Thread 17973198

How do you respond without sounding mad?

>>17973198 (OP)
Dogs are fucked up from overbreeding.

Eugenics doesn't have to be cruel. Just focusing on incentivizing the smartest and healthiest people to have children would also be eugenics.

>>17973242
Still would be a total gamble.

>>17973198 (OP)
It would clearly and obviously work for certain traits, but ignore possible consequences. No one disputes that if you forced multiple generations of really tall people to fuck and then the tallest of their kids are forced to fuck other tall people etc etc, you'd end up with really tall people. And they might have fucked up hearts or other issues that aren't foreseen.

>>17973198 (OP)
If it worked, governments would already be doing it

we already practice a form of eugenics by not allowing inbreeding or incest relationships
people natively know at some level eugenics are good

>>17973304
many governments do it, Iceland has zero down syndrome people as a result of eugenics
Sweden only stopped their eugenics programs in the 1990s due to public outcry

>>17973304
It's exactly because it works that (((governments))) don't do it.
>>17973255
No it wouldn't.

>>17973312
>Iceland has zero down syndrome people as a result of eugenics
abortion*

>>17973198 (OP)
Eugenics could now be done entirely by genetic manipulation without any government banning certain people from having sex. I don't see a reason why this shouldn't be done

>>17973306
>not allowing inbreeding or incest relationships
Government can really stop people from doing it. The only thing that does is that no one wants to fuck their sister or dad. The law only exists to stop abuse or punish people for doing so against family.

This depends entirely on what he means by "work."
The only reason it doesn't "work" is because doing it the natural way is working perfectly fine.
Humanity has many, many problems, and becoming the primate version of pugs solves none of them.

>>17973312
>Sweden only stopped their eugenics programs in the 1990s due to public outcry
Because they were forcefully sterilizing people and pressuring people.

>>17973342
what kind of people?

>>17973374
>>214494905

>>17973374
>>>/int/214494905

>>17973198 (OP)
That humans beings aren't livestock and that a selective breeding program of humans is not comparable to an animal one.
I mean, I kind of support Eugenics, but an argument against 19th century scientific Eugenics would be that generally the aim of Eugenics was rather vague, human generations last too long for theprogram to have any direction even on the best of times, and biology was/is not sufficiently well understood for us to actually be in control of the process.

Reeks of stupidity to think animal breeding and human breeding are comparable.

>>17973338
If only you knew how bad things really are.

>>17973458
At least from where we stand now. In retrospect.

It's right. If we sterilized everyone with an IQ below 100 now, the next generation would be much smarter.

>>17973306
A controlled amount of incest is eugenic, Anthony Ludovici was right about it even if it caused massive uproar.
The issue with incest is that it increases the chance of recessive genes being expressed in the offspring, because recessive genes are expressed less often they aren't being selected on. By increasing the rate of their expression we can breed faulty recessive genes out.

>>17973199
Why do people think eugenics is when you breed dogs

>>17973198 (OP)
Isn't the problem with Eugenics is that we don't really understand human genetics all that well? Simply breeding out bad genes or breeding in good ones isn't exactly practical when you don't know what you're doing. It also doesn't help that to gain said knowledge you're probably gonna be breeding countless lives destined to suffer by the hands of whoever is running the program. I personally wouldn't my future children be in the hands of a bunch of people who want to micromanage who I coom into.

>>17973198 (OP)

Facts are objective; their objectivity doesn't dissolve the causal effects or conditions of feelings. People like Dawkins can say, "well this would work or that would work", anyone can say anything can work "on paper", but people aren't binary machines and any idea that doesn't take into account or accommodate people's feelings is always just going to remain a hypothetical.

>>17973554
Yeah I imagine the political, social and cultural implications of an openly eugenic society would be kinda shit. Like having to live your life knowing that if you aren't the "desired" kind of person that's promoted in that place then you're just gonna have a shit time all round. How shit would depend I guess.

>>17973198 (OP)
My country already has eugenics, inbreeding closer than second cousin is against the law.

>>17973563
>How shit would depend I guess.
It would be super shit. Even in a more "egalitarian" setting not being part of the haves or desired group pretty much puts a mark on you and the stress of having to prove yourself. Even if you did go above and beyond the system inherently casts doubt on you.

>>17973458
>I mean, I kind of support Eugenics
How would it even work. Many talented people came from average families let alone the many who carried a talent that went against the family occupation or managed to get poached while growing up poor.

>>17973571
I can only see such a society going two ways:

Either only the rich afford to do eugenics and you basically have a genetic caste system which means 99% of us just get fucked.

Or everyone gets eugenics and it's good for the time being where birth defects are gone for good but in it's absense, we start collectively breeding towards cosmetics traits over time based on society's beauty standards and shit starts to get real weird REAL fast.

To contextualize my post: >>17973554
Because this Anon brought up the thing: >>17973563

Right now there's a thread on the Kalergi Plan/Conspiracy: 17969536
The basic premise being that one of those UN fellows hypothesized it would be best if they created a single homogenized "novel" human race and culture. Lets say, for the hypothetical, that genetic and anthropological science vindicates this plan. It's just 100% correct. That as it turns out there actually is a secret recipe of human races that once combined do in fact produce an objectively superior breed of human being: smarter, stronger, healthier, more resistant to disease, longer-lived, more fertile, bigger pp, more empathetic, and constantly delivering new cultural and academic contributions & innovations. These "new" humans supplanting us ecologically like how Cro-Magnons assimilated and replaced Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homo Erectus; in turn creating the modern world.

In a completely 100% rational world this would be seen as not only a good thing but a moral imperative that every country take part in, that a strict eugenics programs be organized to produce as many as possible, and the 'old' human race be peacefully retired (not exterminated, but plan and organize the succession of power).
We don't live in a rational world though, we live in an *irrational* world and such a plan would NEVER be tolerated, no matter how much objective evidence, by really anyone besides the "planners".

>>17973547
We understand it well enough, you don't need molecular level knowledge to be able to introduce eugenic programme.
At the time when the term was even coined the idea was controversial because the "nice" people believed natural selection operates in somewhat neo-lamarckian way while Galton and his peers were hard on straight heredity. And no they didn't know any better because Mendel's work was buried in some botanical journal nobody has heard about only to be rediscovered around 1900. Even then Mendelian genetics was still controversial for another 20 or so years in sane places and about 50 among commies.
However you could not even know what exactly are you doing but basic grasp on quantitative genetics you could do decently well.

>>17973198 (OP)
sparta collapsed under itself

>>17973198 (OP)
he is correct
>infographic

>>17973563
>>17973571
is todays society that much better? It just has other means of telling you that you aren't desired. Wether planned or natural, selection still happens. In a society in which people with undesirable traits know their place may give them a peace of mind. Whereas in todays individualist blank slate society you are somewhat expected to compete with all others and a hierarchy still comes into place that no one knows how to deal with

eugenics will never work if you do it trough an involuntary "kill/sterilize subhumans" kind of way, since that creates a large amount of friction and will
generate backlash from society.
You must give people technology so they can voluntarily improve the genetic quality of their children. Everyone will opt in, I have no doubt.
Semen donors are a good exemple. I read somewhere that denmark and sweeden are some of the biggest exporters of sperm, because infertile woman in
third world nations want the high quality genetics of the nordics

>>17975111
>infertile woman
lmao im retarded, I meant infertile couples

>>17975111
Eugenics will be accepted if you ask wanabee parents if they want their kids to be immune to all genetic diseases, most of the others, to have a life expectancy of 200 year and an IQ of 150 while having a 10/10 body of an olympian athlete.

>>17973198 (OP)
dude just loves killing babies I guess.

>>17973198 (OP)
1) all people with genetic defects should be killed at birth.
2) The least intelligent 10% of 10 year olds should be killed.
3) The least physically fit 5% of 20 year olds should be killed.

There, I just put human evolution back on track and avoided the idiocracy apocalypse.

>>17973198 (OP)
This is the problem with atheism, it spawns inhuman ideologies like Nazism, eugenics, communism and other bullshit because there is no way to derive objective morality without turning into a giga nazi.

A good example is incest, incest is completely morally acceptable in today's society according to the liberal moral framework (what happens between two consenting adults is none of your business is a common phrase) and yet it's not actually acceptable. A non religious moral framework either has to make crazy compromises that most people find abhorrent or simply not make sense and contradict itself (liberalism)

>>17973198 (OP)
I've been saying this for years.

>>17973198 (OP)
>atheist's opinion
into the garbage can it goes

>>17975205
A world of hyper-rational 120 IQ jock psychopaths, HELL YEAH

>>17973199
Many dog breeds are highly functional and healthy though

Sterilizing the bottom 1% intelligence every generation would produce a hyper genius society eventually

>>17973331
the problem is leaving it to the government, AKA politicians and bureaucrats
You would inevitability end up with ideological nonsense being pushed into it and fucking up the whole program, just try imagine what disaster if karens start forcing some DEI genes as the standard for everybody

>>17975570
Would still be replaced by AI so why do it?

>>17973198 (OP)
>>17973199
Monogamous sexual selection = social & democratic eugenics.

>>17973458
19th century eugenics were basically just about aesthetics, having the leader's/writer's preferred phenotype become more common, all while atributing some made up characteristics to people with said phenotype

>>17973735
And women had prominent roles in society same with Iceland.

>>17973537
European genes are recessive. Not making a good case here unless you're brown or something.

>>17975205
Genetic fitness likely correlates with higher risk inclined behavior so nothing would change much and things would go back to the way they were.

>>17973319
Retards and deformed flipper babies should ABSOLUTELY be aborted, their quality of life is shit, they didn't ask to be born fucked up and the its a life sentence of caring for them for their families.

At the very least it should be offered. It's not fair to force freaks to be born, to them or their family

>>17973312
>Sweden only stopped their eugenics programs in the 1990s due to public *weakness and women voting
Fixed

>>17977346
Why retards? A person with rational thinking capabilities is more likely to inflict suffering on others

>>17977382
Useless eaters

>>17977329
Literally his point, harmless recessive genes like blonde/red hair are fine and harmful ones like sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis can be bred out using incest

>>17977745
I'll take 5:1 downsies to non-downsies over 1:1000000 psychopaths to non-psychopaths. People who happen to sound a lot like you... would be near the top of the chopping block list in most countries. Let the odd non-violent one run a company or regiment, do the difficult things no one else wants to do (they'll enjoy it), but other than that 1:100 is obviously way too many. You have to go.

>>17973198 (OP)
Say we sterilized everyone with an IQ below 100 for 3 generations. Then society would be smarter. What could go wrong?

>>17978020
>100 IQ
I see what you did there. This will go over most peoples heads though because incidentally 100 on this board would be equal to 85 IQ in the real world

>>17973483
>If we sterilized everyone with an IQ below 100 now, the next generation would be much smarter.
It's kind of crazy how the solution to 90% of the world's problems is right there, and yet society acts as if it doesn't exist.

>>17978020
>What could go wrong
Well, when all the women are sterilized...

>>17977375
trve

>>17973342
We should do it again.

>>17973255
This is faulty reasoning. Nature itself is a total gamble. There are all sorts of fucked up mutated children that mothers give birth to. In fact nature is inefficient and human intervention would eliminate these negative outcomes. It's not a giant leap to go from that to maybe we should also enhance ourselves. It is better that we control our own development instead of surrendering to the randomness of nature.

>>17973198 (OP)
>How do you respond without sounding mad?
You just point out that it very routinely doesn't work, with animal breeds effectively imploding from accumulating undesirable traits as fast as desirable ones.
Just because we're willing to tolerate extremely unhealthy one trick pony breeds doesn't mean we should aim to lower humans to that level.
You could also point out that literally all breeding activity is inherently eugenic, so if you feel current selection criteria are flawed you have absolute no latitude to argue that your imposed ones would be any better, 100% self-defeating claim.

>>17973198 (OP)
I think of human beings higher than I think of animals and I don't think that humans should be artificially breed for traits like a cattle

>>17978817
>you have absolute no latitude to argue that your imposed ones would be any better, 100% self-defeating claim.
All you need to show is that a population that underwent artificial selection over a certain period outperforms on a wide variety of metrics. Perfection is not the standard.

>>17978906
If your eugenics can't manage perfection then you're just trying to specialize humanity.
You'll not have an easy time trying to argue for any specific path to follow.
Fucking hell we can't even define intelligence in any objective manner, imagine trying to select for it.
It would be such a laughable shitshow of delusional incompetence it would make idiocracy look desirable.

>>17979208
>can't manage perfection then you're just trying to specialize humanity.
That's a pretty bold claim. Personally I'd be fine with just eliminating all genetic disorders like hemophilia or huntingtons disease

>>17979434
>That's a pretty bold claim
No, it's just the necessary implication of equating whatever metrics you pick to objective improvement.
It can only be improvement if it's perfect (to satisfy objective), otherwise it's specialization (to satisfy metrics).
>Personally I'd be fine with just eliminating all genetic disorders
if that's your eugenics plan then we're back to
>>17978817
>You could also point out that literally all breeding activity is inherently eugenic
kinda makes the thread pointless, considering op's pic implies selecting for traits rather than against them
For what it's worth, I'd be in favor, but I'd also steer away from claiming I'm improving humanity. I'd just claim I'm removing inefficient citizens, and only insofar as I'm able to ascertain it.
That's kind of the rub really, eugenics is only reasonable when it's accepted by who applies it as a risky experimental procedure. Are the advantages worth the risks? When dealing with the insignificant amount of genetically ill people, likely yes. But not when you try to apply it to gen pop.

I don't want the metrosexual upper-class to decide whoever is fit to reproduce.

>>17973198 (OP)
Dogs are unhealthy as hell. If we did eugenics on people like dogs we'd have humans who get a limp at 30, get covered in fatty tumors by 40, and die at age 50.

>>17973483
>killing more than half the bluecollar workforce
Very dumb.

>>17973198 (OP)
>comparing human beings to plants and farm animals

>>17973198 (OP)
True. We need to select for higher WHG and depigmentation.

>>17978817
>You could also point out that literally all breeding activity is inherently eugenic, so if you feel current selection criteria are flawed you have absolute no latitude to argue that your imposed ones would be any better, 100% self-defeating claim.
This is more like a pro-eugenic (or neutral) argument. If all breeding is eugenic anyway, why not give the sexual selection powers to the government instead of the women?

>>17980574
Humans are NOT animals okay? Science is settled, biology do NOT apply to human!
You do have faith in science, right?

>>17979208
Perfection is not a criterion in science or medicine, even vaccines do not work 100% of the time.

Humans are not generalists, we have been specialized through natural selection pressures. All that is being said is that we should assert control over our own evolution.

>Fucking hell we can't even define intelligence in any objective manner, imagine trying to select for it.
IQ tests are good enough, but just imagine a scenario where we understand intelligence to a fair degree. Would you be in favor of eugenics then?

This is why mid-high IQs shouldn't be deciding the course of humanity but schizos

Pets and plants are bred and raised to meet a specific human demand. Nothing is better or worse but fits different purposes. You need a subtext to define good and bad, superior or inferior.

If you exercise eugenics, you're enslaving humanity to a purpose that's defined by man and not our god-given nature. Nature already gives us an eugenics program called I-can't-eat-and-breed and different forms of competition.

When we say we want to exercise eugenics on humans, what we really mean to say is that we want to breed people to meet a specific purpose, and this is where the problem lies. There's no person, group, country, ideology or anything of the sort that has or should have the potential to decide what the purpose of life and what's best for man or humanity is. Not because I'm an all-loving hippie, but for the opposite reason, because you're all retards swayed by fashions and self-interest who shouldn't be playing God.

>>17980636
You're against medicine then or prescription glasses. We tamper with "nature" all the time because nature sucks. This is such a retarded ass argument.

>>17980649
Yes I am

>>17980636
>You need a subtext to define good and bad, superior or inferior.
Fair enough. Always judge a tree by it's fruits.
Done. Problem solved. Next.

If the presence of these people improve the live of everyone around them, they are good and desirable, if they decrease the quality of life around them, they are bad and undesirable.
Done. Problem solved. Next.

>>17980655
Then you're just retarded.

>>17980655
This is why I don't believe in democracy anymore. Too many morons who would self destruct if they could do what they wanted.

>>17980661
I don't think the blind and sick should get to live.

>>17980665
You're assuming I need these things.

>>17980668
Others need it and if you want prevent the suppression of suffering, then you are a nuisance to society.

>>17980684
I don't understand. It's suddenly okay to be dysgenic if there's enough of you?

>>17980692
We can make the next generation suffer less, therefore, we have the duty to do so.
Is it hard to understand?

You are going to make insulin illegal. Can you spot a difference?

>>17973312
Both false. Stop reading tabloids. Iceland has a high % of fetuses with DS aborted because they offer widespread screening to pregnant women. A majority of those who test positive opt to terminate IIRC, but it's not enough to eliminate the disorder. Sweden's age of eugenics peaked in the 1940s and largely petered out in the 1970s.

>>17973483
That would also create a genetic bottleneck and demographic crisis.

>>17975124
Good luck producing that. Someone with an IQ that high is in the top 0.5% or something

>>17980668
Blind and ill people can live functional lives

>>17973198 (OP)
saying eugenics "works" is a value loaded statement, there is nothing more to consider to conclude whether it is "working" outside of your ideological, political, moral principles. it's the same for animals and plants.

>>17980747
And degenerates can function in a capitalist economy, so why do you want an eugenics program? GDP is more important than your feelings.

>>17980655
Based and khmer rougepilled