What are actual arguments against eugenics? "Waaaaah you can't just breed bad traits and disabilities out of the human species... It's... it's le ableist! it's fascism! You don't understand... people HAVE to have downs syndrome" I can understand being against certain implementations of it like murdering people with these traits, or even being against arranged marriages and whatnot, but being against the whole concept is insane to me.
i think all leftists who support mass immigration should be skinned alive and thrown into pig shit
>>24690554humans are not dogs
>>24690554>What are actual arguments against eugenics?All humans should be caused to not breed, not merely the least "human" of them. The abolition of humanity ought not to be the partial abolition of humanity. Why not kill them all?
I’m not sure, but basically leftists believe it leads into fascism and people get oppressed, which is usually true.
>>24690554It would intensify the political drama x 100.
>>24690555
>>24690554It depends on the sort of eugenics we're talking about.There's policies that can nudge the population softly towards good genetic health (incentives for high-quality stock to breed, initiaitives to maixmise genetic potential, gene editing of defective embryos, etc) and then there's doing like >>24690566 says and treating people like livestock.Eugenics, if it's to exist, should come from a place of seeking to elevate the condition of the soul by reducing any forces (such as a sick body) that may pull it downwards. The pop culture Nazi eugenics stuff obviously isn't viable.
>>24690762>There's policiesyoure first on the list
>>24690554The biggest issue is that even voluntary eugenics programs piss people off. Something approximating 'designer babies' will likely come along before an extremely successful implementation of any eugenics program.
>>24690801?
>>24690554I've never understood why eugenics has such a knee-jerk reaction other than it being memed and attached to the nazis. Eugenics does not mean millions of people will instantly get slaughtered. It's a gradual process to breed out disabilities, unfavorable traits, etc. How people find that a bad thing is bizarre to me, too.Correct me if I'm wrong but dog breeding is a type of eugenics, no? The other day I saw a post about pug dogs finally being bred to have normal snouts and the doggo crowd instantly s o y faced over it saying how heckin amazing it is. Why not this type of thing but with humans?
>>24690554the euginicists won anon. they’re going to space, we’re not.
>>24690953No it takes five years of people going "why are my hard earned tax dollars supporting a bunch of 'people' who don't contribute to society at all." The amount of capital it takes to run an asylum for the infirm is massive, bullets can be cheap. It's just economics.
Reckon we could improve humanity immensely by sterilising all males under 6’ or who exhibit male pattern baldness. Of course natural sexual selection means most of those men will not pass on their genes anyway, but we could eliminate these undesirable traits entirely with the political will
>>24690554If we had an eternally benevolent society endlessly helmed by magnanimous leadership, and the development of the technology would be restrained for the likes of what you say, and therefore be applied in an egalitarian way that would unlock the potential for all men, very well the conversation about it would be a lot more complex and there would be a lot more points in its favor. But to this point in civilization most all the technologies we have created are utilized to cement stratification and breed misery and alienation for every man. At this point in capitalism we have selected for the most emotionally and socially undeveloped, uncreative, spiteful, servile and/or myopically fetishistic minds to rule, and if the technology were fully developed under their auspices they would thusly utilize it to select for their traits and continue to mould the world in a manner that bends to their idiocy, just how they utilize every other technology. If you desire the technology to be used for the collective furthering of man you would first have to create a system whose intent is the collective furthering of man as opposed to one whose only purpose is enabling different retards' individual delusions of immortality and endless growth at the risk of all life as we know it and at the cost of all souls under their dominion. On principle we shouldn't develop technologies with existential consequences for the sake of their immediate transference to the unaccountable wretches who sit atop the world who have proved at every possible opportunity they have absolutely vile interests at heart.
>>24690953The most unfavorable trait is white male heterosexuality. We should carefully screen all potentially white foetuses, and ensure any possibly white boys get flooded with female hormones in the womb and during childhood, ensuring either they develop into transgirls or become effeminate homosexuals adults. Once all white adults are either women, transwomen or submissive homosexual males, the structure of white supremacy, patriarchy and settle-colonialist capitalism will melt away
>>24690554It can get pretty stupidImagine you have a recessive gene that could cause your kid to have some horrible disease that would kill it before 8 years of life.It would be relatively trivial in artificial insemination to ensure you pass the other gene, avoiding playing russian roulette with your offspring. But no, this is a heckin' fascism, you're playing God, or just "technology bad even though i have no problem using every other technology"
>>24690554"Supporting" eugenics doesn't entail anything beyond trying to marry and raise kids responsibly, which most middle class people already try to do.
>>24690554>Why not support eugenics?Negative eugenics (preventing undesirables from breeding) is unethical under almost every system of ethics. Positive eugenics (incentivizing the most desirable to breed as much as possible) isn't practical in the real world and would just cause extreme levels of resentment if attempted.
>>24691931>is unethical under almost every system of ethicsNope, it's pretty easy to justify from a utilitarian perspective, a very popular system of ethics.>disease and health defects cause suffering every born generation>impose breeding restrictions on one generation>cause suffering to one generation to minimize suffering for every subsequent generationI'm not a utilitarian but the argument seems very straightforward.
>>24691997>"is unethical under ALMOST EVERY system of ethics">well I found one system of ethics it could be arguable>so you are wrong>also I will make the absurd claim that utilitarian ethics is very popular oft hand
>>24690554Evolution is eugenics, only the most adapted survive
I'm basically completely pro-eugenics. I think we should use cripsr to create a whole library of gene therapies and let people biohack the shit out of themselves. We should have a whole new chunk of culture of people trying out gene therapies, commenting on gene therapies, complaining about being fucked out by gene therapies.The real thing people are pissed off about is CENTRALIZED CONTROL. Like, the nazis *decided for everyone* what genes we're supposed to be shooting for. If you let anyone gene hack themselves then we can run millions of experiments at once! And I won't be liable for any of it!Buuuut, if I were to really try to find a *flaw* in this glorious plan, it's that any changes we make to a population are sort of like an unnatural hitch in the genescape in a similar way to when economists complain about disruptions to the market via controls.Anything artificial we create requires support. If it takes US to make something happen, then after we go away it will rot.
