What are the downsides to eugenics

>>257416731My goal is to promote rational thought, not endless pleas for subjective morals.

Relying on a governmental body to distinguish positive traits and bad ones for it's citizens should be self-evidently retarded regardless of where you fall.

>>257416737is that what you think is gunna happen in this thread? the promotion of rational thought?

>>257416739Yes

>>257416740You haven't been here very long have you?

>>257416737>dude fuck moralsso you're ok with children being raped

>>257416736>you're cheating nature out of its natural sexual selection, governments are inherently worse than nature because they do not possess all information that nature uses to make unconscious decisions.So you re against Pharmacies Drugs and Surgeries

>>257416736They have sex with whoever they want they cant have kids though

>>257416743I just said I don't believe in governments making decisions to cheat nature out of sexual selection specifically, what does that have to do with individuals wanting to maintain their health? As long as the government is not making a decision whether I can breed, I don't care what individuals do. I just want the decision to be made based on medical advice and their own ability to attract a mate.

>>257416727>>257416737>>257416734Taleb already BTFO eugenics in two tweets

Attached: Screenshot_20200514-020757_Twitter.jpg (810x2507, 803.09K)

>>257416727But but but my heavily curated Twitter feed told me that Swedes were the good whites? Are you telling me that all this time they were evil Nazis too? I can't, I just can't even anymore. Oh, if only I had a distant Cherokee ancestor like my best friend Tamantha to relieve me of this awful, awful guilt.

>>257416746Post the original

Attached: img_0312.jpg (828x1048, 183.64K)

>>257416727Here is the downside that shatters the whole concept:Nobody in the world can be trusted to decide who should and shouldn't reproduce.

>>257416744That still means the government is artificially restricting sexual selection. Do you understand what that means? Part of sexual selection is carrying a baby successfully to term.

>>257416736>natural sexual selectionI would agree if it were ancient times or we were talking about animals, but nowadays the worst people have the most children. Natural selection has gone out the window in modern humans.

>>257416751Define "worst people." I already know you mean "non-whites," but humor me.

>>257416751And by what metric do you judge these to be the "worst people"?

>>257416748>>257416748Ah yes, when the farmer had 100% full control over what kind of traits he preferred, and the animals had no say in the matter.I can’t wait for Jeff Bezos to decide what traits he wants Americans to have when eugenics is implanted in America. I’m sure he’ll greatly enhance humanity by turning the working class into mindless quarterhorses, just like those eugenics we’ve been doing in stables for hundreds of years!

>>257416727Necessity is the mother of invention.Outside of war, nothing has created more advances in civilization than those institutions and mechanisms created to deal with an lift up the genetically disadvantaged. Nearly every advancement in education has come from finding ways to teach the mentally handicap. Nearly every peacetime advancement in medicine has come about as part of an effort to enable those born with physical defects and conditions. Without civilization's most benign efforts, we would be a thousand years behind where we are now.Also, when you're in the middle of a global pandemic, advocating for genetic homogeneity does seem a bit retarded.

Attached: the_masterpiece_society-mandatory_for_eugenicists.png (1280x720, 780.58K)

>>257416727Yes and this is why Sweden works. The Jew lover neoliberal cuck Carl Bildt ended this program and opened the borders tho.

>>257416746Is this guy for real?Just because we don't know what each human will do in their life, that doesn't mean there aren't traits that could be universally beneficial/detrimental to humans that could potentially be bred out.It kind of sounds like he's just worried he'd be ineligible to breed.

>>257416752>>257416753Low income, high crime, shit out kids to get benefits, no responsibility, poor/no education.I live in Australia, so this group of people is almost all white. You need to stop thinking about race so much.

>>257416747They considered it necessary for the perennity of their welfare state.

Attached: Screenshot_20200514-081909_Chrome.jpg (1080x4566, 973.41K)

>>257416727Who's to say that you wouldn't practice Eugenics as a good thing when you'll end up using it to get rid of people you don't like because of whatever reason you make

>>257416758So what that says is that low income, high crime, low education people are superior. Otherwise they wouldn't be outbreeding smarter wealthier people.

>>257416727You don't know what you're throwing out. Hypothetically, let's say that mathematical genius comes with a bunch of bloatware, and then that bloatware is linked to madness of some kind that > 5 times out of 10 will overpower the genius part and lead to only the madness being evident. And that kid's name, was Albert Einstein.

>>257416761Why are you being intentionally dumb?

>>257416758The are trying to pull off a number 2,3 and 4>2)Demand evidence and move the goal post (when said evidence is delivered)/ demand additional evidence>3)Attempt to deconstruct pragmatic resoning so that their naive moral idealism stands a chance.>4) Give no counter argument exept a moral one

>>257416727Why create all the social upheaval that'd result from restrictive breeding programs, and doing things the hard way, when CRISPR is on the table?Fuck forced breeding programs and genocide, and all the war and random death that'd result from such an effort. Let's just design our better selves as we see fit - and instead of fighting against it, people will pay for the privilege!And I don't think Ethan Hawke hijacking one astronaut's rocket will really have much impact on the effort either.

>>257416758Firstly, thank God you weren't thinking about race. Sorry, it was a preemptive reflex from having to deal with the Holla Forumsyards that flood this board.>Low income, high crime, shit out kids to get benefits, no responsibility, poor/no educationThe thing about all of these is that they aren't genetic, they're social - unless you seriously buy into race stuff, there's no reason to think that better economic conditions as humanity moves towards post-scarcity will eventually eradicate poverty altogether. So why shoot ourselves in the foot by sterilizing all the poor people now, so our great-great-grandchildren will be lamenting how their retard ancestors killed off a large portion of a perfectly functional gene pool?

>>257416763You do understand how evolution works right? And even if you do follow through on your shitty plan you'd just result in the extinction of humanity because all the people who are breeding are suddenly no longer able to breed while the people who weren't breeding still aren't breeding.

>>257416766It has to be said that nevertheless non whites are absolute leaches when it comes to welfare states.

Attached: Screenshot_20200512-210738_Gallery.jpg (1428x995, 191.73K)

>>257416765> thinking you can do better than billions of years of evolutionYou must be a midwit engineer. One day people like you will create a grey goo or other similar abomination that will be the end of our species and all intelligent life in the universe.

>>257416767People who aren't breeding aren't doing so because they are beeing fiscally asphyxiated by the leeches and brainwashed by a decadent postmodernist ideology.

Attached: Screenshot_20200512-204724_Chrome.jpg (1440x1059, 316.76K)

>>257416764>>257416766>>257416767First of all, I never mentioned eugenics in my post and so I wasn't arguing in favour of it. Though this thread is about eugenics, so I understand.>>257416767You understand that society's existence has fucked with evolution, right? Those kind of people breed more because they have incentives that other people don't have. Be they artificial ones like getting more government money the more kids you have, or natural ones like having more hands to help with chores and stuff.This is not natural selection, they're not breeding more because they are more successful, they are breeding because breeding benefits the less successful moreso than the more successful.>>257416766It's okay. But as I said, I'm not actually pro-eugenics so you can just disregard this.

>>257416770>People who aren't breeding aren't doing so because they are beeing fiscally asphyxiated by the leeches and brainwashed by a decadent postmodernist ideology.So then Eugenics isn't the solution, you just gotta change the social aspects of society.

>>257416768>>257416770And kids, this is exactly how we know that a Holla Forumstard has entered the thread. Non-whites are poor because of centuries of economic imbalance in favor of Europeans leading to social stigmas against them - this reduces job opportunities, and therefore wages. NEXT

Attached: 1589327169072.jpg (768x1024, 113.85K)

>>257416769Well, that'd be a legacy to leave behind.But CRISPR doesn't create genetic code from scratch, you copy-paste the bits you like that nature has already created, and cut out the bits that aren't working for ya.Like that cornmeal product you probably ate a bit ago (say thank to Monsanto).Albeit, may have to iron out these gene patent laws first - be a bit of a problem if you found yourself copyrighted.

>>257416771>This is not natural selection, they're not breeding more because they are more successful, they are breeding because breeding benefits the less successful moreso than the more successful.Which is because of laws the more successful people put into place.

>>257416770You have to be 18 years or older to post on this site, user.

>>257416775>Which is because of laws the more successful people put into place.They have been put in place to ensure continued profit and stability, not the betterment of humanity.

>>257416777Welcome to humanity.

>>257416773>5)Resort to Name Calling in defeat.Hasn't Romania and Eastern Europe been exploited?What about asian non whites how come they are contributing?

>>257416777Well, if the more successful people aren't working for the betterment of humanity as you describe it...

>>257416776>5)Resort to Name Calling in defeat.

>>257416778Perhaps. I just wanted to make sure you didn't really think that bogans are the master race.>>257416780I don't understand this post.

>>257416742>acknowledging the falsity of archaic idealism>this means humans do not exhibit behaviors such as being against child rape

>>257416779As an Indian non-white, I can 100% confirm we and East Asians are held up as model minorities in the US, which causes a self-fulfilling prophecy of success - we are infinitely better off than blacks and Arabs, especially blacks.. On the other hand, Pakistanis in the UK are definitely lower middle class or working class even though they're Asian non-whites.

>>257416782>I don't understand this post.He's saying that your "more successful people" that we should breed more of are selfish assholes who create laws for profit at the expense of humanity.

>>257416732Wait a second... That's based!

>>257416782You're advocating for more of the sort of people you say aren't working for the betterment of humanity, via breeding manipulation.This seems self defeating, if your goal is the betterment of humanity.

>>257416754>eugenics works but we should be careful that we don't have evil men using it>weapon x works but we should be careful that we don't have evil men using itthis isn't an argument against husbandry, its an argument against evil men

>>257416784Based Bactrian descendent

>>257416785>>257416787Again, I am not 'pro-eugenics'. But I am also not 'pro-poor and stupid people are the master race because they have more kids'.

>>257416727This isn't Holla Forums. Issue here is not the subject, but that you've already made this about politics. It's not that it isn't a good thing to discuss, but you're a disingenuous poltard and you aren't looking for an actual discussion. What you're looking for is an echo chamber to confirm all of your beliefs and leak your cancerous board abroad. For your own sake fuck off to Holla Forums. It's a rule and not just my preference.

>>257416788Except evil men are a constant of humanity across every time in our recorded history, why would we promote a stance which gives them more power to be evil?

>>257416766>Firstly, thank God you weren't thinking about race. Sorry, it was a preemptive reflex from having to deal with the Holla Forumsyards that flood this board.Phew, sure am glad RACE didn't come into it, I am SOOOO glad its WHITE people who are being denigrated XDDDDahhhh, too much Holla Forums on this board

Attached: 1587749392491.jpg (500x500, 35.36K)

>>257416791>5)Resort to Name Calling in defeat.

>>257416794>4) Give no counter argument except a moral one

>>257416793>Phew, sure am glad RACE didn't come into it, I am SOOOO glad its WHITE people who are being denigrated XDDDDahhhh, too much Holla Forums on this boardWhere am I denigrating white people in that post, you knuckledragger? Please return to your containment board - all you people do is bitch and moan about yt being killed off, and anybody who wants races to be equally considered is a contributed to "white genocide."

Attached: 1589262411948.png (1345x1145, 753.48K)

>>257416790Ah, lost track of my Anons - so you just wanna sterilize stupid people?Seems it'd be the onus of the smart people to breed faster. If they don't want to breed faster than the stupid people, then obviously the line is defective, trading collective survival instinct for individual intellect.On the other hand, you don't need as many alphas as you need deltas. Maybe the balance of a small number of smart folks directing a large number of dumb folks is ideal afterall, and our natural tendencies are leading to a balance more ideal than it appears on the surface.If not - back to the CRISPR argument then. If life gives you lemons, make lemon-grenades. Seriously though, I don't think mankind's evolutionary destiny is complete, until he's defining it for himself.

>>257416796>4) Give no counter argument exept a moral one>5)Resort to Name Calling in defeat.

>>257416798>4) Give no counter argument exept a moral one

>>257416773>non-whites are poor>what are South Asians>what are East Asians>what are Nigerians (highest IQ africans)lol, seems like only low IQ people are poornice argument btw, pejoratives... very convincing

>>257416797I don't want to sterilise anybody. Although I do think that voluntary sterilisation should be more readily available than it is. And you get a cookie or something like when you give blood.

>>257416797>On the other hand, you don't need as many alphas as you need deltas. Maybe the balance of a small number of smart folks directing a large number of dumb folks is ideal afterall, and our natural tendencies are leading to a balance more ideal than it appears on the surface.As the economy gets more automated, reasoning skills become essential to contribute to society.Also I am not opposed to Crispr.

We've pretty much already reached a post-evolutionary threshold, where the value of information based evolution far, far outpaces genetic evolution. In the past 10,000 years, information evolution has taken us from subsistence farming to the moon, and in all time, all genetic evolution has given us is slightly better lactose tolerance. Many of those who advanced society the most had no children, that's just maintenance now, and no amount of breeding selection is going to counter that fact, particularly when information evolution has taken us to the edge of re-writing our own genetic code.

>>257416784>we are seen as good therefore we are successfulare you sure you're not seen as good because you are successful?Is that argument that if blacks were idolized such as being overrepresented in media, music, film, erotic films, etc. that they would then as a racial group sky rocket to success?ok, Then why don't they?

>>257416801>more readily availableHow? Vasectomies and tube ties are cheap as far as medical procedures go.

>>257416733This, god given rights are a right wing thing. The only way to make socialism viable is population control so population stops growing at the rate of capital.

>>257416792>why would we promote a stance which gives them more power to be evil?It takes away their power, it allows us to breed morally just humans because moral behaviors are in some part determined by genetics.What's more, you could argue that guns are bad, weapons are bad in general, science is bad, anything that raises man above a beast in the field is bad lol.Literally everything we've ever developed for good can be used for a greater evil in some way.

>>257416807>3)Attempt to deconstruct pragmatic resoning so that their naive moral idealism stands a chance.

>>257416758>Low income, high crime, shit out kids to get benefits, no responsibility, poor/no educatio>almost all white>>257416766>Firstly, thank God you weren't thinking about race>weren't thinking about race>almost all whiteYou meant thank god he wasn't thinking about non-whites.Clearly you are anti-white. You are a pajeet with an inferiority complex.>>257416796>too much Holla Forumscalling out racist nonsense (even If its against white people) is Holla Forums?trolling?>white genocidewhat lol?>equalityhuh?You have a prefabricated Idea of who I am and what I think, I am just calling out your insecurity driven racism against whites.

Attached: 1587752617252.jpg (500x741, 43.56K)

>>257416731>saying you don't want low quality discussion is the same as saying you don't want any discussioncmon now

>>257416794I'm not even arguing for or against anything. This is Holla Forumsoutside of Holla Forums. You have yourself away with the "lefties" line.I do think some sort of eugenics are necessary part of any modern state, but I'm not in favour of anything too intrusive; if you give the means of intrusive eugenics to governments which can be influenced by people with profit as their highest end goal in terms of success there is no reason why they wouldn't breed a whole race of intelligent, but submissive cattle like humans to serve their agenda. I think future will be more in favour of more active genetic selection when conceiving, as in selecting good genes a la Gattaca, rather than outright giving vasectomies to retards. There's also a lot of advance in technology to support disabled that are otherwise intellectually fit to contribute to society; besides the whole "contribute" to society is more in line with leftist ideology anyways, especially the more authoritian. You don't know all the ends it could possibly entail, yet you pretend it's an infallible tool to enchance humanity.On the line of leftists again: lots of leftist ideologies would potentially actually be for eugenics. It's retarded to assume that left is merely your buzzword for some average Joe with "Liberal" beliefs which are basically a centrist mish mash of establishment beliefs, most of which aren't even explicitly left or right. Yeah I also do believe in name calling. Arguments due stem from people. Dismantling their line of thought is a first, second is recognising it takes a faggot newfag in the first place to shit up this board with pol shitposting thread. Why don't you make more threads about "them" and how your strawmen about genocides disproves them in the first place lol. Go fuck yourself.

>>257416807>because moral behaviors are in some part determined by genetics.At risk of going down the nature vs. nurture debate, while you might be able to breed temperament, and certainly empathy in general is instinctual, actual morals are almost exclusively learned. Best you can hope for is for a better tendency towards compassion - but that doesn't always lead to more ethical behavior. Sometimes the most compassionate thing to do, turns out to ultimately be the most monstrous....and society and circumstance can easily smash even the most core instinctual moral behavior entirely. Have had enough historical agrarian societies, extended beyond their means, where mothers were gleefully eating their babies when it rained on a new moon, and such, to demonstrate that.>What's more, you could argue that guns are bad, weapons are bad in general, science is bad, anything that raises man above a beast in the field is bad lol.Read much Timothy McVeigh?

>>257416811Well, there's probably a reason why Planned Parenthood was primarily founded and funded by rich white republicans.Basically sounds like all you want is for birth control to be more readily available to the unwashed masses.

Population control is socialist.Capitalism requires increasing population because otherwise gdp won't keep going up.

>>257416814Lower taxes and higher salaries also create gdp growth

>>257416809I have no inferiority complex, Mr. Cletus of deep Alabama. I simply want equal extension of rights and opportunities to everyone based on merit instead of certain races being pushed up or down based on past inequalities. Unfortunately, that's not possible in the status quo because those inequalities are still structural and engrained unconsciously into civil society in the US and European countries. I don't blame white people of today for this at all and I'm not one of the people who believe in gibs for slavery and all that: I blame a legacy of colonialism that has unconsciously given whites in white society a superiority complex even over minorities more successful than them.This is a cultural thing, and per what the OP is saying, he wants to neuter undesirables - I see no undesirables of any race or class, as I believe poverty is a result of social factors rather than innate "low IQ" for any race. Therefore, I believe better social conditioning and movement towards a post-scarcity society will end the poverty meme and make this thread obsolete.Tl;dr: I'm sorry if I assumed you to be a Holla Forumstard that bases their arguments on the superiority of white Europeans to all others, as compared to equality for all.

>>257416813Birth control is good, yes. Countries that don't have it are poor shitstans.It's even more clearly you're just a poltard now. The fact is you aren't arguing for your position by any means other than claiming that some sort of imaginary "lefties" are gonna get "mad and BTFO xD". Listen, shit face, next time actually put in some sort of effort before shitposting and killing a thread with five replies because OP wasn't a baiting a poltard.>>257416814Of course it's the lefties why there is so much immigration to first wolrd, it's not like industries don't benefit from cheap workforce. It's amazing how blind these faggots are.

>>257416746Taleb continually makes a fool of himself and really should just be ignored but I'll take the bait>we, humans, would never know ahead of time *what* to select for.What a dumb criticism. How about genetic defects and general purpose traits that were likely only hampered by caloric scarcity in the wild?I am having a really hard time imagining a world where selection for greater intelligence and vitality are a bad thing.

Attached: Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb_iq_k9ymn.png (698x841, 114.47K)

>>257416812there is no nature vs nurture, one could theoretically breed out all negative or evil thoughts/actions from a population if given a long enough time and with a developed enough process of genetic husbandry.>actual morals are exclusively learnedwell, not really, Basic morals are more or less instinctual, and come through basic human interaction, idealistic morals that only retards who in fantasy land want are learned because they have to be due to them having no real evolutionary value.>mothers eating their babies when it rainedfind me 10 societies that did this and persisted.actually find me 1 society that did this an persisted, its a self correcting problem.>Timothy McVeighno? I think he tried to attack a bunch of children to lash out at the government or something? Why is he important?You are arguing against poor morals, not against husbandry

>>257416817>It's even more clearly you're just a poltard now. Not the same guy - but yeah, I did bring up the republican's pre-1980's support for abortion for shiggles, my bad.

>>257416818He's not wrong in the screencap. For most part it measures if someone is retarded or not.

>>257416819"I feel bad when he feels bad" is instinctual."I think we should make laws regarding securities manipulation by preventing mixed market financial assets" - not so much so.Think you are severely overestimating what behavior you can reliably create through breeding alone. You might, in the distant future, be able to program something akin to the laws of robotics into the genome, but at the moment, it's just various levers of collectivist heard instinct vs. individual survival instinct, and shifting either of those levers too high or too low, leaves you with a broken product.

>>257416819>find me 10 societies that did this and persisted.>actually find me 1 society that did this an persisted, its a self correcting problem.Well, it tends to be something that crops up in a society pushed to its edge, and usually its end comes shortly after, or the society corrects and abandons the practice of mass human sacrifice or what... But for a few hundred years at least, you see this sorta thing among the Aztecs, the Maya, and various failed european and mediterranean societies. Obviously not sustainable, but demonstrates that the empathy instinct, and even the mother instinct, can be stamped out, fairly easily. The instinct exists for a reason, however, so yes, it isn't sustainable.On the other hand, Tosh.0 and reality television like Fear Factor, is still a thing. Schadenfreude is pretty rampant, and always has been. Probably a result of the opposing hierarchical instinct, which also makes civilization possible, being allowed to run a little wild.

>>257416727notice how sweden went to shit when they stopped? Although the leftist took over in 68 and eugenics stopped in the mid 70s. Sweden is so goddam corrupt and evil now. At least in the past they cared for their own people.

>>257416821He is very wrong in the screencap and the two main counterpoints IMO are :1. IQ is informative at the high end too, it has a super-linear correlation with inventing stuff, and continued linear relationship with stuff like income, but even if it didn't it would still be a "measure". Taleb somehow embarrassingly doesn't know basic statistics.2. IQ's predictiveness is often better than "work sample tests" and regardless is always independent of them, so giving someone both will give you more predictive power than dismissing IQ for unknown, albeit necessarily nonscientific, reasons.It is slightly off-topic and I don't want this thread to have to contain any of the done-to-death arguments over IQ though.

Attached: Untitled.png (1575x1051, 309.04K)

>>257416824Is that why they failed to lock down during the COVID crisis, and now have well over ten times the death count of their neighbors in Finland and Norway as a result?I'm onto you, Andrew Breivik.

>>257416754>Ah yes, when the farmer had 100% full control over what kind of traits he preferred, and the animals had no say in the matter.Speaking of, a lot of domestic breeds have big health problems, and the fittest ones are landraces and less-derived ones.

>>257416827Even the healthy and efficient ones tend to be one-trick ponies sorta speak. ...and then, yes, there's pugs.I mean, unless you want to go full Brave New World and start breeding up specific lines for specific purposes (even then, you are FAR better off with direct genetic manipulation than eugenics)... How does the old quote go?"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - L. LongYeah, that was it.

>>257416816>I have no inferiority complex, Mr. Cletus of deep Alabama.lol sure, you've just now demonstrated your bankruptcy of self confidence and healthy self image.You instantly associate any intellectual opposition to your anti white racism as some revenge of the low class troglodytes of The South.>I want equality You have equality. American blacks with high IQ perform just as well as American whites with similar IQs, its not a race question, its an IQ question.>inequalities such as? Give an example of such inequality in practice.>subconscious an unfalsifiable original sin which can never be cleansed without total anti-white or counter white indoctrination of societynice lol...>even over minorities more successful than themI have never ever seen this, ever, whites are the most self flagellating group by far, lower rates of positively viewed self ability, more anxiety, greater risk of depression. >poverty is the result of social factors rather than an intelligence deficitok, show me the social factors necessary to take a 60IQ individual with low functioning autism and turn them into a Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, or Elon Musk.actually, don't even shoot for the stars, just turn them into a net gain for society lol.>social conditioninganti-white indoctrination?I am not a racist, I am a white supremacist.Your people aren't going to the moon, whites did, Pajeets did not invent the combustion engine, flight, or penicillin.Whether it be genetic or environmental, whites have proven to be superior among men. You think they got lucky from magical environment handing them everything, I think they evolved in environments that selected for intelligence, creativity, work ethic, etc. But we are both white supremacists no?Or did Europeans not go to the moon, invent the telephone, invent faster than horse/boat travel etc?

Attached: lasse.png (700x819, 710.7K)

Can't wait for humans to be genetically bred to be superior, just like how we bred dogs to be better than wolves

Attached: Pug.jpg (1200x800, 710.28K)

>>257416827>>257416830There is a fair body of research on the minimum amount of genetic diversity needed to avoid the kinds of problems pugs have.We have plenty of genetic diversity to avoid this and we know when it starts to happen.>In 2008, an investigative documentary carried out by the BBC found significant inbreeding between pedigree dogs, with a study by Imperial College, London, showing that the 10,000 Pugs in the UK are so inbred that their gene pool is the equivalent of only 50 individuals.Just don't thin out 50 people's worth of genetic material into 10,000 people and you'll be fine.

>>257416822>"I think we should make laws regarding securities manipulation by preventing mixed market financial assets" - not so much so.thisis just a more articulate a modern version of >"I feel bad when he feels bad">at the momentand? The whole contention is the value of altering populations through breeding patterns, if it is theoretically possible then it deserves to be brought up.In any case, there isn't an argument here against eugenics.

>>257416832>a more articulateSo nothing like it.>and?>there isn't an argument here against eugenicsIt's not feasible and reliant on what-if's as if it were certainties. That's reason enough.

>>257416823>it crops upno it doesn't.It is rarely if ever seen.>MesoAmericans and Neolithic Europeans didn't occur in either society.>stamped out yet not every mother ate their child, if any did, in fact I simply don't believe you lol, there is just no evidence of this.>fairly easilyDefine "easily". Most mothers choose to die rather than lose their children...Driving people capable of such things to such a point requires a monumental effort. Both groups you mentioned were already on the brink of extermination, utter annihilation. They also didn't do what you think they were doing.

>>257416826>Sweden is now immune to China virus forever while everyone else is struggling

>>257416828>Specialization is for insects.ironically anti-eugenics anti-whites idolize the age of the so called expert, the specialist, and the manager.

>>257416833if you unpack>"I think we should make laws regarding securities manipulation by preventing mixed market financial assets"a few layers you get to >"I feel bad when others feel bad">"Why should we make laws regarding securities manipulation?">"Because it's unfair/unstable/ruins people financially/etc">"Why should we care if it's unfair/ruins people financially/etc?">"Because it makes people feel bad which makes me feel bad"

>>257416831Mate, the problem isn't just about inbreeding, it's about how we selected for certain traits, and didn't do quite a good job at it.And to quote some guy earlier, if the smartest, most successful guys on the planet are indirectly encouraging the underclass to reproduce, instead of them, simply due to greed and short-sightedness(and this habit of elites pursuing unsustainable practices with short-term gains applies to a lot of things, from markets, to the environment),it's not absurd to think they'd min-max humans in ways that are idiotic, too.

>>257416727>What are the downsides to eugenicsThey would just breed the perfect golem that never questions the authorities and fills Mr. Eugensteins pockets with precious shekels.

>>257416825Source for all claims please. I want to read them.

>>257416840No you don't fuck off

>>257416833>I do not like you>I can not stand you, your very being conjures up feelings of disgust and disturbs my innermost beingWow, a more complex statement, it must have totally different meaning>not feasibleyes it is, Sweden has proven it, animal husbandry has proven it.>reliant on what ifs100% of science is what-ifs, there is and can be no absolutism in any field of science>inb4 axiometric mathematics is science like physics, biology, etc.>we cant be absolutely certain about something therefore we shouldn't do itOk, no one knew if the combustion engine would work, I suppose it was a dangerous and failed endeavor, ultimately fruitless.No one knew if Guns would be capable of replacing Swords/bows, they were far less reliable and did less damage than an axe cleave. I suppose firearms will never take off and guns will become another example of an unreliable theoretical that failed because it was not 100% predictable in its results

>>257416838And this is when they KNOW it will be bad.With genetics, a lot of genes interact with others, so you might end up with 40% of the population becoming schizophrenics 20 years down the line, because some gene-mod interacts with some other common latent gene.

>>257416837Fairness is irrelevant to personal feelings by definition, and if your example of innate morality is four layers deep of possibly disagreeable praxis, you are just proving my point.

>>257416838>,it's not absurd to think they'd min-max humans in ways that are idiotic, too.>because a bunch of peasants can use guns to overthrow their governments, we should not even think about developing firearmsimagine being retarded.You are citing theoretical problems which no population that practiced eugenics ever encountered.You have no argument other than a theoretical which literally does not and has not existed ever anywhere.

>>257416836Eh, what exactly do you think a eugenics program would require? (Or what "white man's burden" entails, for that matter.) So-called experts, specialists, and managers, as far as the eye can goddamned see, not to mention a massive police state to keep it all in line, and make sure no one got yellow fever, or what not.>>257416832>The whole contention is the value of altering populations through breeding patternsDunno about the value, but the effectiveness is shit, given the resulting resistance, and the alternatives on the table. There's nothing any amount of selective genetic breeding can do that'd ever hope to catch up with information based evolution. Even if you just want all the darkies gone, for whatever reason, efficiency wise, better off cooking up a virus.

>>257416840>youtube.com/watch?v=fSXYhnrwjQE

>>257416844fairness is not irrelevant to feelings what are you smoking

>>257416843that's not how genes work lolAre you just forgetting that nature has been practicing eugenics on humans for literally millions of years?Where are these populations of shizos?

>>257416848>you committed a crime and now you will be punished for it >"but I don't want to be punished I feel like they deserved it">ok we will let you go then because your feelings determine fairness and you felt you were only giving them their fair do

>>257416845Guns are useful for defence, by both public and private entities.Eugenics is a state-wide policy, made by the gov(unless you wanna be like Mass Effect, and have parents shop for minor gene-mods)

>>257416846>what would eugenics requiregiving benefits to intelligent and moral people, penalizing immoral and unintelligent people, literally a state of nature. Just removing the cult of egalitarianism from society would promote this.>it would require experts and a police state etcSource? Sweden didn't have these things, 1920s America didn't have these things.In fact the most successful eugenics practicing countries have historically been the MOST free lol.you're clearly informed by movies and Hollywood on what social restructuring is.

>>257416849Nature doesn't select for genes, it selects for survival and desirability, all of which accounts for a varied dataset far too wide and dynamic for man's current technology to adequately predict or analyze.Otherwise, every Tinder swipe would lead directly to happily ever after.

>>257416842>yes it isThen why is it one of the most decried periods of practiced medicine?>Sweden has proven itProve it.>animal husbandry has proven itNot feasible for a human population that isn't in a cage. Where are your points, user?>100% of science is what-ifsWay to miss the point. What is the gene for 'intelligence', user? We'll wait.>all or nothingAnother missed point or downright strawman. You have to prove the basis of your eugenic system first instead of relying on naturalistic fallacies, or at the very least make an argument that the negatives will be outweighed by the positives. Ironically, the certainty of your proposition isn't certain save for some of the worst crimes and abuses of human life possible.

>>257416849>that's not how genes work lolIt's called epistasis.

>>257416851eugenics are useful for both public and private individuals, are you forgetting that everyone benefits from eugenics as a whole? A population that practices eugenics will be in 100 years better off than they were previously, every individual as well as the entire genetic cluster.>state-wide policy made by the governmentand? So what? You mean it will be as mundane as social services and 1000x more beneficial?Wheres the deficit of any kind?

>>257416855en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistasisthat's not what epistasis is.

>>257416850I wash the oranges and you take out the apples every week.Is that a fair arrangement or not?

>>257416856>Wheres the deficit of any kind?Coercion, issues with desirability, and equality.

>>257416858>no argument

>>257416852>1920s America didn't have these things.Only a smattering of states had laws against mixed race marriages, and those laws were never well enforced. Not really a eugenics program, so much as some haphazard Jim Crow laws. Sweden was so racially homogenous there was nothing to enforce.Besides, if you really want a eugenics program, whites aren't even in the top three highest IQ races - so obviously you wouldn't want them to be a part of it. It'd be nothing but Jews and various asians.

>>257416853>nature doesn't select for genesYes it does.>it selects for survivalnope, what survives is being selected, nature has not successfully killed it therefore it may continue, that is selection of organisms and organisms are 100% genes.>all of which accounts for a varied dataset far too wide and dynamic for man's current technology to adequately predict or analyze.So animal husbandry and agricultural cultivation is doomed to fail and could never ever work with our current technology, let alone stone age technology lol.....

Attached: untitled.png (500x498, 185.43K)

>>257416860you didn't answer the question.Tell me whether that arrangement is fair or not without knowing how either party feels about it.

>>257416857>that's not what epistasis is.>Epistasis is a phenomenon in genetics in which the effect of a gene mutation is dependent on the presence or absence of mutations in one or more other genes, respectively termed modifier genes. In other words, the effect of the mutation is dependent on the genetic background in which it appears>because some gene-mod interacts with some other common latent gene.Yes, nigga, that's precisely what im talking about.Genes triggering other genes, which result in some malady happening.

>>257416863You didn't present an argument. How is feeling bad related to fairness, a concept that hinges on being impartial.

>>257416859>Coercion, issues with desirability, and equality.and where's the deficit? We already have those in dating already lol.Why didn't these alleged deficits sink Sweden, or all of humanity since sexual selection is a type of soft eugenics lol.better to make everyone chad now than to continue to suffer.

>>257416858no, I think I'm going to pound you if you don't both.

Attached: 1588609348776.jpg (1280x720, 50.55K)

>>257416862>So animal husbandry and agricultural cultivation is doomed to fail and could never ever work with our current technology, let alone stone age technology lol.....Animal husbandry is forced breeding of animals, in pursuit of simple traits, not eugenics.And even that is more complicated.Please read this, to realize what complex process upon the organism even that is:breedingback.blogspot.com/2015/01/dedomestication-series-pt-i-from-wild.html

>>257416866>We already have those in dating already lol.Incel.>Why didn't these alleged deficits sink SwedenThey're paying for it right now with checks to the surviving victims. Better question is why they apparently stopped when everything was going so well?>sexual selection is soft eugenicsRetard or trolling. You get your (you).

>>257416861>eugenics is confined to interracial mixingLOLThe United States had racial eugenics, and regular intraracial intraethnic eugenics and suffered no penalties.Sweden had intraethnic eugenics and likewise suffered no penalties.I like how you had to deflect my direct question because you've been btfo so hard.>Besides, if you really want a eugenics program, whites aren't even in the top three highest IQ races - so obviously you wouldn't want them to be a part of it. It'd be nothing but Jews and various asians.absolute retard alert.No one wants Eugenics to exclusively make the intelligent more intelligent, Eugenics ought to be done to make even stupid as fuck Africans more intelligent, attractive, hardworking, etc.It should be used by Africans for Africans.It should be used by whites for whites.also.. White elites are more intelligent than Jewish and East Asian elites.

Attached: IQ.png (547x525, 204.09K)

>>257416862It doesn't select for specific genes - its a whole collective and recombination of genes that survive, in a largely randomized fashion, often because other beings in the collective have genes that just edged by selection. Otherwise, no one would live past breeding age, and the whole effort would be for naught.>So animal husbandry and agricultural cultivation is doomed to fail and could never ever work with our current technology, let alone stone age technology lol.....Again, all highly specialized, and many in such a way that would be, in any but a very specific environment provided for them, absolutely fatal.Mankind cannot afford that level of specialization, and even if you could create such a mix of lines that would, you'd be much better off offering genetic alteration to achieve it, than enforcing haphazard breeding programs on a world that has latched onto the idea of nobel love.All in addition to the simple fact that the information we pass on through knowledge, has long since supplanted the information we pass on through genes, which we on the verge of writing for ourselves as a result.

>>257416864no, nigger its not.selective breeding does not run these risks.Epistasis has nothing to do with it, you are assuming gene interactions THAT ALREADY OCCUR NATURALLY are going to cause some catastrophe if they occur slightly more often than how they already do.>genes triggering other genesre-read the wikipage, idiot.

>>257416870>The United States had racial eugenics, and regular intraracial intraethnic eugenics and suffered no penalties.Not on any scale or level of enforcement that would have made any difference to the populous at large... And certainly at no point so sophisticated that we were picking out some specific asian to breed with some specific jew to get the best hybrid children or such.Dunno much about Sweden's history with the same bullshit, but I'm betting on a similar story, in addition to not having much to mix and match with to begin with.

>>257416727Because it’s immoral.Soulless practicality is not good

>>257416867impartial is just a synonym of fair brainletExplain to me how a non-quantifiable situation can be unfair if all parties involved, uncoerced, say it is fair.This should be possible if feelings and fairness are not related.

>>257416872Tell that to all the hemophiliacs in the royal family.>>257416874It's not practical nor efficient, even if you are soulless.

Attached: omfg.png (900x610, 897.18K)

>>257416874>soulless>>>Holla Forums

>>257416875>>257416865

>>257416854>why is it decried Why do you think it is? Is it abhorred on moral grounds or for its scientific and practical failure?Uh... You do realize the Nazis kind of sank eugenics when they trigger a bunch of Jews to rail against selective breed and any form of conscious racial health right?Eugenics was NOT defeated in any intellectual or scientific arena, its opposition is entirely of a moral nature.>he believes animals were in cages when being selected forlol. You know nothing of the history of agriculture or selective breeding of animals.Animals were not caged, undesirable animals were given less females (not completely devoid of females), and were removed from the herd as a whole, the entire herd's lifestyle was relatively unchanged post contact with humans, their ranging area was now safer but less extensive, kind of like society today lol...>your pointsEugenics is beneficial to a population, it is practical, it is useful, it is possible, and it has been tried and met with resounding success in terms of practicality and improving health of populations generally.I fail to see your points though, you're just claiming things about eugenics not working because its immoral or something?>miss the pointwhat lol? Your contention was that eugenics lacks predictability and replicability (it doesn't any more than any other field of biology) and therefore it couldn't work. I btfo you when I stated the self evident fact science is not 100% predictable and replicable.>what is the gene for intelligenceoh wow what a zinger, watch thisThe Gene for intelligence IS.... the gene for intelligence.>well you cant name it therefore it doesn't exist people are not genetic structures in an environment they are magical beings endowed with intelligence by a maleficent god who delights in making one person arbitrarily dumber than anotherIn all seriousness, go ask a female what the gene for "chadness" is. Guess women have it all wrong since they cant name every gene

>>257416854Since women can not name every gene in the body of a desirable male they are obviously not qualified to select men, the inverse is also true. Humans are not capable of selecting mates based on knowledge of traits lol...>naturalistic fallacyIts not a fallacy, it was created by a man who believed in a metaphysical good and evil. We are not apes, we are not archaic humans, we can observe morality in terms of human preference and behavior.>prove your basis of your eugenic system firstIt works and its beneficial. As proven by Sweden, by The United States, by human interaction in pre-modern nature lol...>the worst crimes and abuses of human life possibleHolodomor? The holocaust?Papuan genocide?Atlantic slavery?Arab slavery?South Asian slavery? Rape of MENA by Mongols?Do tell, what eugenic policies did the Nazis (and everyone else cite) -WHAT SPECIFIC POLICY IN LAW BASED ON GENETIC SCIENCE- did they cite?Your reasoning here is absurd. Wanting resources has led more deaths than all of these things combined LOL guess we should abolish the desire for resources. wanting women is the same story, I suppose we ought to abolish women to stop conflict as well..man you are just dumb

>>257416868>forcednope, not all husbandry is forced and historically it took the nature of simply removing undesirables. The way you use forced makes it seem like stallions and mares have an aversion to reproduction..is that really your case? That humans are going to have an aversion to something they already do?>not eugenicsnope, that's a form of eugenics.Any selective breeding is on the same cline as eugenics.>organisms are complex therefore....therefore they cant be selectively bred????But we know that's wrong?Please state an actual argument lmao

>>257416879>Is it abhorred on moral grounds or for its scientific and practical failure?Have you considered the fact that it might be both?It's great, if you want to breed a dog that delivers whisky to people but can't provide its own food nor defend itself, or a farm animal so docile you can practically butcher it alive... It's not so great for creating an adaptable being capable of working both collectively and individually, sufficiently pacifist and defiant, to be a benefit to an entire civilization for generations, regardless of what challenges may arise, when no one individual in that collective really has a solid grasp of what those traits actually entail, beyond that they would like it to be a mirror of themselves.>The Gene for intelligence IS.... the gene for intelligence.There is no single universal gene for all varieties of intelligence. You even can breed smart guys all you want, but they'll always be lacking in some other critical faculty that'll leave a society made up of nothing but, blind to critical realities that will eventually crush them all. (Speaking as someone who has seen what happens when the fire alarm goes off at the Kiwanis Bowl.)

>>257416869>incelso no answer.>paying for it with checks to surviving victimsthis bad? MANY people would take money to be taken out of the gene pool.>survivorsgive me a fucking break or Ill stop replying to your retarded ass, you make sound as if they were lining up retards and drowning them in lakes or shooting them in alleysCan you be any more intellectually dishonest.Stop poisoning the well.>why they stoppedThey were blasted by moralizers in the 60s and 70s and threatened with sanctions by (((Western Powers))) whom as well all know had an axe grind against various eugenically minded Europeans because the Nazis autistically co-opted physics, mathematics, biology, and mythology to explain their right to power and their right to do whatever they wanted.>literal selective breeding is not similar to eugenicsfuck off retard.Women are selective breeders.Eugenics grew out of selective breeding, husbandry grew out of selective breeding.Eugenics need not be forced insemination, it could be as simple as fucking sperm banks saying "take this IQ test and be over 6'" oh wait... they are already SUCCESSFULLY doing that lol

>>257416873>Not on any scale or level of enforcement that would have made any difference to the populous at large... And certainly at no point so sophisticated that we were picking out some specific asian to breed with some specific jew to get the best hybrid children or such.What is your point?That American Eugenics weren't widespread enough and thus shouldn't exist?I mean, what's the argument here, there isn't one.That was American eugenics and it worked.>it didn't have an effectYes it did, we have slightly better people today than we would have had. Who is saying eugenics is necessarily a rapid population overturn? You realize selective breeding in animals/plants occurred not over night instead it was thousands of years right???Sweden is a smaller population and they are better off for it.Youre just assuming things, making non arguments.Youre just a retard

>>257416875if not all parties say it is fair?>>257416876>eugenics will lead to negative genetic traitsdo you even understand that eugenics as a field of practice was created to AVOID the very problem you are saying it will encounter?

>>257416882>There is no single universal gene for all varieties of intelligence.while there is some truth to "different intelligences" it is mostly an meme overstated to expediance. Most of the a priori varied intelligence-testing tasks are really just testing general intelligenceen.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)Also, if it turns out "Situational Intelligence" is a Special Intelligence somehow not being selected for when we select for G, why not simply, you know, select for situational intelligence as well?Do you think we wouldn't be able to detect it? Your anecdote kind of says the opposite.

>>257416746cringe

>>257416884>That was American eugenics and it worked.It wasn't really a eugenics program, and it didn't do dick.>>257416885>do you even understand that eugenics as a field of practice was created to AVOID the very problem you are saying it will encounter?Genetic engineering might be. Eugenics just gives rise to new problems you didn't knew you had, as the more homogenous your genetic pool, the more synergistic the effects. Unless you have natural breeding stock on the side to break it all down and start over again with, or can genetically engineer them away (and if you can, your eugenics program was pointless from the start), you're stuck with the results, and your masterpiece society is doomed.

>>257416888>it worked>nuh uh>ya huh>nuh uhstellar debate between you two lmao

>>257416882>that it might be bothHave you considered there is absolutely no evidence for the latter?>selective breeding has been used to create specialist animals you realize its created more practical and generally more apt animals as well correct, such as the german shepherd?You realize animals can still go feral and thrive in the wild right?You are aware of these things and thus how retarded you sound when you say things like "SelEctiVE bREeDINg IN HumaNS wilL cREAte sPesSHul AutoMaToNS tHaT ARE No LoNGEr EvEN HumAN XDDD">its not great for being adaptable, working collectively and individually, -you insert your preference for a domesticated type here, ironically-, to be a benefit to an entire civilization for generationsSays who? Due to SOME animals being more specialized?>no individual has a solid grasp of what traits are neededYes we do, that's why humans selecting mates thus far hasn't been an absolute catastrophe. increasing the number of offspring from well selected individuals (high IQ, attractive, hardworking etc.) would ONLY benefit the society.Give me an instance in which a band of Swedes like Dolph Lundgren are inferior to a band of downies and I will concede the argument.>there is no single universal gene for intelligenceyes and?There are typically no single genes for anything, its a combination of genes in tandum that produce basically everything except for a select few. >smart people are lacking in some way>every advantage comes with a disadvantageThis is a very juvenile view of the world, with a sort of magical karma thinking, there's a term for what you're doing but I cant remember it.This is just not realistic. A Dolph Lundgren is superior in every way to an individual with low functioning autism.Give a counter example and I will concede, show me an example in which a Dolph Lundgren would be an inferior.

>>257416888>It wasn't really a eugenics program, and it didn't do dick.It was selective breeding that I advocate should be brought back.It definitely prevented some mixed race marriages and prevented some stupid people from mixing.You say it didn't do anything, but I think youre the type who if a planted seed doesn't become a tree within a week you'll claim the endeavor is fruitless.Still. wheres the argument against eugenics?>genetic engineering might beThat's on the same cline as eugenics.>eugenics gives rise to new problemsgive literally 1 single example of this as a direct result of eugenics.>making your genepool homogenousyou mean similarity of alleles but....not what eugenics does>more synergistic effectsno? Theres no way to test this. But... small populations such as HGs seemed to do, and still today do, just fine.you are talking about genetic meltdown, which has never occurred due to properly implemented eugenics.>your masterpiece society is doomedtell that to all the horses which are today larger, stronger, fiercer, and more capable IN THE WILD TODAY than they were 20,000 years ago.Tell that to all the Polynesians meeting with stunning success in physical contact sports.You know what, just to go every genetically bottlenecked population and tell them they theoretically shouldn't exist.

Attached: 1588266102725.jpg (309x245, 17.95K)

from an objective, psychopathic standpoint, less genetic diversity & lower growththe moral reasons are so abundant and obvious i wont even bother listing them

>>257416892>enters mature thread to post "wow just wow"

Attached: 1572475027443.png (580x500, 272.56K)

>>257416893>mature discussion>post cartoon drawings of girls

Attached: intoletrash.jpg (680x680, 80.62K)

I never understand humans. Eugenics is normal in dog and cat breeding but if you do it to humans its nazi. Hypocricy of man

>>257416727I am not a leftist, but I do think that we did eugenics wrong for many reasons. To begin with, our eugenics program was based on racial pseudoscience. By that I mean that some ideas had risen to prominence regarding, for example, what a proper skull was supposed to look like and what it was not supposed to look like. This was long before the age of DNA-technology, so the opinion of a few higher ups decided who was to be forcefully sterilized and who was not. Purely from a religious standpoint, a problem arises here. Who gets to decide who gets to pass on their genes and who does not? Isn't that playing God, or even worse, interfering with his plans? From a Darwinistic or naturalistic point of view there could also be problems. Is it really right, or "natural" for humans to interfere with such things? All kinds of deformities and disorders exist in nature. Nature is imperfect. You could also argue that some modern forms of eugenics like artificially selecting certain features in offspring, which will most likely become a common occurence in the future, is not immoral but rather "cheating" nature. Why should a couple who were initially a result of dysgenics and have bad features be allowed to create a perfect child (artificially)? That is truly unnatural. It cheats nature. I think that the most important point for discussions about whether eugenics are immoral or not is that of voluntary choice. Forcefully sterilizing someone is not viable, and doing so in the past completely turned public opinion to anti-eugenics, maybe even forever. At least in the West, perhaps not in China. Perhaps a realistic scenario for future eugenics would be a government issued long term payment for people with undesirable characteristics, perhaps long-term criminals, rapists or murderers, in exchange for them being irreversibly sterilized. Even so, I am not actually sure that would permanently eliminate such traits, even in a small population.

Attached: Institute of racial biology, Uppsala.png (1503x1040, 3.13M)

>>257416894carefully present your favorite of the "obvious and abundant" reasons that hasn't already been brought up this thread fag

>>257416895they exist to serve humans, so its only logical

>>257416897you clearly don't care about the morality of the issue, why don't you address the objective downsides?

>>257416890>You realize animals can still go feral and thrive in the wild right?In some cases, as long as none of their wild counterparts are there.>Yes we do, that's why humans selecting mates thus far hasn't been an absolute catastrophe.Which they do not do on a genetic basis. Otherwise we'd be bottling that gene in a retro-virus syringe already.>(high IQ, attractive, hardworking etc.) I think there's a ven diagram dating meme I need to show you. Rarely do you get all those traits in one place, and, save for attractiveness, they are rarely even a priority for those who breed the most. Back when arranged marriages were a thing, it was just the richest family you could find that'd take your daughter, which still entailed a whole lotta genetic randomness, not necessarily selecting for any of those attributes.>and more capable IN THE WILD TODAY You really need to do some research on what usually happens to domesticated horses in the wild. Even in ideal situations, where they have no predators, the conservation efforts to keep them alive are ridiculous. Zebras outperform them on every level, even without heirachy.>Tell that to all the Polynesians meeting with stunning success in physical contact sports.You mean the most "part passing stranger" genetic pool on the planet?> show me an example in which a Dolph Lundgren would be an inferior.Any situation where the role doesn't call for a buff male actor, or more than a master's in chemical engineering. If civilization was made up of nothing but Dolph Lundgren clones, it wouldn't last long.>[Genetic engineering is] on the same cline as eugenics.Except you don't have to force people to do anything. You just market the shit. And it's targeted, so you can undo it, redo it, change it, as needed, rather than having to find a new breeding stock and/or wait for generations.Eugenics is obsolete. It was a bad idea to begin with, as it rarely was put in place for any specific outcome, save race.

>>257416896>what a proper skull was supposed to look like and what it was not supposed to look like.i think its weird you purposefully leave out how tissue accompanying the skull plays apart in it aswell

>>257416900>If civilization was made up of nothing but Dolph Lundgren clones, it wouldn't last long.Absolute state of coping

>>257416900>You really need to do some research on what usually happens to domesticated horses in the wild.I think Mustangs do alright, if the first generation survives - though it's true, Clydesdales just die - they can't survive without regular medical attention from humans.

>>257416900>Except you don't have to force people to do anything. You just market the shit.Eugenics does not require force. Eugenics is the goal not the method.If you change the behavior of a population by conversation, media, situational incentive, or financial incentive to breed in a way as to improve genetic quality that is Eugenics.

>>257416902Maybe your hard on for Dolph Lundgren would soften a bit if I pointed out he slept with Grace Jones.

Attached: Clipboard01.png (600x407, 238.58K)

>>257416904>Eugenics does not require force. >Eugenics is the goal not the method.>we'll just use these methods to affect people

>>257416906>everything that affects people is force

>>257416904Well, mankind has been trying to get their daughters to fall for "nice young man", since the dawn of time, with very little luck. Shit happens.An actual eugenics program wouldn't select by race, but by attribute, and to be effective, it'd pretty much have to be mandatory, unless we can somehow get everyone to get a hard on for the person the genetic database says they need to, for the specific sort of person society needs at the time - and hope that stays the same by the time they grow up.I think we'll have full genetic engineering capabilities, long before we have social engineering and projection capabilities extreme enough to make that work without force (if at all) - and given what we already have in that department, not worth the war to force the issue, for the sorts of genetic advantages you're looking at, and the time involved to reach them. Given how ignorant we are, and how complex the issue of building the perfect human beings are, much better off having something you can undo, if it doesn't work out.

>>257416905>>257416905>Maybe your hard on for Dolph Lundgren would soften a bit if I pointed out he slept with Grace Jones.and?Why should I dislike him for that?Oh right, youve got this childlike racist dup voting rural and suburban retard caricature of me. No skin off my nose, you'd be bred out in a society ruled by men with genetic health in mind

>>257416908Why would something as simple as the following not work : >Identify couple with desirable attribute(s)>Let them take out fertility loan of $100k>Forgive $20k of it per child they haveModify the parameters to effectiveness of course, I'm not an economist

>>257416910Doubt even the US, with its virtually unlimited credit line, could print out enough cash to make that work often enough to have a significant impact. Nevermind the radical cultural revolution you'd have to have first to make it a thing. By the time that revolution took hold, your genetic engineering tech would make it pointless.It's more benign than the usual eugenics approach, I'll give you that - but the concept nobel love has taken such strong hold of the western world (plus the inevitable cries of racism - justified or otherwise), that by the time you had it up and running, it'd be obsolete - and well, it kinda already is.

>>257416901Naturally that is a factor that plays in, but they did not know much about these things back then. That is one of the many reasons why it was done so very clumsily, with brutality and not much long-term success.

>>257416900>as long as none of their wild counterparts are therenope, feral breeds often can outcompete their natural undomesticated counterparts.>researchgate.net/publication/304616883_Predation_of_wildlife_by_free-ranging_domestic_dogs_in_Polish_hunting_grounds_and_potential_competition_with_the_grey_wolf>https://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/13/science/italy-s-wild-dogs-winning-darwinian-battle.html>we do not do on a genetic basisWhat basis do we do it on then?>attractionthats genetic>intelligencegenetic>personalitytake a wild guess if depressive personality type is heritable.pro tip: it is.Selecting for expressed genotypes (phenotypes) and thus genes, is selecting for genes lol.>rarely do you get all the good genes in one personyes, that is what eugenics is trying to reduce the rarity of.>finding the richest family entails genetic randomnessno it doesn't.Why do you think wealthy people are tested as more intelligent? Why do you think wealthy people earn more on average?Why are wealthy people on average more attractive, taller, smarter, more altruistic?Wealth isn't a 1:1 correlation with good genes, but having wealth is USUALLY, not absolutely, indicative of good genes.Its not randomness at all. It was actually people seeing the results of good genes and then sending their daughters off to be with men of good genes.Also men selected for women from wealthier families as well.>domesticated horses in the wildAre doing great when Human society is not the cause of their demise, this is applicable to all animals, domesticated or not lol, its not a valid point since there is no difference here between horses and anything else.>outperformed by Zebrasand? Horses aren't native to Africa.Also the Zebra is not identical to the archaic horse, similar but not the same. Can you source me data on Feral horses vs Zebra?>part passing strangerno I mean Polynesians, one of the most bottlenecked genetically homogenous groups on the planet.

>>257416911>Doubt even the US, with its virtually unlimited credit line, could print out enough cash to make that work often enough to have a significant impactI think the prudent thing here would be to reserve judgement of it's feasibility until after some form of numerical analysis.Worst case scenario the best you can do is a ramped up and directed form of maternity care countries like Israel and Scandinavia have.>Nevermind the radical cultural revolution you'd have to have first to make it a thingI don't really see this to be honest. People rarely get angry and fired up about the government helping select groups of people for various reasons.No doubt some activist types will screech about it but you can't let that stop you.The real issue (for me) is that if our current government implemented it, it would almost certainly be done on the basis of affirmative action like universities and government worker jobs, rather than merit.

>>257416727>hahaha btfo de libs please go back to twitter if you're not here for an educated discussion

>>257416910>choose arbitrary attribute>offer exclusive services>this fund apparates from nowhere for the benefit of people I like>I'm not an economistClearly.

>>257416912Reading this thread it's clear that people don't know much about it now either.

>>257416911>>257416916I like how lefties magically become fiscal conservatives on this issueI'd bet my left nut you two change your tune for funding of policies you want.

>>257416900Don't even take Polynesians, take Aeta or Papuans or any other isolated bottlenecked population.>inb4 Maori mutts represent Tonga and Samoa kek, do you even realize the genetically pure Islanders are the most successful in sports?evidently the "inbreeding" and "synergy" on a genetic level has given them resounding success.The Samoan genome is very pure.The Maori one is not.>If a Civilization was made up of nothing but Dolph Lundgren clones it wouldnt last longextreme cope and peak delusion.Unfortunately for you, there is an entire nation of people more similar to Dolph Lundgren than to any other people on planet.Historically they have been among the most impressive nations in history.>you don't have to force people to do anythingYou don't really force people with human selective breeding either, you just reward good mixing and discourage bad mixing, it more or less occurs naturally already, you would only be assisting the process. Today we have a cult of people hellbent on rewarding bad breeding and discouraging good breeding.also>WAAAHH YOU CANT FORCE PEOPLEwho cares?no one will care in 100,000 years when everyone is a giga ultra turbo chad and gene editing (which was necessarily created by well bred high IQ people) can be used to change yourself into basically a superhuman that gives advanced god-like ai a run for its money.>obsoleteNope. Tell me when Africans and South Americans develop gene editing >inb4 the chinese and western elite are going to freely give such a power awaylaughable.you believe gene editing science will progress with populations becoming less intelligent?Ok, see how that works out.Gene editing is in its absolute infancy and eugenics will only hasten the process of what gene editing seeks to do, and since we agree gene editing is a useful good, why not add eugenics to the mix anyway?The most desired sperm from sperm banks, is from men like Dolph Lundgren

>>257416898goyi-Humans also exist to serve Je-humans

>>257416905Leftypol cope he didn't marry Grace Jones

Attached: Dolph-Lundgren-family.png (599x801, 897.83K)

>>257416906>taxation is wrong>telling someone they cant kill someone else is wrong>forcing prisoners to remain in prison is wrong

>>257416896How did you even decide who to sterilize?

>>257416914>I think the prudent thing here would be to reserve judgement of it's feasibility until after some form of numerical analysis.Well, I know the US won't even hand out more than $1200 to the general populous, for a single month, in the middle of the Coronavirus pandemic, with >30 million unemployed. Heck, they are even fighting hiring people for track and trace programs. Granted, they'll give welfare recipients a bit extra per kid, for awhile, but even that doesn't add up to a $100K over the time it's allotted. Never-mind the fierce belief in being allowed to have your child with who you want to, and extreme distrust of the government.>Worst case scenario the best you can do is a ramped up and directed form of maternity care countries like Israel and Scandinavia have.Scandinavia, maybe. Israel kinda has a history with eugenics.>People rarely get angry and fired up about the government helping select groups of people for various reasons. HAHAHAHA haahaha,,, Okay, sorry, clearly you're not an American.Frankly, in America at least, and a few other countries, I get the impression a large swath of those in power don't want better people. They want more unwashed masses, as they are easier to set against each other, and thus control and profit on. Not that Roddenberry didn't have a point with his Khan parable - that increased genetic superiority leading to superior ambition, and all, leading to problems. (Feelings of entitlement lead to quite a few problems as it is.)>The real issue (for me) is that if our current government implemented it, it would almost certainly be done on the basis of affirmative action like universities and government worker jobs, rather than merit. Well, if you can find the attributes you want in the minority population, and it cuts down on cries of racism, might not be a bad idea for your end goal.But this all takes time. CRISPR is already on the table, and is only being held back by the same humanitarian concerns this is.

>>257416918...and I like how you always assume anyone who disagrees with your position is a leftist.

>>257416911>The US couldn't spare a few million dollars to ensure the best and brightest have a few more kidsSource? We could it out of welfare for people who shouldn't reproduce, stop giving advantages to tards.>Radical cultural revolutionWhat lol?You realize we already have a soft version of this right?We have tax cuts for people who have children, it would now only be applied more selectively lol.You have no clue how the government works NOW.>genetic engineering tech would make it pointlessis this tech a day off? two days off? A year off? A decade off? a century off? Please tell us oh prophet since you are making this the linchpin of your argument, do tell, when is genetic engineering going to render this endeavor redundant?Is this engineering going to be widespread and freely accessible?How far off is that?Will an African bushman have the ability to become Dolph Lundgren by the year 2025? 2030? 2100? How long?You are declaring it already obsolete? Ok wheres your proof?Where can I edit myself into unironic giga chad?

>>257416922You're daft if you think this I'm making solely a fiscal argument. >leftiesKek.

>>257416925>Holla Forums is everywhere>white people bad>NOOOOO YOU CANT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF AUTISMOS TO RUIN THE GENE POOLThe opposition is either leftist, probably due to the leftist pathological insecurityOr browns who don't understand that eugenics isn't genocide of browns but a tool they can use to become vastly more than what they are.

>>257416923The head of the Racial Biology and his associates measured the skulls and bodies of people, mostly poor people who I believe were paid a small compensation for it. Following what I assume was the "meta" of physical anthropology during the time, some people were classified as "gypsies" and some were classified as "mongoloids". They were determined to be foreign racial elements and thus undesirable. Additionally, sexually promiscuous women and people with certain mental illnesses such as schizophrenia would also often be selected. The groups mentioned above were then forcefully sterilized in many cases (not all, some were successful in avoiding sterilization despite having been deemed by the state as undesirable). Again, this was before any modern DNA-technology was available and thus there was not an ounce of science to it. As far as we know, it could have been up to what mood the chief racial biologist had woken up in that particular day.

>>257416927>keeping prisoners in prison is a fiscal argument>having general rules and enforcing them to keep society from becoming a living hell for its inhabitants is a fiscal argumentI don't think you're making any argument at all, lad

>>257416929Insitute of Racial Biology*

>>257416929>observing and choosing based on expressed genotypes that manifest as phenotypes that are representative of genotypes and thus of genetic structure and content are actually not representative of genetic structure and content and therefore are unscientific

Attached: braintlet.jpg (442x500, 8.17K)

>>257416930Not any argument I've made.

Attached: strawman.jpg (768x512, 49.93K)

>>257416932I don't know enough about physical anthropology to really go into depth about this, but phenotypes do not always match genotypes. I imagine that if they would have had access to modern DNA testing, the outcome would probably have been different. That is all I am saying.

>>257416924>Well, I know the US won't even hand out more than $1200 to the general populous, for a single month, in the middle of the Coronavirus pandemic, with >30 million unemployed.This is a good point. We actual know without the China Virus that the US's credit line could've afforded to offer my $100k plan to the top 2% of couples that got the $1200.2% generation after generation can have a big effect.>HAHAHAHA haahaha,,, Okay, sorry, clearly you're not an American.I am. I know what you mean but people are rioting over it or putting up any kind of material resistance.It's mostly boomer's ranting on facebook about welfare queens and edgelords making gibsmedat memes.>Frankly, in America at least, and a few other countries, I get the impression a large swath of those in power don't want better people. They want more unwashed masses, as they are easier to set against each other, and thus control and profit on.I agree with this.>Well, if you can find the attributes you want in the minority population, and it cuts down on cries of racism, might not be a bad idea for your end goal.I'm skeptical of the ability of people to accept the differences on this.We've seen in America that everything short of pure equality-of-outcome will be denounced as racism. >>257416925You are though.You expect me to believe a libertarian cares this much about a eugenics thread on /his/ ?

>>257416926>A few million dollars>$100,000 per familyYou do realize you'd have to affect between a quarter to half the population to have a real impact? In a nation of 330 million?I mean, sure, we've printed up ourselves about 24 trillion dollars, but that's pretty much strictly alloted to the fiscal easing efforts, lest we lose the reserve that allows us to get away with that. We don't do shit to "improve the people" - all that does is mean more competition among the rich folks, which is fierce enough to be destabilizing as it is. We talk about class mobility, but we don't really want it.>We have tax cuts for people who have childrenNot to the tune of $100K. (And, apparently, not enough to make people want to breed more. Hell, Japan tried that, without success.)>is this tech a day off? two days off? A year off? A decade off? a century off? Technically already here. We can genetically engineer out sickle cell, crones, color blindness, potentials for alcohol/gambling addiction, or add tetrachromacy, all of which we've done with our fellow primates. Nearly anything we can genetically identify, we can remove or add (we could even give you bioluminescent hair). To top it off, for a lot of these changes, we don't even have to edit you in utero - we can do it to an adult primates via retrovirals, it just takes some time.Aside from retroviral cancer treatments, however, it's illegal to do on humans. Again, the same humanitarian concerns stopping the slow, dumb, way, from which there is no path back, are also stopping the fast, smart, and undoable way - but it won't be the case forever. Eventually, there'll just be too much money to be made.

>>257416933>force bad>law enforcement makes use of force for the general wellbeing of everyone >eugenics makes use of force (less than law enformcent mind you) for the general wellbeing of everyoneBoth use force for the general wellbeing of everyone, if one is bad so is the other?Pick your poison,

>>257416928I vote almost entirely red or indie, and an avid defender of the 2nd amendment, so no.It's true, I'm not so red I care what the hell the gays are doing - though I do think those pride parades defeat their purpose. I suppose I'd put up with them if it was just the briefcase squads - those guys are kinda cool. This tranny shit irks me though, I'll admit that. 87 genders or what not, same.But no, my argument is not that the particular model of eugenics being presented is racist (even if most eugenics, historically, has been nothing but) - even if I admit some races are, on average, more suited to a smoothly functioning civilization than others - but in the end, it's just not practical. It's an idea that had its time, and missed its chance (being used and abused towards the wrong ends), and has been obsoleted by subsequent genetic engineering technology and knowledge, and the simple fact that nothing is ever as simple as it seems.

>>257416934no, Phenotypes ALWAYS 100% match genotypes.You can not have a phenotype that is not predicated upon a genotype.You can not have brown eyes without the gene for brown eyes.you can't have 5 fingers without the gene for five fingers.I agree theyd have a different outcome but it would be generally the same.They'd probably be less inclined to use phenotype as a individual identifiers and would instead use phenotypes as general identifiers.For instance, a blonde man in Croatia is not genetically closer to a blonde man from Sweden.Whereas SOME thought he was.In fairness not all pre-genetics physical anthropologists thought this. However their general conclusions were more or less correct, that being Caucasoids generally cluster together, negroids generally cluster together, mongoloids generally together, nordics generally together, etc.

>>257416938[x] doubt

>>257416939Actually, a lot of shit happens in development that can affect the shape of the skull (including nutrition), and its affected by a lot more genetic factors, than say, eye color.Albeit, the shape of my own skull has been warped just by wearing headsets so much, which is kinda disturbing.

>>257416747Swedes are hypocritical fags. Always have been and always will be.

Attached: HCAndersen.jpg (1920x1080, 335.17K)

>>257416939Wouldn't saying that phenotype 100% matches genotype be a stretch? It is certainly possible to have the alleles for blonde hair, for example, without the genes expressing themselves. >>257416941That must be some very tight, heavy headsets you are wearing.

>>257416942butthurt dane

>>257416936>You do realize you'd have to affect between a quarter to half the population to have a real impact? In a nation of 330 million?Why?Why would it have to be so sudden? Why couldn't it be 1% of the population?Increasing the fertility of the top 1% and decreasing the fertility of the bottom 1% will have an affect on society.You want rapid change happen, thats just not how it works, at least its not feasible in a nation so large.Also why only talk about America?Couldn't this be more easily done in a nation like Israel or Switzerland?>fiscal effortsmore money goes into social services and welfare consumed by non-whites than the entire military budget, twice over iirc.Its not a resource problem its a people problem.>we dont do shit to improve the peoplethats what the eugenics team is trying to change.>class mobilityfuck class mobility, Id rather be happy and satisfied with my life than be told that I must chase some far off ideal of the millionaire faggot that white wealthy elites tell me I ought to pursue.>not to the tune of 100kover their entire life...yes its close to that, like the other user said, it is adjustable as well, 100k isnt a fixed number.>JapanIs this Japan?No.Are we Japanese?no.Plenty of genetically high quality Americans would have more kids if they could. >technically already hereWhere?Why aren't the traits you mentioned completely gone yet? Why aren't beneficial traits added to everyone yet?So where is it?You're claiming its here and available, where?If its not 100% ubiquitous now, you don't have an argument against eugenics.>moneyOk so its not a real solution, it will become a tool for late stage capitalism and probably be used to usher in a new globo homo where men are reduced to physically small workers spending their entire lives in pods eating bugs and operating automatons and being ruled over by a 200IQ Jewish elite with niggers genetically spliced with Apes to create loyal unthinking enforcers.

>>257416938>hello fellow right wingers

>>257416944Swedes love the internet because they can communicate without taking the cock out of their mouth.

>>257416938>not practicalno arguments have been presented against the practicality of eugenics.It has amounted entirely to moral qualms, uninformed claims about the effects of population mixing, and claims of an already present status quo of genetic modificationThis thread is a testament to the absurdity of anti-eugenics posters

>>257416945>non-whitesTipping your hand there, Holla Forumstard.

>>257416941Skull shape isn't the determining factor in phenotype.>my skull shape has been warped by wearing headsetsHello, Tyler. Done lying on the internet yet?

>>257416727Bro, look at the image you posted, Sweden was sterilizing people well into the 70s and look at the joke they turned out to be. What a triumph for eugenics!

Attached: thinking_black_man.jpg (600x494, 29.86K)

>>257416943no that would be genotype not being entirely indicative of phenotype.Having the genes for blonde doesn't mean you have blonde hair, but having blonde hair absolutely means you have the genes for blonde hair.You can have an unexpressed genotype, you can not have an unexpressed phenotype.

>>257416940[spoiler]not everyone who disagrees with you is the leftist boogieman[/spoiler]I've actually known a lot of leftists who are pro eugenics (even if they sometimes don't call it that), and have had some of these same arguments with them.Granted, my parents were on both sides of the isle, so I'm moderate right, at best. Hard right economically (and immigration, even if I think the current admins approach is retarded - just arrest the goddamned employers and end education for non-citizens, problem solved). Maybe more centrist when it comes to rights, save guns, where I view Scolia as a liberal traitor who never read Jefferson (but at least we got incorporation on it).Though, having been raised by and befriended folks on both sides of the isle - I got to tell you, you both would get a whole lot more done, if you realized how often you agreed. You always cite the same enemies, and always accuse the other side of backing them.

>>257416942Om du hade läst Andersen skulle du veta att han aldrig sade detta :-)

>>257416949>Holla Forumstard

Attached: hello reddit.jpg (1508x1493, 437.2K)

>>257416955Let the seething begin.

>>257416728How?

>>257416957because it angers his chosen

>>257416954Laver bare sjov, så slemme er i heller ikke.

>>257416959Ni er ikke så slemme ni heller.

>>257416945Please finish reading a post before you reply to it.Also don't "Why America?" me on one end of the post and "Is this Japan?" me on the other. Already said, you might have better luck in Scandinavia (and some places in Asia, but it'd be almost pointless in such places). I'm fairly well traveled, but America is what I know. All it'd take for CRISPR to be a market item, is one administration slightly more hot on the pharmaceutical industry than they already always are, staffing the FDA with a like minded head, and you're done. Shit is on the market that makes eugenics entirely obsolete, instead of just virtually. And of course the biotech industry is constantly pushing for legislation to legalize the shit in the meantime, it is the single biggest cash cow at the door.Meanwhile, to have any real impact in America, what your asking for would take generations, both to make it culturally acceptable and legal, and then to actually become widespread enough to do anything. Though, just as a pro-tip, don't market it as "eugenics". Frankly, you'd be better off marketing it as a private dating service or something, than trying to do it through the government - though you'd need a government sized cash infusion to get started.

>>257416784>On the other hand, Pakistanis in the UK are definitely lower middle class or working class even though they're Asian non-whites.They're muslims, they have a permanent debuff because of inbreeding.

>>257416781Yes, all those hard working Bangladeshis being dragged down by migrants. fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINBGD

>>257416948>no arguments have been presented against the practicality of eugenics.All of my arguments have been against the practicality - I dunno about the other anons, but I'm not seeing a lot about the morality of it here (save maybe a smattering of

>>257416727Look the only eugenics that will work are liberal eugenics since they are capitalist in nature and therefore do not require to follow the guidelines of a government paper telling who gets to have what but rather the cultural current tacit zeitgeist telling parents that children with no illnesses and albine eyes are the future, untill next year when people will want to have kids with sickle disease because they heard it helps with malaria or something, which is also something that is already happening just check this:telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/3339259/Mothers-seeking-Super-Donor-401-get-a-special-gift.html>whose blue eyes, sporty physique and academic background made him the ideal biological father.>25 childrenIt should bring all of those arguments against against eugenics again, like lowering genetic diversity due to something similar to pareto's principle of having 20% of donor impregnating 80% of women, but it simply does not matter when reproduction is involved and the mother knows that she has a choice in her future offspring having a headstart she will go to other countries and collect the sperm herself if needed, this just cuts some steps.

>>257416729>Less genetic diversityIf you think genetic diversity is great you can always get some uranium.

>>257416727My grandma was part of this whole thing. She would identify useless individuals and recommend the state to sterilize them.

>>257416967>>>/his/8650253>This thread was moved to >>257416727I DON'T BLAME YOU! :PMeh, started off a polbait thread from the start, was just hoping we could pull it back - but ain't no way to keep it in /his/, obviously.

>Faggy mods moving a /sci/ thread to Holla ForumsWhat did they mean by this?

>>257416727>What are the downsides to eugenicsthere are non, the christkikes just hate it because it keeps goyim healthy

Attached: 1557060600679.png (1256x1190, 806.86K)

>>257416967Sounds like a fun job

>>257417110Was a /his/ thread - but yes, would have lived longer on >>>/sci/.

>>257416728>It angers God.So fucking what, tell him to chill out.

>>257416746Based aryan taleb

>>257417110>What did they mean by this?mods are niggers, discord tranny sjws try to take over moderation online, sometimes they manage to do itonly extreme uncompromizing hostility to the filth that is their existence can protect you>>257417143based, target jannies

Attached: cadd157aa2338291.jpg (960x698, 113.58K)

>>257416746>>257416728the christkikes come out of their caves, like clockwork

Attached: 1561741401378.jpg (960x586, 52.76K)

>>257416727the problem with it is the same problem with communism, people are self interested, and will always look out for their own needs and the needs of their families/associates before everyone else. so instead of having a bunch of autistic spocks running it and being dedicated to attempted objective excellence, it quickly becomes corrupt and politicized as the people at the top rig it for themselves and against anyone who might challenge their dominion, and objective excellence goes out the window

>>257416746what a fucking simp

>>257416772>Yes yes your people are being exterminated by the intentional flooding of your lands with the useless hostile surplus populations of the brown third-world who then directly compete with you for resources and suck up all your tax money that you slave away at your job to generate in the hopes you might benefit from them later in life and in turn those migrants then pump out 8 kids all floated on welfare while you cannot even afford one as you're taxed to death, but just change society bro if you don't like it>Btw if you attempt this I'll scream "NAZI" and try to jail you for life

>>257416728>t. god puppeteer whose church has historically been extremely involved in eugenic policy

>>257417354Nietzsche was correct on his diagnosis of Christianity, but he simped hard for Jews and it was pathetic.

>>257417550you re doing it wrongyou dont argue with people who want to kill youyou kill them

Attached: 1560725237650.jpg (960x626, 229.88K)

There’s nothing wrong on eugenics on paper.

>>257417679I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of "oh just do a political solution bro" when it's absolutely impossible to vote out a genocidal campaign against your people. The Hutus and Tutsis obviously just needed to vote more, apparently. It's also a complete lie that a genocide is NOT occurring, because no where else on the planet is it okay to shovel in millions of foreigners to colonize and drain the resources of the native population, while scornfully and smugly yelling at the natives "LOL just breed more it's your fault for not breeding more :) ". I guess the Indians should have just had more kids. That surely would have stopped the British Empire from colonizing them.

>>257417626he said jews were less pathetic and retarded than christians, which is... correct? what is your point, are you trying to imply he liked them? all he had for them were insults>>257417912ok great you have the basis leave the debate talble and grab a weapon then

>>257416733You should probably look into the history of China. They behave like insects for a reason.

>>257416727> Sweden sterilized thousands of useless citizensNow they do it themselves voluntarily.

Attached: 1586931005117.jpg (725x521, 221.73K)

>>257417354This.

>>257416727>August 29, 1997

Attached: troll_line.jpg (512x512, 28.05K)

>>257416727I think its difficult to do. For example, what do to screen for? High IQ? There are smart people here that olay video games and never do anything noteworthy. Mark Cuban is an idiot but actually builds things.Best option is to sterilize worthless and poor people and ecourage sucessful to mate but that pisses off joggers.

>>257418345>There are smart people here that olay video games and never do anything noteworthy.at this moment you should maybe do self reflectionby you re not intelligent enough toor intelligent enough to understand what I just saidshame

>>257416727Eugenics is a slippery slope. It also only really pairs with collectivism which is inherently evil so yeah...>It doesn't yield bad results tho.

>>257416727First off. >LeftieNot all leftie bad. They fight the police who protect the bankers. This is D&C language. >Posting Shittington PostMSM shills shilling a news magazine no one reads>Topic is SwedenShittington Post isn't based on Sweden so it's not local news.>Useless citizensThis isn't a topic for an American news magazine which in their countries are more than 30m people are unemployed.

>>257418417People cab have high IQs but never do anything with it. I have mediocre IQ but manage a team of engineers in automation field. Why? Who knows, soke weird combination of interest, no fear of failure, desire for sucess. You get a scientist to do euginics he will mess it up and just get a bunch of people saying how they are the master race all day and playing video games while accomplishing nothing.

>>257418821>he does exactly everything I predicted he would do in my postso tiresome

Attached: 1555013147584.png (2048x1536, 2.63M)

>>257418994What video game you grinding?

>>257417110most mods are easily triggered lefties

>>257416727Welfare should be the negative eugenics program. You get all the benefits of eugenism without aggression on the target who put themselves in there. Even the most libertarian will go along the wild ride of welfarism to get those sweet results.

>>257418821better than having mediocre IQ and being lazyjust select for high intelligence, high trait conscientiousness, and high banter quotient and you're set for everything that matters desu

Attached: Untitled.png (765x367, 34.81K)

>>257416759The left has always been massive hypocrites.Most if not all cleansing continued under the left's rule in Sweden.It's the left that treats immigrants like hapless subhuman children unable to care for their own, as if they were pets. The right wants them to go home and/or grow up, and will rightfully point out what they are fucking up and how to fix it.It's the left that constantly discriminates against whites due to race. The right hires based on skill.Both want racial purity, but leftists wants everyone to be miserable and to consists of a hapless blob of mutt with zero diversity, the right respects differences in culture while naturally holding their own superior (as would anyone who has any form of pride in their own culture and who has even a ounce of self-preservation) and would prefer that people move home, or actually provide something useful in return for being allowed to live here.The demoncrats opposed the abolition of slavery, republicans wanted that shit gone, and Abraham Lincoln was a republican.The left has no issues with genocide, as can be seen with Holodomor. The holohoax is still unproven and consists of straight up far tales of imaginary shit that has never been proven. COVID-19 saw to proving once again, even with modern cremation, that the numbers the holohoax alleged to have died simply is not physically possible. It's to the point where some countries outlaw discussion about the holohoax. If it really was true, why would you need to silence critics?Being a lefty unironically means belonging to the side that has caused millions upon millions of deaths (which can be verified) and terror. If you want to be one. Fine. But do not lie about your own history and current behavior you little shits.

Attached: Left.gif (477x614, 195.78K)

>>257419793>just select for high intelligence, high trait conscientiousness, and high banter quotient and you're set for everything that matters desuSo Australia then?

>>257420752>cunts>conscientiousness

Attached: Australian merchant.png (525x821, 310.87K)

>>257420910are those places real lmao?

>>257421108Yes. Some morons tried to legally erase the 'problematic' ones recently but everyone uses them.

>>257416727Sweden basically got rid of our anti-social members of society via eugenics, and then we suddenly started believing all the sudden that everyone was like this and invited barbarians in on mass

>>257420474 communism killed million and you're next bitch

>>257420752Having the genetic potential for high IQ doesn't fix the problem of a society purposefully built to make you retarded in spite of genetic advantages. Unless your parents are rich enough to feed you the not poisoned food and private school you.

>>257421324when I look on google earth I see a thing called "mount blackman" when looking in the same area as mount nigger, did google jew the map?

It's always been christcucks against eugenics, because for some reason they worship mental and physical weakness and hold up handicaps and attributes of lower men like niggers as divine.To the Christcuck a drooling retard who violently cracks the skulls of healthy babies in a tard rage only to ask say "sorry" in front of a priest is the most holy thing in the world.

>>257422257Some of the changes did legally go through and google is pozzed. I'm certain the cunts (especially those living in those regions) still refer to themselves as proud niggers.

>>257422413can you still find mount nigger?

>>257422288Check and Sieg Heil these numbers, Sverige.A pity I don't have much of a reasonable pagan religion to resort because family's Jewish.

>>257416923>How did you even decide who to sterilize?The Mentally Ill, the Physically Handicapped, "Loose women" aka Prostitutes and Gypsies. And the results were great.

>>257422288this

>another thread for the 'free-speech containment board'Welcome, fags.

Euthanizing Swedes only to later flood with Muslim swine? Nothing "eugenic" about that. This is dysgenics.

>>257416743We found out what nature lets uw get away with

Read most of the thread. Little to no substantial arguments against eugenics. Most of the arguments were >muh morals >it'll take too long!>we will turn into pugs!!!!!So many low IQ takes from the people of "bazinga science".I also like how they point to how some domestic animals have genetic defects/not superior to their not domesticated ancestors but yet they fail to say that these animals were domesticated by primitive peoples who were only looking for certain traits (docile nature, big muscles, smaller bodies, etc...) disingenuous arguments.