>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.
