Eugenics

enforced eugenics has no counter argument besides "ppl who advocate eugenics r ugly xd isnt that ironic xdd"

I'm ok with it but only for meme-tier ethnic groups like Sami and Bedouin.

muh it only works in theory type shit. He's bourgie dude,obviously he's going to be kinda fashy. we're commin and he's going against the wall

Girls like these should be forced to have 10 kids each in the hope that in 4-5 generations they will all be like them.

I can't argue with your logic.

Unfortunately I won't be able to enjoy that kind of world :'(

I fully support it tbqh

Not killing people but sterilisation and gene modification, absolutely

I mean, any future use of eugenics would very likely involve making targeted modifications in your offspring with something like CRISPR/Cas. This is a pretty likely thing to happen in the foreseeable future, especially for curing rare, genetic diseases. It's thus very important that this technology is made available to all people, instead of adding a genetic dimension to the differences between classes.

This, expect the bourgeois to become a different species.

Its a stupid but valuable notion. I like the idea of tracking fitness, genetic hygiene and encouraging a robust, competent population. But there is really no good reason to legislate let alone enforce some kind of pro-social genetic breeding program. Humans are goning to choose to fuck whoever they want. I can't rely on Biomaterialist, Chad Always Wins type arguments to guarantee that people with preferred genes will always select each other. I also can't forsee the cultural and social consequences of pruning certain genetic lineages or preventing people from breeding. Incentivizing breeding is a deranged religious, tribal and indeed collectivist venture. Its as gross and uncomfortable as the depictions of kings consummating their marriages with 13 year old brides in front of the whole royal court. Something about socially induced or preferred fucking is debased and dehumanizing.

I rather like the intimacy of stealing away with a lover whose genetic makeup you wouldn't mind mixing with and pumping a baby into her regardless if I'm supposed to or not. Its selfish and from an idealistic standpoint possibly immoral of me to think like that. But the appetite of my ego in this respect is unquenchable, you wouldn't be able to maintian my humanity while adequately dissuading me from breeding. I'd either have to be doped up, whoring around with concubines 24/7 365 to not feel the existential angst of knowing i can't breed or lobotomized/chemically castrated (which is dehumanizing i think).

This all said it is still important that people recognize that certain traits are dysgenic and are actively selected against by nature. Its not a good thing to have a society of aspy retards who are all sterile. No one would ever dispute this no matter how pro-freedom they are. We should discourage or maybe at least inform strongly those with serious genetic defects about/from breeding. However, as for attractiveness and intelligence I think this form of eugenics is where the uncertainty and the massive blowback starts showing up at rates too high to justify destroying the species/society at.

A form of soft eugenics which is optional and counterbalanced by technical and biological intervention is appropriate in any and all civilizations. The hard eugenics of Nazi Germany is disgraceful and would destroy the psyche of humanity.

Eugenics will soon be obsolete due to advances in genetic engineering.

Whether these modifications are heritable is questionable and what effect random mutation might have on them is even more so. Worse still the only solution to this question that is seemingly fool proof is having all humans from a certain point on modified so that the consequences of modification over time do not show up. Either way the moment we do this we are fucked if our technological apparatus ever breaks or becomes unsustainable

Eugenics against populations that are "harmful" for society i.e. stupid in the sense that they hurt other people or aggressive people is faulty because harmful stupidity is usually created through socialization as is aggression. No matter how many you forbid from procreating or kill, they will keep popping up. You need to eradicate the socialization and normalization of behaviors that hurt, not the people. Even if we don't display ourselves as being aggressive or ignorant we still carry these symptoms in all of us.

Now the dumb shit like eugenics because they're prone to one disease or another, etc. etc. Half of that is false , most genetic diseases are so rare and recessive, and the ones have ones that aren't are heavily advised against reproducing by genetic counselors.

Advances in genetic engineering are about to revolutionize eugenics, not stop it.

Jesus fuck, how many known mutations are known to increase risk for developments of cancers and a metric fuck ton of other diseases? If the rich can pay to have those mutations removed from their gene pool or that of their offspring, they absolutely will. Human CRISPR trials are underway in China right now for a reasons beyond academic curiosity.

I don't mind people paying to change the genetics of a harmful disease, but I don't want people made infertile or killed by eugenic practices. And I don't want to go so far to change the appearance of children through it either (unless they will be born with a deformity of some kind)

Of what value is selective breeding to anyone if we can just splice desirable traits into a genome manually?

I guess it's more of a semantic difference, then. Eugenics is often thrown around when referring to causing a change in gene frequency due to human intervention at a level higher than mate selection.

But then you have genetic diseases only affecting the poor, the same people who wouldn't be able to afford medication and treatments.

Making welfare payments inversely proportional to number of sprogs and paying dullards €50000 to get sterilised are a couple of interventions. Additionally, paying high Autism Level women to have children would be a good investment in the future.

1. flynn effect shows Autism Level tests don't werk
2. breeding for specific traits reduces genetic variety = mankind loses (unrelated) DNA sequences forever
3. only dickheads want to do it which is Ad Hom but still interesting

4. if we were to ever get rid of the blind spot in our eyes through evolution then it would lead through shitloads of generations with weird eye mutations.
our brains could be stuck in a similar dead end, the real-life version of a "local maximum" with the only way forward being through a bunch of retards.
nobody knows.

5. there is a star trek TNG episode about a society of eugenicists.
roddenberry-made star trek is never wrong.

this is a fact btw, not an Appeal to Authority fallacy.

6. flynn effect shows that right now intelligence is mostly a social thing so any money spent on eugenics could be more efficiently used for public education.

this point we can discuss again when we have reached absolute maximum intelligence.

I advocate for stringent population control and forced sterilization, but not on the basis of >muh identity. Something like a one child policy, except globally. And it's like, a half-child policy.
Lottery for winners and losers maybe? Or is my idea fundamentally fucked?

I'm pretty sure that's what 99% of people are talking about when they say they're pro eugenics. I don't want to kill off random traits, but there's no reason society should have to pay for mentally retarded kids when they don't need to exist. Ideally we should have free genetic testing to look for diseases (an easy one is down-syndrome) and encourage parents to get abortions should one be found. Think how many billions of dollars are wasted on people who are useless to society and have little quality of life. There's just no reason for it.

ok you brainfarted, now go back to Holla Forums

I thought the idea of commies is that humans are mostly social creatures, and can be molded to create our utopia.
If genetics determine so much of our behavior and success, then hierarchy and so on are biological conclusions based on the genetic reality of our species.

So are we to be shaped by the ideology, or are we shaped by bad genes?

Enforced eugenics is even easier to argue against than that. In practice it means the upper classes using subjective criteria to justify the convenient alignment of class with "desirable traits" and then you get biologically enforced social classes a la Gattaca. I guarantee you no matter how "ugly" or not you or any other NaSoc is it really doesn't matter if you're not significantly wealthy.

doesnt work, smart people dont have smart kids, they have kids that share genetic markers from both parents and they inherit genes as a combination (le ebin regression to the mean), not some inherit replication, if you started killing/sterilizing around Autism Level, you'd never stop, fi you did around genetic markers, youd end up ruining the gene pool, getting rid of say some debilitate early onset cancer or breeding out some undesireable physical trait or something, while the exact same selective pressure made everyone develop painful asthma and chronic respiratory depression

dumb fucks dont close their legs when theres not enough resources around, the third world will either fuck itself into starvation the minute resources get tight (which is likely to happen), or manage to industrialize and stop being third world, the only first worlders with 15 kids are catholics

this ignorance of genetics is astounding
if two intelligent people have kids then their kids are statistically more likely to be intelligent than if two homeless criminals have kids
wtf how is this magical "regression" to the mean work in your head? genes just get magically sucked from the genepool and return to average after x^n generations? do you even understand what you are talking about in any sense?

Nice meme

Total eugenics.
Antinatalism is the only answer to end our suffering.
No-one should have children.

...

stupid people are more likely to breed like rabbits.
and we spend resources propping them up.
even more of a reason. if people spend so much effort breeding good dogs, why not spend an ounce of effort breeding good people?

real powerful understanding of what the words "statistically likely" mean

what a retard. nobody should breed

It's really fucking easy to accidentally produce knock-on effects or wipe out semi-negative traits that it later turns out are useful in some circumstances.

Generally eugenicism assumes we have a much better understanding of our own genetics than we actually do.

Heh, whoops.

Also the best marker for intelligence is actually how many books were in their house as a kid. Smart parents with no books in their house will tend to have dumb kids, dumb parents with lots of books will tend to have smart kids.

Islam brah. Just read the Quran.

Genetic engineering will make eugenics obsolete.

What about enforced or encouraged disgenics?

No it won't. Human populations most in need of eugenics or genetic engineering to repair their genomes from the damage of thousands of years of inbreeding are that way because they are religious zealots that won't let satanic scientists fix them.

...

Eugenics could prevent many of the ills of society like autism (not mild or Asperger), or Down syndrome. These people are prisoners of their own body, but I wouldn't go as far to say it should be forced, and I believe in time technology, and medical science will be just as effective if not more to deal with this.

autism is too polygenic to ever be stricken from the human genome. you run the risk of too many cascading effects that could result in a retard. for example, some of the genes linked to autism are also linked to language development. down syndrome and the other chromosome-linked genetic disorders maybe. mental retardation by itself is majorly caused by hypoxia during labor so eugenics wouldn't do fuck all for it.

I was referring to Muslims but all desert goat herders have a culture of inbreeding because of dowry and inheritance customs.

That's some heavy shit. I approve.

I'd support it for the purpose of eliminating severe and urgent inheritable illnesses. Besides that just fewer children in general would be a good idea.

Nurture can't completely trump nature.

...

thats not what i said fool and you dont get to hide your stupidity by falling back on obtuse language
two smart people are statistically more likely to have smart kids, do you know why? Even if their kids were adopted, do you know why?

admit it, thats the only one you could think of

this
people itt need to read a few books, at least

get into space pratice eugenics there, leave earth for teh 'meek'

CHECKMATE, EUGENICISTS

how about we leave fantasy for the righties and focus on what is real and possible here and now