressures via welfare or other socialistic redistribution. To maintain complex civilization we need eugenics, which you don't want because you're stupid.
>>16181004>Why can't you answer the question?What question? Why should you like complex civilization? Because it allows you to live your lifestyle and have the arguments you're having now. Other than the government stopping you, you're free to live in less complex civilization, e.g a shack inna woods.In the big picture objective way, the individuals that do complex civilization will be more successful, so will be selected for. This is evidenced by ever increasing complexity despite cyclical collapses.
>>16179255Prospective mates with ADHD are more likley to be selected by women.
>>16179282have you read and understood >>16180797 yet? Or are you still struggling?
>>16181497>Just because the eugenicists themselves are getting taller doesn't mean the ruler magically stops working.It means he will think you were a crazy man from the past, and won't give a shit about your antiquated view that people above 2.50m are too unhealthy, because, everybody knows such a guy, and, usually, they don't have that bad health. Supposedly they do have a higher risk of some diseases, but hey, who isn't at least a bit diabetic, and who doesn't suffer a hip fracture when they aren't careful?
>>16160010Look at the great men of history and look at how many didn't breed. There are exceptions, like Euler or Bach, but the number of bachelors for life or people who forsake women for their passion, perhaps due to personal failure, is gigantic.Male greatness mostly comes from the sublimation of sexual energy.Eugenics means Beethovens, Newtons, or Kants won't be born anymore. Eugenics will create a society of handsome 6 feet 2 men smart enough for a Business administration degree, but not so smart they could be antisocial or autistic.Eugenics will create a normieland, not the high tech utopia you imagine, and 4chan posters will be the first people that will stop getting born when fetuses get the prenatal screening.
>>16181501>What question?Why was such a simple insurance contract sufficient?>Because it allows you to live your lifestyleIt doesn't. Really, it actually doesn't. >and have the arguments you're having now.They aren't supposed to be needed.>In the big picture objective way, the individuals that do complex civilization will be more successful, so will be selected for. This is evidenced by ever increasing complexity despite cyclical collapses.On the contrary, if history tells is anything, the increasing complexity is the portent of doom. It means that something went wrong, and people lost the understanding of what they do.
>>16181501You know, maybe "complexity" is not actually the right word, and what we actually see is the rising entropy as everything from the past golden age disintegrates, and complexity is in fact being lost.
>>16181550>and won't give a shit about your antiquated view that people above 2.50m are too unhealthyWhat you've been telling me is eugenicists will incidentally select for some trait that is so utterly deleterious that >>16165236 >"the Earth is a hellish place with unpredictable sudden death waiting everywhere"If for some strange reason people with a height above 2.5m found the >"the Earth is a hellish place with unpredictable sudden death waiting everywhere", then they would select against it.You're a retard. If people encouter a problem they will solve it. Either by the traditional adaptation of the environment to the body, or using eugenics to adapt the body to the environment.I cannot believe you don't understand this.
>>16181574>if history tells is anything, the increasing complexity is the portent of doom.Only due to the dysgenic selection pressures it creates. Eugenics pushes against those pressures to the point the net effect on the population resembles low complexity civilization, but without the enormous child mortality.>It doesn't. Really, it actually doesn't.What is your lifestyle you desire? How does complex civilization work against that? And how would low complexity civilization work towards that?>They aren't supposed to be needed.Define need objectively.I'm suggesting you should like complex civilization because it benefits the bulk of humans more than previous civilizations did for the bulk of humans in the past. >Why was such a simple insurance contract sufficient?Don't get what you're asking or the relevance of the Titanic's insurance policy has to eugenics
>>16181605>You know, maybe "complexity" is not actually the right wordPossible. As I'm parroting the term from Edward Dutton. I use it as a neat way to skirt around the argument that gets thrown up if I try to convey the concept that African cultures are general far less advanced than Western European ones. By calling them both "civilization" people get less offended, even if a great deal of these "civilizations" we're people chucking spears and hunter gathering.
>>16181620>then they would select against it.Select against what? They would destroy the world as something undesirable. Then, they would probably die.>If people encouter a problem they will solve it.And eugenics goes directly against it - it lets you cull those who are best at dealing with the problems that tgey encounter, in favor of something that you have arbitrarily chosen as "better".>>16181633If complex civilization is more beneficial, then it will rise without the need for eugenics, and you have nothing to worry about.
>>16181633>Only due to the dysgenic selection pressures it creates.Why would civilization create dysgenic selection on people living in it? People who live in civilization adapt to be better at living in civilization, and in turn, strive to uphold the civilization that they are adopted to thrive in. The only reason why dysgenics would occur is that somebody runs a misguided eugenics project on its people, with wrong ideas about what makes one well suited for living in civiluzation. For example, you have two people: one is very well adapted to advanced civilization, and the other is adapted poorly. You want both to become a car mechanic. One of them needs nine years of primary education, four years of high school, four years to get a bachelor's degree, two years of interships, and a certified car mechanics course. Another one can learn to understand and fix the car if allowed to at least partially disassemble it, or otherwise learn enough about its parts and their function. Now which one is which?
>>16181649>Select against what?The deleterious trait idiot.>And eugenics goes directly against itHow?>it lets you cull those who are best at dealing with the problems that tgey encounter,No it doesn't. Being a welfare queen is advantagious from "evolution's perspective" because you pump out more offspring.Being a welfare queen doesn't help complex civilization. Therefore being a welfare queen is bad. This is very simple, you must understand this and are trying to wind me up.>If complex civilization is more beneficial, then it will rise without the need for eugenics, and you have nothing to worry about.It has you moron, what do you think you're in right now?Eugenics is needed to maintain civilization otherwise this >>16178607 cycle plays out.It's a shame nobody can offer a logical retort to eugenics, because it means i'm right.
>>16181740read this >>16178607 idiotic troll
>>16181752>Being a welfare queen doesn't help complex civilization.What if I told you that it actually does?
>>16181816What if I told you dead people come back to life? What's your reasoning for how the average welfare queen's traits helps complex civilization?
>>16181820You need people who are proud of getting what they need with as little effort as possible. It's those people who see the only value in a person in the work they do, who stand in your way towards work free future. Otherwise you have all you need to get there.
>>16181837>people who are proud of getting what they need with as little effort as possible.Selects for criminals who steal things. You're being purposely stupid.
>>16181882It isn't stupid. It's the hardworking people who are obsolete, and need to go. That's the antiquated social norm that you were supposed to fight.
>>16160010my argument is that eugenics is playing god when we barely understand shit about the human bodyoh wow you removed a gene from the gene pool that you think makes people sick? turns out that gene is responsible for people like hawkings being so intelligent
>>16182391>the hardworking people who are obsolete, and need to go.>hardworking people go>complex civilization collapses>this will help complex civilization somehowYou're being purposely stupid. You are representative of people who oppose eugenics.
>>16182423That's why you don't treat everyone at once. Have multiple methods of eugenics, then promote the one that works best. Natural selection withing eugenics. Best achieved by a free market.
>>16161674>>16162324As a sperg myself I'm not surprised that there should be a positive relationship between IQ and being an autist. There are real negative sides to autism, but I wouldn't doubt that if society somehow consisted mostly of autists, then the normies would come off as crazy people who couldn't cope being around others who think differently.Being autistic basically means being authentically free to be yourself, regardless of what society dictates, and this freedom extents from aesthetic taste to learning and intellectual fascination.
>>16182721Advanced civilization requires that people don't need to work, and "hardworking men" would never allow it.
>>16182745>Being autistic basically means being authentically free to be yourself, regardless of what society dictates, and this freedom extents from aesthetic taste to learning and intellectual fascination.Also means those smart autists are more likley to state openly disruptive new phenomenon of the world, cuz they're too autistic to hold back. A non autistic smart person might discover something but values their social relations enough to never tell anyone. You could have loads of smart people researching something but never have any progress if theyre not autistic enough to tell the truth. Could modern universities be scaring away smart autists?Could a lack of intelligent autists be holding back science?
>>16182831Cart before the horse. Someone innovates a technology that reduces labor so people can work less. Most innovation gets driven by saving costs on labor. Hence industrial revolution and reduction in slavery happened around the same time.
>>16182831Also>and "hardworking men" would never allow it.Why on earth would you think that? Why would a hardworking lumberjack be against using a newfangled chainsaw instead of his old axe? He can work just as hard as before, yet fell 10 times the trees.You're being purposely stupid.
I'll tell you why eugenics is a bad idea, but you won't like it.humans need diverse genetic pools to draw from, to allow for adaptation. if you set a template and force it on an entire group, one virus will delete them. with a diverse group, some will survive, these can rebuild.we also need schizos because one of them might be right some day and prevent the lizardman/jew/demonic takeover/apocalypse.I do think we should use cloning to create genetic groups for slave labour though, and soldiers. but that's unethical and I'd still oppose it on principle.
>>16182838It won't work that way until people begin valuing achieving results with minimum effort. >>16182842He will be against another nine men not working as the result, or all if them working one tenth of the time that they used to.
>>16182863>until people begin valuing achieving results with minimum effort.Essentially everyone does that, but some are better at delaying gratification. You either understand this and are trying to wind me up, or are a genuine idiot.>He will be against another nine men not working as the resultNo they won't.You're still unable to raise a case against eugenics.
>>16182906Are you a bot?
>>16182842>humans need diverse genetic pools to draw from, to allow for adaptation.You'd have that with most forms of eugenics as you're drawing from the population. Or you're selectively promoting/reducing specific genes, bringing all the rest with them.So the majority of forms of eugenics won't suffer the same fate as Gros Michel banana.>we also need schizos because one of them might be right some day and prevent the lizardman/jew/demonic takeover/apocalypse.Again this is only a problem with some types of eugenics. Free market genetic engineering eugenics doesn't need to worry about this, as there's going to be some people who don't want to take genetic enhancements, and aren't forced to because it's a free market.>I do think we should use cloning to create genetic groups for slave labour though, and soldiers. but that's unethical and I'd still oppose it on principle.I'm not into that, but it does raise an interesting ethics game. If there was a race of intelligent beings who were thoroughly satisfied and enjoyed being slaves, would it be ethical to keep them as such?
>>16182854>>16182972
>>16168056You sound like a psychopath yourself, so you should take your own advice and kill yourself.
>>16182972you make valid points. I was assuming that one genetic profile would be used as the template, with superficial alterations for aesthetic purposes, because why not? it would be easier and cheaper to make broad changes, rather than tailoring each individual. sort of like a general upgrade for all humans at birth. the free market would be an extension of this with tiered templates.there is a risk that the humans who decide not to upgrade would suffer, we see this played out in many stories, gattica is a good example because it shows how the privilege scales with wealth, and it also raises an interesting point, a subhuman might still win the genetic lottery and be capable of matching up against enhanced humans. we risk losing that if everyone follows the same genetic trajectory. therefore no more Einstein's.I agree with you, but worry about the temptation of complete adoption of eugenics being too strong, and losing our natural selection winstreak.slaves won't ever be happy to be slaves, I think, unless we remove their emotions entirely.
>>16183281>gattica is a good example because it shows how the privilege scales with wealthThe setting of Gattica wasn't a free market. The only way there'd be a divide in welbeing between "wild-type" humans and therapized ones is if those genetic therapies enhanced the traits of those treated to such an extent that they became extremely successful. By the nature of that outcome I think the incidental enhanced deleterious traits would be outweighed by the success induced/predisposed by the desired traits.I don't like this framing:>there is a risk that the humans who decide not to upgrade would sufferLet’s assume eugenics has been implemented and the dysgenic cycle of civilization >>16178607 has been stopped, innovation is occurring; technology is used to make labor saving devices thus the economy grows without population growth.Wild-type humans along with all other humans would experience a rise in quality of life. I.e stuff becomes cheaper so you can work less for the same reward. Suppose wild-type humans accrue resources much slower than therapized humans perhaps because the therapized have genetics that allows for half the sleep, and so make more money. Though wild-type humans get rich slower than therapized humans, they are not suffering as they are still experiencing the fruits of market innovation making labor saving devices (work less for same value).>a subhuman might still win the genetic lottery and be capable of matching up against enhanced humans. we risk losing that if everyone follows the same genetic trajectory.Cats Genetic variance still exists in most eugenics methods. E.g. embryo selection directly relies on rolling the dice on a group of embryos, then picking the best one. In free market genetic engineering (what I recommend) you’d still have genetic variability in the population, and you’re not targeting every single gene in the individual your treating.
>>16183281>and losing our natural selection winstreak.I’m not sure what you mean by this. Due to advances in technology that complex civilization has, Darwinian selection pressures are relaxed, resulting in dysgenics. E.g. child mortality has gone from >50% to <1%, babies born today with a particular degree of health may never have survived to adulthood. This happening over a few generations leads to having a population with poor health. This and many other things means the genetics of the population is in decline. So we’re no longer having a natural selection winstreak. Thought I posted it already but here’s a paper claiming reduction in IQ in many countries. >slaves won't ever be happy to be slaves, I think, unless we remove their emotions entirely.I hope so in the sense I’d prefer no long off future civilization “evolves” to create a slave race even if they were adapted to it, purely because I find it “icky”.
>>16160010centralized eugenics is bad because totalitarian government is baddysgenics is worse, and our current totalitarian gov. enforces a dysgenic environmentwhat we need is to foster a naturally eugenic environment
>>16160898good comparison but retarded take. imagine thinking an economy without any sate intervention is better. i hate how lolibertarians haven't even heard of Nash Equilibrium. both pure market economy and natural selection are hugely inneficient and destine most of energy in activities or poeple that will become extinct
>>16183651>naturally eugenic environmentI agree. I think the natural selection present in a free market could be harnessed to positively effect human genetics by using genetic engineering.Parents want their kids to succeed.You're predisposed to success in complex civilization if you posses particular traits.An individual is predisposed to benefit complex civilization if they posses particular traits.The traits in each group overlap closely; intelligence, impulse control, planning, health etc.With genetic engineering in a free market we can make use of these statements. Parents will pay for genetic therapies to enhance traits that predispose their kids for success, which also happens to be good for complex civilization.Companies now have an incentive to innovate therapies that enhance traits which are conducive to success.The free market forces these companies to compete with each other for parents money. They compete by offering treatments that make the recipient most successful at the best value.This fosters a naturally eugenic environment as companies make ever better treatments for improving genetics because parents pay them to do it.
>>16160898Eugenics isn't one thing. Simple solution to your outlined problem is to use a free market.
>>16183665>imagine thinking an economy without any sate intervention is better.It would be. Unlike evolution and genetics, humans can predict things and steal other people's ideas.Vast overwhelming majority of monopolies are caused by government intervention. US insulin for instance is maintained by copyright laws and health regulations.
Eugenics is for Chuds
>>16160930> “n-no! short skinny men are actually superior!!”> /tttt/ is leakinggo back to your forcefem fetish goon hole, anon.
>NOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST BE A MILQUETOAST A MILKY WILKY TOAST NOOOOO WHAT ABOUT MUH SUPERIORITY COMPLEX
>>16160010Literally what is wrong with service decline eugenics?If people cannot survive on their own daily without constant high level human intervention then why are they for some reason owed that?It's obviously more moral to just put them down, but it's more fair to just let them suffer and decline service.It's so obviously dangerous and pointless for a society.
>>16183778Haha look at you larping cutie pie. Awww what a cute little larper!
>>16183696You are mentaly ill.
>>16181286>Whites largely prefer other whites.Which would mean nothing because eugenics by its very nature has to ignore shit like that in order to optimize the human genome.
>pretending that genes encode anything meaningfulLol! This is a hilarious thread. What the fuck your genes gonna do? Make you feel warm in your tummy? HAHAHAHAHA
>>16183534 >>16183696Look what happened when jews lied to the parents that iron would make their children strong and healthy. Not only it was way too late to fix anything when it turned out that they had a generation of brain damaged psychos, they had no idea what went wrong.
>>16183706>>16183789cope>>16183717>noticing smart people are needed for civilization and dysgenic selection pressures will collapse civilization if not held back by eugenics is badSpiteful mutant>>16183795Raise a dog as a human. Does it gain human intelligence from this environment? No, because the bulk of your intelligence is genetic. Therefore it can be selected for.Summary, usual leftist non-arguments against eugenics.
>>16183778>service decline eugenics?What’s wrong is welfare being funded by taxation, which is theft.
>>16160024This isn't really an argument against it though, just the misuse of it. It's like saying nuclear power is bad because it's gonna explode. There are good and bad ways to use any tool. And if there's a good way to use it then what's an argument against that?
>>16160010>What actual arguments can be made against eugenics?If you compile systems designed by humans and perform a comprehensive analysis, you will find a history of overemphasis on short term results, lack of insight on larger cascading effects, weak ability to chart long term trends, and worst of all: corruption. The human element of most any system is compromised either immediately or shortly after being implemented. Society tends to tolerate these inevitable flaws to a degree that varies based on several factors, but the primary factor is "how blatantly flawed is this system". In the case of eugenics, mistakes or oversights may not be realized for entite generations. The results in the case of something like Eugenics gone wrong could be incredibly disastrous, in the worst case a potentially extinxtion level catastrophe.Also consier:1) Humans tend to be superficial and which traits are valued can be largely reliant on aesthetic sense over pragmatic realism2) We are working with a chaotic system and not able to fully predict the long term effects from modulating any aspects of that system. It isn't exactly clear how to increase rates of conscientiousness/intelligence or decrease rates of diabetes in isolate. To my knowledge any attempt would necessarily have unknown side effects Consider dog breeds. This is what humans end up doing when actively performing eugenics.
>>16182980>Butthurt psychopath trying to alter reality in his usual manipulative ways.>Noooo, you're evil if you kill evil people>By Satan
>>16184357Doesn't the fact that you're writing this disprove what you're saying? You know what to not do, then don't do those things. You could start by just eliminating genetic diseases. It's immoral to not do it.
>>16181565Agreed
>>16160010It's anti-competitive to sort people into pre-determined groups of invisible genes instead of letting them fight it out and find their own purpose and advantage in life. You are playing God by thinking that you can define the environment to give nature a helping hand to naturally select for the 'best' genes.
>>16160010>eliminate genetic diversity what can go wrong hurrr
>>16184374>You know what to not do, then don't do those things. For the same reason we can't easily apply that line of reasoning to any other number of societal issues. We could say the same for poverty, drug addiction, child abuse, etc. It's easy enough to talk about at a high level of abstraction. Practical solutions are not as easy to enforce. Even if it were as simple as "just don't make mistakes", we have to first identify in the first place the outcomes, which is not possible. Furthermore, we'd be dealing with an entire system which is harder to adjust/steer/command. Think of pollution for example. Almost everyone sees it as something that should be avoided, but in practice the system creates massive amounts of pollution, even when most individual elements of this system prefer a different outcome. Same dynamic could possibly arise in a eugenics implementation, where ill practices are recognized but difficult to prevent once they gain traction. Imagine a hypothetical scenario where trait X is seen as highly desirable, and it is discovered that trait X is actually harmful in long run for some reason. But the populace already has high desire for their children to have X trait. Educating is slow and some people will ignore it anyways for their own selfish preferences. Due to the profit involved, corporations and politicians ignore the discovery, or downplay it's significance, and continue allowing or promoting X trait, despite being aware of the long term consequences. How do you avoid this? Giving one person or small group full control? This opens an entirely different class of potential corruption.>You could start by just eliminating genetic diseasesIdeally, yes. I think for example downs syndrome has been all but eradicated in some nation that widely practices embryo screening. I do think Eugenics can be practiced successfully, but I also believe extreme caution is required.
>>16184405>it is discovered that trait X is actually harmful in long run for some reason. But the populace already has high desire for their children to have X trait. Uh, yeah, like it is now you mean?I get you have doubts about the implementation. I don't see it as being controlled to that level. I don't think that would work out well. I think it could do good though used the right way. As you're saying we already do use it in the way of screening. We also already use it in sexual selection. Which can be some dumb shit.
>>16181565>extract gametes and implant embryo without sexeverything you just said is subverted
>>16184378>eugenics is one thingthis has already been adressed in the thread>>16184376eugenics could be done voluntarily, there's no anti-competitiveness in such a model.> playing God by thinkingi could acuse you of playing god by saving a baby and mother from dying in the complications of child birth.
>>16184405>We could say the same for poverty, drug addiction, child abuse, etc.Correct, but your bar is that eugenics would destroy civilization because we wouldn't be guided by logic enough.Issue with that reasoning is you'd have to suggest that something like drug addiction would destroy civilization because people are unable to use higher reasoning to stop addiction. This is obviously not the case because we have drug addriction and civilization exists.What you're not accounting for is natural selection that takes place in cultures and behaviors. Not on a genetic level but on a monkey-see monkey-do level. E.g if I see Shqualia beating her kids, then observe her kids end up shit, I'm not going to emulate that behavor. or E.g you watch childhood friends become lost to drug addiction, so when you raise your kids you instil a strong adversion to drugs in them.>Practical solutions are not as easy to enforceIt is if you realize the free market (natural selection acting on human behavor) enforces it for you.>we have to first identify in the first place the outcomesAgain trial and error solves this completly. Some people take drugs, become hopelessly addicted and are lost. Society isn't however, and other individuals learn from their mistake.
>>16184435>We also already use it in sexual selection. Which can be some dumb shitFully agree, and despite having listed my arguments against eugenics, overall i figure its better off giving it a shot. You speak accurately. All forms of organized society already de facto influence which genetics propagate. As long as we organize, we are practicing artificial selection of humanity. In our current state its done blindly and without any degree of oversight. As a matter of fact the current system is so blatanyly dysgenic that nearly any attempt at eugenics, even the most hamfisted and half baked efforts would still be superior to what is happening now. At least in USA, the traits being selected for are low intelligence, aggression, psychopathy/sociopathy, dark triad traits, selfishness, low impulse control, etc. As >>16178583This anon described. These are the types that are most successful in current artificially constructed climate. Actually most productive members of society have their resources taken at gunpoint to continue this process as long as possible. The leaches on society are propogating like wildfire and the most productive elements are below replacement level. Low class r-selectors have always been this way, but their numbers have historically been limited by disease, war, starvation, lack of resources, etc. Welfare state will let them keep on going without letting nature take its toll. Its incredibly unnatural and inelegant. Its also unsustainable. Its suicide on a large scale, basically. Middle class isn't much better. With womens rights, the segments of population that tended to be k-selectors has also fallen below replacement levels. Furthermore, data suggests that when given the option, more than 50% prefer to breed with a very narrow spectrum of traits and seek resources from a seperate provider, which government also assists in. (1/2)
>>16184405>we'd be dealing with an entire system which is harder to adjust/steer/command.As already said many times in the thread, eugenics isn't one thing. You're spotting a problem with centralized power, espeically governments. As >>16184351 put it, your objection being leveled at all forms of eugenics would be like decrying nuclear power because of nuclear bombs.>Think of pollution for example. Almost everyone sees it as something that should be avoided, but in practice the system creates massive amounts of pollution, even when most individual elements of this system prefer a different outcomYou think pollution is a problem because you don't understand free markets. As people get richer, they have more income to dispose on reducing pollution. Indians pollute lots because they value their little disposible income more than reducing pollution.I suspect from your statement on pollution that you beleive governments are required to manage it. Governments do the opposite.>Imagine a hypothetical scenario...>How do you avoid this?Why contain it? Seriously what's the problem with it? Just as I suggested with drug addiction, if the long term effects of X trait are particularly deliterious, the culture will adapt over a few decades after people learn it's effects first hand. Culural adaptation would take the forms of people no longer selecting for X trait so fuverently and those already with it taking genetic therapies to reverse it.The most key point of all is that civilization does not collapse. If civilization does not collapse, the remaining people will always be there to learn from others mistakes.>Giving one person or small group full control?In a free market there will always be some people who choose not to do something, because there's no government forcing them to. The people who do X are the control for the people who don't.
(2/2)>>16184508>>16184435I often see it stated that women are picky/discerning, and therefore act as an agenct of eugenics, but this is clearly incorrect, both in theory and in actual reality when looking at available data. It assumes women themselves never have undesirable genetics which they continue propogating. Also existing data shows that in practice, women as a group tend to select for arbitrary traits like height to a disproportionate degree. More concerning, they also select for violence, psychopathy, and antisocial traits. They're only a eugenic force in the sense that they tend towards creating the biggest, most violent and criminally inclined. Intelligence is in fact selected against beyond a certain IQ, so the idea that leaving it to female sexual selection exclusively will somehow lead to a hyper advanced population seems unrealistic. In fact I view it as an anti-civilization force. Society can only sustain so many narcissistic dark triad manipulators before it grinds to a halt. Advanced society requires high level of trust and cooperation, and in fact we are already witnessing this occur. Taken to its logical extreme, if we were to continue on this same trajectory, the end result would be a bunch of large harems and a reversion to a tribalist state.>>16181565As this anon described, but with a significany higher rate of psychopathy and sociopathy
>>16184405>This opens an entirely different class of potential corruption.Free markets maximize the number of people you'd need to corrupt to successfully spoof the system. >but I also believe extreme caution is required.By who? Governments is usally the suggested answer. This bad related to the above reason; governments do the opposite of a free market by centralizing power.
>>16184517>You're spotting a problem with centralized power, espeically governments. As >>16184351 # put it, your objection being leveled at all forms of eugenics would be like decrying nuclear power because of nuclear bombs.You're right. Eugenics itself is not the problem. Human organization is. In fact most problems eventually lead to this same conclusion. The first thing needed is to remove bad actors, and the next is neutralizing potential bad actors from taking adverse action. Most technology or forms of government or systems work fine with a sufficiently intelligent population with good character traits. Towards that end I think eugenics is maybe the best possible solution. I listed potential pitfalls, but i am overall pro eugenics
>>16184526>Eugenics itself is not the problem. Human organization is. In fact most problems eventually lead to this same conclusion.I agree.>Most forms of government or systems work fine with a sufficiently intelligent population with good character traits.Broadly agree also. I think the freest possible market would lead to the best outcomes.>Towards that end I think eugenics is maybe the best possible solution.I think successive human organization of societies will eventually though natural selection evolve into the freest possible market, because it leads to the best outcomes; whichever competing civilization has an organiziation which leads to better outcomes than the other will win out.In this sense we are fated to live in utopia, because natural selection predisposes us to it. Call it God if you will, as it seems pretty convienient.That all being said, for our current civilization, I think we'll collapse. We're just getting into the cusp of genetic engineering (what I see as a more pratical tool for eugenics), but our culture has become thoughly socalist/dysgenic, and convientional methods eugenics was tried and failed to sustain itself in the late/early 19th/20th centuries.At a guess it'll take a good 1000 years or so before civilization rises in complexity again, following things outlined in >>16178607.But mabye we'll get lucky and discover some fantastic genetic therapy that nobody objects to taking.
Genetic engineering is going to be used to make men small and athletic and women tall and super fecund.The ideal form is small males and tall females.
>>16184378iceland had a long tradition of murdering all their retards. have they gone extinct yet?
>>16160146>It's embarrassing seeing 4channers of all people advocate for systematic eugenics and bullying while being oblivious that they're exactly the kind of people who'd be banned from breeding. It's a symptom of an antisocial view of the world.Why are you assuming all our positions must be self-centered? I thought you leftist faggots we're really big on "the greater good" type arguments?
>>16160014Weak to moderate eugenic effects are easy to achieve. Don't pay people child benefits for (new) children they have while not having a job. There, that reduces the incentive of low IQ people and career criminals to breed.Other example. Pay people a bonus if they meet certain health markers like not being overweight, not smoking, doing regular sports, etc. Weak eugenic effect benefiting those that can keep fit in todays society.
>>16185688That's retarded for reasons described above. You breed people into agressive pieces of shit by only supporting high IQ people with jobs.
>>16160100>>16160098Yeah, this. Eugenics is predicated on rational agents, which haven't been proven to exist, hence, democracy is at best theatre.
>>16179255Height, for example, is being selected against, but this doesn't mean that tall men aren't sexually successful; they aren't reproducing, i.e., Chad and Stacy want to advance their careers.
>>16160898In a Free Market:Parents can use CRISPR on their kids.You can buy Steroids legally at the Pharmacy.You can buy Amphetamines legally at the pharmacy.You can buy Cocaine legally.You defeat Big Daddies so you can extract Adam from Little Sisters.
>>16185688They are only career criminals because your eugenics project has barred them from all legal sources of income.
>>16178583What you're describing is the black market.
>>16160747>meritocracyPeriodic reminder that things like compound interest, fiat currency, and the sale and purchase of derivatives used to be prohibited BECAUSE people knew they would contribute to the dissolution of meritocracy
>>16160903>liberals!>conservatives!>da left!>da rite!>luv me team, 'ate our rivals wi' a passion, simple as!I hate people who treat politics like it's the Premier League
>>16186311When were they prohibited?
>>16186347Islam prohibits usury and gambling. Christianity used to, until recently.
>>16185692You need to cooperate to get and keep a job.>>16185948How is removing the incentive for low IQ people to breed to cash in on child benefits stopping them from getting a job? Explain a reasonable scenario where this happens.
>>16160898A state does not have to control a process to stear it. One can easily implement measures that result in selective pressure for a certain trait. High IQ can be one of them.
>>16186535I mean there is never enough job for everyone, so only people willing to fight get to have one, and only the most vicious get the good ones. Cooperative people become the losers
>>16186316half of the people on sci are below 100 IQ, over a third are below 85 IQ, so you're just going to have to learn to accept living in a world with morons
>>16186556You have a very warped poor understanding of markets, certainly of a free market. You are probably a socialist who thinks government intervention is not just necessary but desired.
>>16186556>there is never enough jobsThat's not the point. My suggestion was to tie government child benefits to having a job. People can still have kids without a job. It's just no longer a way for poor, uneducated retards to make money via child benefits.
>>16186906there are far more low-paying jobs for the retards than jobs that require intelligence. thats the nature of capitalism, if you dont have the capital, you serve those who doand thats what none of you understand about eugenics: the people in power dont want smarter slaves. they want dumb and docile ones
>>16186945use a free market then
>>16160010Forced eugenics breaks the social contract. It does not materially benefit a person to have their bloodline extinguished.
>>16160010Because the Jew is in power so they will just breed good little goys.
>>16160898You're an idiot.
>>16160926>Women like strong and handsome menMaybe in some ideal universe, but that's not the actual reality of who is reproducing out in the real world, and men who are "strong and handsome" can easily exhibit traits that can be considered socially undesirable, such as criminality. Criminals have more children than non-criminals.>these are almost always smarter and healthier in every wayJust false.
>>16165231>it does not workDomestication disproven. Dogs aren't real.
>>16177631>genetic engineering is a scifi meme, that's why most of the food I eat is genetically engineered
>>16187215So what?
>>16186945Destroy capitalism.
>>16186797There can be no free market with loans. Loans shift the supply and demand so that there is never enough jobs, never enough customers. >>16186906>My suggestion was to tie government child benefits to having a job.I know, you said so. My point is that it's the insufficuently agressive who get excluded, so you would actively promote breeding of agressive people. The most successfull ones start early by bullying successful kids in school, to thwart dangerous competition.
>>16160010>What actual arguments can be made against eugenicsThere are none.Billions must die.
>>16187215>It does not materially benefit a person to have their bloodline extinguished.Yes, it can. That's the muh genetic legacy fallacy.
>>16187422>the basis of the biological world is a fallacy bro
>>16187471basis your ass
>>16173501Scientists have been genetically modifying plants for decades>>16174934Geneticists have actively been modifying plants and animals for decades>>16177631Retard
>>16186535Low IQ people will breed whether or not there are benefits to cash in. They have extremely low impulse control and a thorough inability to consider the consequences of their actions. You know why there are so many absent black fathers? Because they get drunk or high, fuck some bitch on a whim without a condom and cum inside her, then get shocked when she gets pregnant and they run off.
>>16187783People want to have families. You're horrified by it because you're a schizo.
>>16187793I'm neither of those things and I have no idea why you're projecting that on me. Families are good and people should have them, but that's completely irrelevant to my post or what I'm responding to.
>>16160036in other words, eugenics is fine. it's people who are retarded.
>>16183715Short skinny men literally are superior and more efficient. If you don't understand this it's just because you have a low IQ and can't do math.
>>16160024There would be no demand if regulations made it impossible to make individuals with preferred features.If anything, restricting such a godlike tool for the benefit of a tiny group would result in a violent conflict
>>16160014If you engineer the next generation to be smarter, the next generation will be smart enough to do it properly.
>>16160010>chemically castrating pedophilesPic related
Natural and sexual selection works fine on its own currently
What was bad about eugenics was the forceful control over people, whether they are allowed to breed or not. But now that gene editing is becoming trivial, eugenics in the sense of eliminating genetic diseases has become an obligation.
Furthermore, eugenics in the sense of using gene editing to produce smarter humans is an arms race similar to the atom bomb. If we don't do it, our enemies will.
>>16188145Based, the future is so bright (and black and retarded). We CANNOT allow these beautiful black future generations to inject genes which increase their IQ by 60 points, that is NOT allowed.
>>16183715>go back to your forcefem fetish goon holeI don't think you understand. Ideally the women would be even smaller than the men.
>>16188166>Ideally the women would be even smaller than the men.No they wouldn't. Female biased size dimorphism is the most efficient and the ideal
>>16188172Why? Men need relatively more size to accommodate greater strength for work and protection, but tall women are just completely wasteful because they're still weaker than men while requiring more food energy to keep healthy doing tasks that don't require a man's amount of strength or size in the first place.
>>16188176Larger women can be programmed to birth litters and this have greater fecundity and fitness. Men do not need to be larger than women to be strong enough to perform tasks or "protect" them in the modern world. There's nothing stopping small males and large females from contributing to society, protecting each other, and making babies.
>>16188145It doesn't if you want civilization to continue. Can't believe anyone who isn't stupid or ignorant would hold your view earnestly.
>>16160010Don't forget more beautiful.
>>16188185>appeals to some sci-fi notion of human women birthing litters like dogs>appeals to the "modern world" regarding the necessary size of menYou've really gotta pick a lane here. If you want to limit the scope of discussion for men to what's realistic for first world countries today, you can't also expand the scope of discussion for women to include complete fantasy scenarios. Besides, what good would large litters of humans be in the modern world? We don't have any trouble keeping babies alive into adulthood while birthing them individually so birthing them half a dozen at a time would just create overpopulation and make raising a family unnecessarily difficult, especially when you consider just how long human babies remain utterly helpless relative to animals (that is to say, YEARS instead of weeks or months).
>>16160010>chemically castrating pedophilesWhat the fuck does this have to do with eugenics you absolute dunning-kruger dumbfuck?
>>16188199Pedophiles a phenotype, so presumably there is a genetic element to it which could be bred out of the population. Could be weakly genetic or that genetic element is used for many other things and the environment is what crosswires it, both would complicate eugenic removal.Obvious issue is OP was suggesting to do eugenics on unwilling participants.
>>16187854You prety literally said that people have children because they are too stupid not to.
>>16188195There is literally nothing fantastical about editing women to release 2 or more eggs each ovulation cycle, which requires just a single SNP on the FSHB gene. You don't need 6 at a time, even making it so women always have twins like marmosets is fine. In this way the problem of declining birthrate would never be a problem again. Beyond that, unlike with males, female size is related to their fecundity. Larger women have easier births. There's no reason to make women smaller than the already small men. Why would you want to make it harder for women to have kids and for them to have to do it more often vs making it physically easier for them and also have to do it less often to get more babies?
>>16188216The post I was responding to implied that low IQ people without jobs have kids to get government money and they would prioritize jobs before having kids if there was no government money to take.I was saying that low IQ individuals in particular will have kids even if they can't support them OR DON'T WANT THEM due to low impulse control and lack of foresight. Did you miss my example of black men bailing on pregnant women because they thought they could just fuck bitches and cum inside without consequence?
>>16188176Why not just make the women equally as strong as men and make men attractive to that sort of female morphology. Maybe that's too far, who knows
>>16188225Homo
>>16188225My whole family is Homo. I assure you there's no other taxonomic family operating this phone.
>>16188242I mean genus. nevermind, fuck you. you know what I meant
>>16188176I simply like volleyball women
>>16188218>>16188225>>16188246I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but you all really are just fetishists.
>>16188251Nope. I clearly explained why women having multiples is preferable and you have no argument against it.Again, why would you want to make it more difficult for women to have kids and make it so they have to do it more often in order to meet replacement birth rates? You have no reason for this but it's what you get by making women smaller. Smaller men are more efficient than larger men, and larger women are more efficient than smaller women. So we make men smaller and women larger.
>>16188259If you make every woman have twins every time then you'll just increase the number of women who don't want to have kids. If one kid is too expensive and difficult to care for, two kids would be doubly so. The perceived risk and difficulty of raising kids would increase and the women who would want only one kid would now never want to get pregnant due to not wanting two kids.
>>16188263I don't think women having twins would half the amount of women who want kids. I don't think it would have any effect at all desu. We need more data on this.
>>16160898this desu
>>16188271It probably would halve the number, but I'm sure it would have an effect in two ways.1. Women who only feel capable of raising 1 child may avoid having children altogether.2. Populations that don't use birth control would have twice as many kids.I think the likelihood of making birth rates among the educated middle class plummet further and making the birth rates among the uneducated lower class skyrocket would be very real.
>>16160010>What actual arguments can be made against eugenics?Because we’re so close to full blown gene editing that it’s obsolete technology. It’d take generations to see any results.
>>16188246based
>>16160010This post reeks of a highschooler>verification not required
>>16160039The environment meddles with literally everything in a chaotic matter so why try making any kind of plans
>>16160010>What actual arguments can be made against eugenics?Dunno if anyone has made this point yet but the people who decide who gets to breed with who are less likely to try and make a population that's overall "better" and more likely to make a population that's easier to control and has less of a risk of uprising.
>>16182423>>16184376Question: exactly what is wrong with playing God? Because the bible said so?
>>16188664Where does the bible condemn genetic technologies? I can see cultural muslims or tradLARPers having a problem but this doesn't seem to be a religious issue at all.
>>16188664>exactly what is wrong with playing God?All the ways in which it can and has gone wrong.
>>16188194That's fucking disgusting.
>>16188664Ernest Jones, in 1913, was the first to construe extreme narcissism, which he called the "God-complex", as a character flaw. He described people with God-complex as being aloof, self-important, overconfident, auto-erotic, inaccessible, self-admiring, and exhibitionistic, with fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience. He observed that these people had a high need for uniqueness.
>>16188664YWNBAG
>>16188683Not genetics specifically, but I've seen Tower of Babel being used as an argument against the concept in general.>>16188700Like? People don't seem to bother to cite examples outside of the Tower of Babel.>>16189086Scientists who work on eugenics alone don't do so because they're narcissistic. They do so because they can't find anyone else to work on it because muh morals.>>16189813Hence "playing".
>>16189847>Like?Overuse of antibiotics damaging everyone's gut microbiome and creating highly resistant superbugs.Processed foods allowing mass-scale food production but making people chronically ill with an abundance of sugar, seed oils, and preservatives.Pesticides killing off one pest only for another, worse pest to rise up and cause more problems.Herbicides protecting crops but poisoning the food supply.Mass deforestation for housing causing landslides.Pretty much any time we think we can just change something in nature to suit our whims it backfires in one way or another, and in a lot of cases it causes a need for ongoing damage control.
